Is being an amateur science a freelance/home career?

[watersmith]

I want to know can an amateur scientist have a home business or being self-employed. Do you know of successful scientists that are amateurs in this world, today?

[swansont]

If you mean self-employed as a scientist, I'd guess that's tough. You have to find a niche to exploit, and need to have acquired the skill set somewhere. I know of a few of operations which seem to be set up in somebody's garage, such as a company which sells chemical vapor cells and seems to be comprised of a married couple. But they didn't start out doing that, it's a business they started after several years of working as chemists. I know of another who sells a certain bit of analysis software, but that started only a few years before retirement.

 

I'd guess that the most likely path would be a self-employed consultant of some sort.

[ajb]

If you mean as an independent researcher then it is very difficult. You would either have to attract some funding, say from some chartable institution (e.g. FQXi), a private individual, be of some means yourself or make money by some other means, for example a freelance science journalist or private tutoring. (I myself am struggling to find a position, I can work from home but money is the real problem.)

 

As swansont has said, there may be scope for consultancy work. That would depend on your speciality and if it is applicable to problems industry, government or whoever want answered. A friend of mine worked for a small company, just him and the founder working on computer applications in medicine. I forget exactly what they were developing and selling.

[lemur]

Interestingly and maybe somewhat ironically, reflecting on the problems of economic and other social interests in academic science led me to the conclusion that the most value-free possibility for science involves doing something unrelated to your science for money. If you are getting paid in any way for your science, you are in the position of being threatened with loss-of-funding when you fail to perform according to preferences of the funding-source. In other words, if you as principle-researcher develop ideas and directions for your research that conflict with whoever is funding you, is there a point where your funding will be retracted because you insist that your research is taking you in a direction that your funders don't view as valuable to them?

 

On the other hand, if your source of funding is completely independent of your science, you may be manipulated on the basis of that work but your science will not be targeted for control. For example, if you install windows, your client could ask you to install a less efficient window for aesthetic reasons, but they could not ask you to shift your research from energy-efficient in window-design to pragmatic trade-offs between efficiency and aesthetic appeal. Still, you can then ask yourself if funding can steer the application of the windows in the direction of lower energy-efficiency, what hope is there for your independent research to make a difference? The political-economy of science and technology can be quite interesting, imo.

Edited November 26, 2010 by lemur

[imatfaal]

Lemur, I know of an actual case where someone's amateur (but very impressive) work lead to him receiving fewer consultancy contracts in an area that would seem totally unrelated. Big corporations can be incredibly controlling - and in decisions like this it is very hard to bring them to account. I think you are almost safer when there is a direct connexion, then you can show a causal link between discrimination and research topic and 'shame' the funder into fulfilling their past commitments.

[John Cuthber]

Isn't a career as an amateur anything a contradiction in terms?

[pioneer]

The amateur does something because they enjoy it. The professional does not enjoy it enough to do it for free. An analogy could be between the patriot and the mercenary. The mercenary might be the better soldier since that is his occupation and can do it everyday and earn a living. But since he does it for money, his loyalty is for sale. The patriot may be less skilled, since he has to devote time to earn a living doing something else, and there are only so many hours per day to practice. But he does it for the cause and is less influenced when money change sides.

 

For example, say the government decided to be rational and split the global warming/climate change budget down the middle, half to for and half to against. The idea is to give both sides equal, so we can come to the truth. Next, we have a lottery for the funding, where the pro's on either side may get funding, but may have to do the opposite of where they now stand. The mercenary would not care as long as the funding is there since he is a professional.. Some of those who get the wrong draw and who stick by their beliefs, might have to become amateurs, to be able to maintain their belief with a clean conscience.

 

From the POV of prestige, the mercenary pro would still have more clout than the new patriot amateurs, simply because they have more access and resources. They may even have the backdoor to publications. The new amateurs may have to get other jobs to support themselves and families. After putting in their shift, they can do their science. They may also seek private funding. If that does not pan out, there will be family pressure for less time for science. Unlike the pro who can go home and play with the kids or have a social life the new amateur may need this time for science.

