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.
I think you may have a point here - most humanities studies don't require expensive, specialist equipment in quite the way the hard sciences do (hard to have one's own, say, nuclear reactor :P) Still, the article does make a point that some technology (telescopes, high-end cameras) are more available than they ever have been, making the field of amateurs in those disciplines better equipped.
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.
An excellent point, but with all of the emphasis on specialization these days, I have to wonder if you don't need a few "generalists" in every field, someone capable of seeing how different sciences interrelate and getting those people all in the same room, as it were. An amateur might fill this niche nicely :)
Re: GO HOBBYISTS!!!!!!!
Date: 2004-12-02 01:50 pm (UTC)I think you may have a point here - most humanities studies don't require expensive, specialist equipment in quite the way the hard sciences do (hard to have one's own, say, nuclear reactor :P) Still, the article does make a point that some technology (telescopes, high-end cameras) are more available than they ever have been, making the field of amateurs in those disciplines better equipped.
An excellent point, but with all of the emphasis on specialization these days, I have to wonder if you don't need a few "generalists" in every field, someone capable of seeing how different sciences interrelate and getting those people all in the same room, as it were. An amateur might fill this niche nicely :)