Here's what a real engineer would do. Build a replica, take measurements, construct a SPICE model, analyze its behavior.
This, exactly! 🤗 🤝
It is also exactly what any scientists would do, being a perfect example of applying the
scientific method.
It is also exactly what a software developer would do, when encountering any unexpected effects or problems: determine the exact situation (inputs, state, outputs) where it happens, and optimally simplify it to a minimal reproducible example, then dissect it to understand how.
Laypeople sometimes think that the problem in science and academia is a big conspiracy, rejecting ideas they don't like, like say Nikola Tesla's research. It is not that at all! (With our current understanding we can replicate Tesla's experiments, and analyse them, and show what and how is happening; problem is, it is not always what Nikola Tesla claimed, especially when it involves transfer or transformation of energy in various electromagnetic forms –– exactly those claims those looking for free energy and such are hoping would be true.)
When we talk about failures and problems in science and academia, it really is that the simple steps IanB described is just
not done often enough, nor rigorously enough. On one hand, it is the
replication crisis: when others replicate the research, they get different results. It means the actual phenomena was not completely and/or correcly described. Like showing a wheel perpetually turning, but neglecting to mention the motor inside the hub connected to a battery. On the other hand, it is the social and human aspects of current scientific discourse: in the past, top scientists have often had not too good social skills and weren't very good at marketing themselves, but today, such people have no room in academia. Furthermore, it is very difficult to get funding for something others are not researching yet, so most contend themselves to researching the same things everyone else is researching already, wasting resources, and turning away from the scientific method, into an exercise in rapid publishing and creative writing. Really. The rise of authoritarian thinking –– considering
who is saying more than
what is being said –– means tenured leaders easily unwittingly create a social atmosphere where disagreement is cause for dismissal, as critical discussion of ideas one might not actually espouse is gauche/unacceptable/evil. Basically, we've dropped the ball on the steps IanB listed.
And yet, doing science/engineering exactly like this is possible for absolutely everyone, and it is rewarding in of itself: understanding things, and helping others undestand things, gives most humans a huge dopamine boost. All it takes is a bit of self-control, and a lot of effort, but most find it fun, too.
Apologies for the wall-of-text post, but this and the related topics in recent times has weighed heavily on my soul. I
love oddball experiments and research (like putting grapes in a microwave), and talking about them in scientific and engineering circles, but somehow when I try, they tend to devolve into unscientific social games and point-scoring (which drives me away instantly).
Finding IanB putting the entire thing in a single sentence, accompanied with a really good example video (made by
Fred B's Tech Channel on Youtube), just made my day. No, week. No, MONTH.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