 

Because of the constraints on energy and time, and the lack of access to basics like a well equipped lab or supercomputer power, they may need to modify their approach to their science to compensate for their playing field. But this may not be kosher to those who have the resources, who will call it amateur science at best. What use is a rag tag army when we have uniformed troops with the latest supplies.

Edited December 1, 2010 by pioneer

[D H]

The answer is no, almost certainly no, but not quite 100% no.

 

Too all you "free-thinkers":

• dOes yUor rItiNg lOOk like thiS?>??
  
• Does your world-shattering idea need just a bit of help from someone who can add?
  
• Do you have any training in the field you are about to shatter whatsoever?

 

I can think of two physicists (Einstein and more recently Lisi) in the last 100+ years who at one point in their careers qualified as amateur scientists. However, both could wrote in complete sentences, both could do the math, and both had a PhD in physics. The days when a lawyer (Fermat) could, in his spare time, come up with some new mathematics or physics are gone, long gone.

 

 

[ajb]

The amateur does something because they enjoy it. The professional does not enjoy it enough to do it for free.

 

Not that simple, we all need to make money to survive.

 

I can think of two physicists (Einstein and more recently Lisi) in the last 100+ years who at one point in their careers qualified as amateur scientists.

 

Yes and no. Both got degrees in physics, (Lisi also mathematics). Lisi got his PhD in 1999 and Einstein 1905. For Einstein that was his "great year". It was 2007 when Lisi made his statements about E8 theory.

 

 

So, although it maybe true that a different stages they did not get paid for their work in physics, it is not true that they were true amateurs. They were exposed to academia and thus know (knew) what was required as well as being well informed about established contemporary thinking.

 

Right now I would qualify as an amateur (not wishing to compare myself with Einstein).

[D H]

I can think of two physicists (Einstein and more recently Lisi) in the last 100+ years who at one point in their careers qualified as amateur scientists.

Yes and no. Both got degrees in physics, (Lisi also mathematics). Lisi got his PhD in 1999 and Einstein 1905. For Einstein that was his "great year". It was 2007 when Lisi made his statements about E8 theory.

 

So, although it maybe true that a different stages they did not get paid for their work in physics, it is not true that they were true amateurs. They were exposed to academia and thus know (knew) what was required as well as being well informed about established contemporary thinking.

You missed my very next sentence, ajb: "However, both could wrote in complete sentences, both could do the math, and both had a PhD in physics." (I probably should have put that in bold the first time around.)

 

 

If by amateur one means not just someone who is not working in some field but also someone who is self-educated in that field, then neither Einstein nor Lisi qualifies as an amateur. Contributions from amateurs to the field of physics in the last 100-plus years has been pretty much nada. One has to go back to Michael Faraday (early 1800s) to find someone who made significant contributions to physics and yet lacked a formal education in the field. Even then, Faraday can hardly be considered an amateur. He worked and taught in the field.

 

As an amateur scientist or engineer, you might

• Find a new comet, find a new species, launch a tiny rocket into near-space. You most likely will not, however, be able to add anything meaningful to the theory of planet formation, the theory of evolution, or aerospace engineering.
  
• Put professional scientists and engineers in their place. We do do reckless things sometimes, and some knowledge is not worth learning. Some outside bit of sanity could have stopped the Tuskegee experiments in their tracks if those experiments were known to the outside world.
  
• Keep your mind fresh. For example, I have dabbled as an amateur with the P=NP problem. My goal was not so much to win one million dollars as it was to learn something new. The former is a Mitty-esque pipe dream, and it ain't gonna happen. The latter can, and did, happen.

[ajb]

You missed my very next sentence, ajb: "However, both could wrote in complete sentences, both could do the math, and both had a PhD in physics." (I probably should have put that in bold the first time around.)

 

Yes, you do state that, sorry I missed it.

 

 

If by amateur one means not just someone who is not working in some field but also someone who is self-educated in that field, then neither Einstein nor Lisi qualifies as an amateur.

 

To my mind an amateur would be someone without a PhD (or not in the process of getting one). Sometimes undergraduate or masters students can produce worthwhile work, but note it is with collaboration with and under close supervision of an experienced researcher.

