Hacker News Reader

Comment by megaduck | Hacker News Reader

I've never had much interest in chemistry, but after reading this article, I found myself digging through the archives. And then I found myself thinking, "Chlorine Trifluoride is scary stuff! He says that's because it's a damned impressive oxidizing agent. What exactly does it mean to be an 'oxidizing agent' anyways? Hmm..." I'm now sorely tempted to spend the remainder of my day sifting through chemistry stuff online.

This is exactly the kind of writing that the scientific community needs. This is outreach and recruitment at its finest, and we could use a lot more of it. People ask, "How do we get kids interested in science?" Prof. Lowe's blog isn't the entire answer, but it's a hell of a good start.

Correction: As noted below, Dr. Lowe is not a professor. My error, but everything else still stands.

View on HN

How do you get kids interested in science? With chemistry, it's always been to "blow shit up!" Fond memories of my HS chem teacher because of his penchant to do just that. I had way more fun with computers, but chemistry was an option (until organic chemistry in college...shudder).

For me, the pain of ochem really depended on the instructor. Where I went to college, it really felt like 90% of the ochem instructors were either bad teachers or liked to watch students struggle. It was otherwise pretty easy material--if you had a good teacher.

From the shear number of horror stories about ochem and my own experience, I'd say most ochem professors are just bad teachers and don't care about their students.

Mmmm, he's a corporate pharmaceutical researcher with a PhD and not an academic, so while you can call him "Dr." he's not a "Prof."

Speaking of things the scientific community needs: less academic snobbery.

That's not snobbery, it's simple (but understandable) inaccuracy. Most people don't know that "Prof" is a job title, "Dr" is a qualification (specifically a degree). You can be either without the other - I know a Prof without a doctorate.

It's akin to confusing a linguist with a polyglot, a top-level accountant with a research mathematician, or someone who writes HTML with someone who programs in Python. They are simply different. Not getting it right is either a mistake, or a demonstration of lack of knowledge of the difference.

EDIT: Added the first parenthetical clause.

For the record, it was a simple mistake. I read the article, glanced at his bio on the left, saw that he led with his academic credentials, and incorrectly inferred a teaching position.

I'd like to say 'Thank You' to the HN community for brutally enforcing both clarity and accuracy. You guys are the best proofreaders ever.

I hope you don't feel too bruised, and my apologies if I contributed to it. I tried to make it clear that it is, as I said, a common and understandable mistake.

Not at all, the thanks are sincere. There's enough sloppy thinking out there, I'd rather not add to it.

no. The analogy would be someone that codes python for his job and someone who teachs python at the u.

And people that teachs despises people that "work" and vice versa.

Most of my friends despises people that teachs ("they suck on research funding for useless purposes") while most of my wife's friends despise people that sell they work on the corporate space ("they do not create any new knowledge").

I personaly think that both are right as they understand the political game at hand and play it.

It's actually surprisingly decent for the most part, one of the main positive changes scientific academic culture's made from traditional academic culture. If you look at 19th-century journals, you can always tell who has a Ph.D. or often even who's won various awards or been granted various honors, because they put all their titles and postnomials wherever they can. Some areas of the humanities still put authors' credentials in the author line and on their badges at conferences, but in most scientific journals you have no idea just by reading the paper which of the names are grad students vs. professors vs. research scientists.

(One exception is the IEEE, which puts author bios with their academic pedigree and current position at the end of every paper, and attaches "IEEE Fellow" in the author list to those authors who are IEEE Fellows.)

In my admittedly limited experience as an interested layman, it seems to have swung to an opposing extreme, if anything. I've come to associate plastering degrees and qualifications all over with someone being a borderline crackpot, while things written by the truly impressive people tend to do little more than give their name and where they work.

I mean, seriously. When was the last time you saw something say "Dr. Knuth"?

When was the last time you saw something say "Dr. Knuth"?

You won't see that very often -- Knuth is particular about including first names (or rather, their initials). He got quite upset with me when I wanted to be "Colin Percival" rather than "Colin A. Percival"...

That said, you will see "Dr. D.E.Knuth" in any sort of formal situation (e.g., a visiting lecture); even if "Knuth" by itself is enough, it's simple politeness to provide a full title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com