> Most of the useful discoveries and inventions in human history > have been the work of so-called amateurs and hobbyists, > not "professionals."
I think that most fields of study tend to have a transition point, beyond which it becomes very difficult for an amateur to make leading-edge discoveries, unless they're amazingly talented and/or well-funded.
The development of radio is very much like that. Up to a point it was hobbyists who made the important discoveries, but as the state of the art in the field improved (especially after WWII), it became much harder for amateurs to do much of anything on the cutting edge, simply because the pros had already beat them to it.
I think a lot of other fields follow this pattern, if not always for the same reasons. A lot of times fields advance to the point that one needs a well equipped ($$$) lab just to replicate undergraduate level experiments, let alone push the curve. In other cases it may not be too hard to do new work, as long as you're working in areas widely considered pointless, which may or may not bother you.
One common factor, at least in high tech fields, is how many different disciplines need to be involved to make a breakthrough. If just one or 2, an amateur has more of a chance. On the other hand something that took 20 Ph.Ds, from different fields, 3 years and $15mil to develop will probably not be replicated by Joe in his garage.
I think this is part of the allure of things like cold fusion: the idea that some of the toughest problems of the day can be resolved in very simple ways, if only you can find them.
The arts (and perhaps the humanities to a lesser extent) seem more persistently egaltarian in that way. Great artworks and books, even today, are still mostly created by individuals or small groups, not large and well-funded research teams. (Hollywood-size movies are an interesting exception, but even so you'll still have low budget films like Clerks, She's Gotta Have It, El Mariachi, Reservoir Dogs, etc that are considered great.) Some of these individual authors are pros, but many are not, at least not before their first big success. So in that sense I think the arts may be more inspiring, because the potential is still there. On the other hand I have a bunch of experiments I'd like to run, in various technical fields, and I can be pretty sure that I will never get to run any of them.
The democratizing effect of technology has been widely cited too. Punk and rap had at least one thing in common; a strong DIY ethic, and in the case of rap, technology had by then progressed to the point that kids could afford to put together usable recording studios in their bedrooms. In the late 80s and early 90s I worked for a company that did "desktop video". We were only maybe 10 years too early, since now anyone fairly interested can get a digital camcorder and prodoce video on their PC. Sadly this effect has not worked, to that extent, in the hard scientific fields. As much as I'd like to have one, a peptide chain synthesizer is still far more expensive than I could justify paying. Though maybe I could make an Amazon wish-list...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: GO HOBBYISTS!!!!!!!
Date: 2004-12-02 09:43 am (UTC)> have been the work of so-called amateurs and hobbyists,
> not "professionals."
I think that most fields of study tend to have a transition point, beyond which it becomes very difficult for an amateur to make leading-edge discoveries, unless they're amazingly talented and/or well-funded.
The development of radio is very much like that. Up to a point it was hobbyists who made the important discoveries, but as the state of the art in the field improved (especially after WWII), it became much harder for amateurs to do much of anything on the cutting edge, simply because the pros had already beat them to it.
I think a lot of other fields follow this pattern, if not always for the same reasons. A lot of times fields advance to the point that one needs a well equipped ($$$) lab just to replicate undergraduate level experiments, let alone push the curve. In other cases it may not be too hard to do new work, as long as you're working in areas widely considered pointless, which may or may not bother you.
One common factor, at least in high tech fields, is how many different disciplines need to be involved to make a breakthrough. If just one or 2, an amateur has more of a chance. On the other hand something that took 20 Ph.Ds, from different fields, 3 years and $15mil to develop will probably not be replicated by Joe in his garage.
I think this is part of the allure of things like cold fusion: the idea that some of the toughest problems of the day can be resolved in very simple ways, if only you can find them.
The arts (and perhaps the humanities to a lesser extent) seem more persistently egaltarian in that way. Great artworks and books, even today, are still mostly created by individuals or small groups, not large and well-funded research teams. (Hollywood-size movies are an interesting exception, but even so you'll still have low budget films like Clerks, She's Gotta Have It, El Mariachi, Reservoir Dogs, etc that are considered great.) Some of these individual authors are pros, but many are not, at least not before their first big success. So in that sense I think the arts may be more inspiring, because the potential is still there. On the other hand I have a bunch of experiments I'd like to run, in various technical fields, and I can be pretty sure that I will never get to run any of them.
The democratizing effect of technology has been widely cited too. Punk and rap had at least one thing in common; a strong DIY ethic, and in the case of rap, technology had by then progressed to the point that kids could afford to put together usable recording studios in their bedrooms. In the late 80s and early 90s I worked for a company that did "desktop video". We were only maybe 10 years too early, since now anyone fairly interested can get a digital camcorder and prodoce video on their PC. Sadly this effect has not worked, to that extent, in the hard scientific fields. As much as I'd like to have one, a peptide chain synthesizer is still far more expensive than I could justify paying. Though maybe I could make an Amazon wish-list...