 

Generally without a PhD one will not know how to do research nor what is generally required. We see it all the time here with the "anti-relativists" or "quantum deniers".

 

Contributions from amateurs to the field of physics in the last 100-plus years has been pretty much nada.

 

Not to be confused with "independent researchers" who do hold a PhD. Examples of these, at one time or another are Einstein and Lisi.

 

A friend of mine and I were talking about this a while back. We could not find any recent examples of an amateur (in our sense of not having a PhD or about to get one) making any noteworthy contribution. Lisi came up in the conversation, he maybe mistaken with his E8 ideas (on some technical grounds) but he is not a "quack" or "amateur".

 

If anyone knows of a recent example of an amateur making a contribution to mathematics or physics let us know.

Edited December 1, 2010 by ajb

[D H]

A friend of mine and I were talking about this a while back. We could not find any recent examples of an amateur (in our sense of not having a PhD or about to get one) making any noteworthy contribution. Lisi came up in the conversation, he maybe mistaken with his E8 ideas (on some technical grounds) but he is not a "quack" or "amateur".

 

If anyone knows of a recent example of an amateur making a contribution to mathematics or physics let us know.

I did mention one, Michael Faraday. Then again, that was almost 200 years. I suppose a modern-day Faraday, someone without the PhD but who is working in the field, could make a useful contribution to the field. Particularly if that someone has an ABD in physics.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Amateur astronomers sometimes make important discoveries, simply because the sky is so big that the professionals can't look at all of it.

[D H]

Yes, they do. Thousands of amateur eyes can and do make meaningful contributions to observational astronomy. I suspect the same goes for other fields where the cost of admission is on a par with purchasing a quality amateur telescope. Amateurs can and still do make contributions to observational biology, archaeology, etc.

[ajb]

Amateur astronomers sometimes make important discoveries, simply because the sky is so big that the professionals can't look at all of it.

 

Indeed, an acquaintance of mine Mike Oats once held the record for the number of comets discovered.

[lemur]

You missed my very next sentence, ajb: "However, both could wrote in complete sentences, both could do the math, and both had a PhD in physics." (I probably should have put that in bold the first time around.)

 

I think you underestimate the ability of academic structuring to stifle innovation. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but many people go into academia thinking it will help them pursue their dreams and end up getting talked into playing the academic hoop-jumping games and eventually narrowing themselves to some sub-specialty of a specialty, which convinces them that they are only qualified to be an expert in that one sub-area and to basically give up free-thinking on topics they have come to view as others' territory. Basically, academic structuring protects people with high institutional credentials from having to compete or share the spotlight. If people start to pay attention to your ideas, all someone has to do is point out your lack of credentials and call you a crackpot. They can say, "well if this person's science is so good, why don't they have a PhD or peer-recognition in their field?" That's a social reason, not one based on content, but since few people critically understand content, they take the word of experts. Then, if the experts have learned to filter ideas through aesthetic standards of style, method, etc. they will have basically unlearned the capacity to critically examine radically different approaches to their subject area. They see unorthodoxy simply as evidence of crackpottery without even knowing where to begin to critically evaluate them for legitimacy except by beginning with established canons they learned in their academic training. There are very few totally open critical empiricists anymore that are capable of evaluating knowledge-claims in a totally neutral way, free of bias due to established discourse, imo.

Edited December 1, 2010 by lemur

[ajb]

lemur: This spoken out of experience?

[D H]

I think you underestimate the ability of academic structuring to stifle innovation.

Nope. I think the only underestimation going on here is yours.

 

Just one example: What did you use to type your post? The machine you just used didn't even exist in science fiction 50 years ago. Fast electronic communications meant teletype speed: 110 characters per second. Many of the innovations that led to modern computing and the modern internet came largely from academia. Those innovations that didn't come from academa came from people trained in academia. Contributions from amateurs: Zero.

 

[lemur]

lemur: This spoken out of experience?

