Comments on: Insomnia, Slightly Beer-Induced

By: yami

yami — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 04:11:00 +0000

A whole week of geochemistry? *shudders* - there have got to be nicer junkets than that.
One of these days I’ll get truly crafty and find an excuse to make it down there - perhaps to present my ongoing work on the fracture mechanics of alcohol-lubricated fault zones and the seismic hazard implications of drinkin’ too many fruity girl drinks. Or maybe I’ll just flunk out of grad school and get a nice mining job…

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 00:57:00 +0000

I’m a technician. Scientists go to AGU. We just pull the strings that move their jaws… and wave their arms.
I might sneak off to Goldschmidt in August, though. Coming down?

By: yami

yami — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:21:00 +0000

I haven’t yet met either of the people you mentioned (I switched their names to initials for the benefit of Google) so, no comment. We could throw names, and projects, around all day, but that’s the sort of thing that’s best done over a few beers - do you ever make it up to fall AGU?

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:21:00 +0000

KL is both less arrogant, and more valuable to science, than WM.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:20:00 +0000

Any further argument on this topic would require a definition of what a successful scientist is. As far as I know, that hasn’t been figured out by anyone yet.
As for funding, I would suggest that there is a moderate anti-correlation between the amount of funding and the quality of the research, for precisely the reasons that you have given: It is easier to attract funding for gaudy, press-release, highly interpretative “science” than it is for the nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts, fundamental stuff that most of us simply aren’t smart enough to understand, much less evaluate.
I’ll name Bay-area names in a separate reply, so that you can delete it if an advisor is mentioned.

By: yami

yami — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:37:00 +0000

Well, I’m comparing them to physicists and astronomers and biologists. The earth scientists I know aren’t any humbler than other scientists - though as with all science, that ego gets expressed in some weird ways, for sure.
I suspect that if ego comes into it at all, there’s a weak anti-correlation between humility and career success, at least in modern funding structures where you can only do research at all if you can convince your peers to give you money. When done with a bit of panache, egotistical self-aggrandizement is better known as “marketing”. But actually arguing the point would require some overly candid assessments of my colleagues, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree
Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover were both geologists.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 08:02:00 +0000

To whom are you comparing them? The deferential venture capitalists of Silicon Valley? The meek ambulance chasers of the New Jersey Bar? The unassuming political strongmen of Washington’s halls of power? I mean really, how many geologists have tried to take over the world?
OK, Colin Powell was a geologist. But he didn’t take over the world; heck, he retired after trying. And aside from him?
I will admit that some geologists are arrogant. But it is my hypothesis that their arrogance will have a negative impact on their research, which should become apparent within a few decades of their demise. Sure, Lord Kelvin died thinking that he was the bee’s knees. But what is he now? The namesake for a brand of refrigerators.
-The Lemmingator

By: yami

yami — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:45:00 +0000

All of the above, I think. But it’s the idea that earth scientists are humble that really made me snerk into my soda.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:15:00 +0000

Which is untrue?
That egotism is detrimental to the practice of geology?
That this detrimental effect impacts on researcher’s careers?
Or that everybody knows this?