Get a highly reputable physicist or other scientist, like Hawking for example, to take one of their newest and most novel ideas and keep it a secret from everyone except some amateur that they teach it to. Once the expert is satisfied with the amateur's understanding, let the amateur post it in their own words on a web forum such as this one and see what kind of responses they get. See how many people are actually constructive enough to arrive at the full significance of the new idea and how many would actually propose giving this person full credit for their brilliance despite their lack of formal training. Most likely the best they could get would be, "your ideas have potential but without formal training in your field, you will never get anywhere with them." That may be true but it is amazing that science lacks the capacity to see beyond its own institutional nose.

[ajb]

lemur: It sounds like you are very bitter about something.

 

Your idea is an interesting one. While it is true that a very prominent scientist like Hawking, Witten, Konsevitch, Atiyah, Vafa etc will be given more leeway when it comes to "wild ideas" say at seminars or similar, it is not true that such ideas get published or taken up by the community without the standard scrutiny.

[timo]

I tend to agree with D_H on all points expect for Garret Lisi.

1) You (D_H) presumably refer to his Internet-shaking "exceptionally simple theory". It's certainly been well known for its interesting title. I'm not too convinced about its actual impact, though.

2) According to Wikipedia, he was on a 77k$ research grant while writing this paper (which 2 years later was extended by another 77k$), and teaching physics at a university before that. I don't think I'd technically count him as an amateur.

[ajb]

1) You (D_H) presumably refer to his Internet-shaking "exceptionally simple theory". It's certainly been well known for its interesting title. I'm not too convinced about its actual impact, though.

 

There was a bit of a "buzz" via blogs, but I think it was quickly realised not to work. If I recall there is a question about the representation of E8 and the "superconnections" he employed. I have not heard much since.

[D H]

I tend to agree with D_H on all points expect for Garret Lisi.

1) You (D_H) presumably refer to his Internet-shaking "exceptionally simple theory". It's certainly been well known for its interesting title. I'm not too convinced about its actual impact, though.

 

You must admit that Lisi's "exceptionally simple theory" has garnered a lot of interest. Whether that idea has any legs: It's too early to tell. Whether he was an amateur: That's fuzzy. He definitely had the education. However, teaching at a junior college whose physics curriculum is limited to freshman physics is, in my opinion, further removed from being a working physicist than was Einstein's stint as a patent clerk.

Edited December 1, 2010 by D H

[ajb]

You must admit that Lisi's "exceptionally simple theory" has garnered a lot of interest. Whether that idea has any legs: It's too early to tell.

 

More so from the media rather than the theoretical or mathematical physics community.

[lemur]

lemur: It sounds like you are very bitter about something.

 

Your idea is an interesting one. While it is true that a very prominent scientist like Hawking, Witten, Konsevitch, Atiyah, Vafa etc will be given more leeway when it comes to "wild ideas" say at seminars or similar, it is not true that such ideas get published or taken up by the community without the standard scrutiny.

 

I agree that this is something that could make you bitter if you derived a lot of security from the idea that scientists are generally good and pure. But why should you have to assume that scientists are either generally biased or unbiased to critically work with scientific knowledge and data? My questioning of scientists' discursive neutrality comes from a general regard for discourse after having studied the politics of representations and language. Scientific language/discourse and representations, while geared toward objective knowledge are still created and communicated by humans with subconscious cognitive biases that cause them to desire to manage their social position in the interest of not losing it. Strongly criticizing well-renouned researchers in your field puts you in the position of greater scrutiny for your own work, so people tend to basically nod and bow to the big names and stick with critical debates with people at a level they can afford to lose at. Who wants to go head to head with Einstein's ghost and end up squared off with Hawking in the public discourse to establish "who's top dog" between the two? Thus, scientists tend to socially discipline each other and amateurs to basically respect hierarchies of authoritarian position, imo. Call it cynical if you like, but to transcend this would allow for enormous social-professional mobility as junior researchers in low-ranked institutions would suddenly rise to the status of canonical names. This would upset so many people that there is resistance to even imagining it is possible.

 

But, yes, it would be interesting to see if institutional academics who are active in online forums would shut down ideas created by a top-dog in their field just because they were posted online in unorthodox language. It would at least prove my hypothesis that discursive cues and posturing affect even the most neutral/objective scientists' critical gaze.