Re: let's outgrow puzzles

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 11:59 AM 10/5/99 -0400, Hugh Haskell wrote:
> > People should value a scientific result (or any other result) according to
> > the result, not according to the process that produced it.  As the saying
> > goes: people dive for pearls because they are valuable, not vice versa.
>
> Are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Of course not.  That phrase is usually used to express the idea that some
selfish result justifies arbitrarily costly means.  I didn't say anything
remotely like that.

The actual calculation of the net-present-value goes something like this:

   NPV = Sum(over t) [ value_of_results(at t)
                     - cost_of_means(at t) ] * weighting_factor(t)

which carefully weighs the value of what comes out after SUBTRACTING the
cost of what went in.

> And you don't think that there are
> people who dive for pearls because of their beauty irrespective of
> their value,

Huh?  Their value is their beauty -- or do you know a use for pearls that I
don't know of?

> or just because they are hard to get to?

Diving for garbage, just because it is hard to get to, doesn't make it more
valuable.

> If that was
> true there would never have been anyone climbing high mountains, or
> trying to go up the hard way.

That notion -- climbing the mountain the hard way --- is quite common.  I
don't mean to say it's not common, merely to argue that it is not a wise
way to motivate or plan a scientific career;  see below.

> If I were in charge of hiring scientists for any project,

It is in fact my job to hire scientists.

> one of the
> characteristics that would be high on my list of things to look for
> in the applicants would be a sense of the mystery of the universe and
> an overpowering desire to solve those mysteries.

Fine, we agree.

> I want the
> "puzzle-solvers"--they are the ones most likely to get the job done.

Agreed.

> Of course, I'm not interested in the ones who only do cross-words or
> jug-saws or whatever.

Exactly my point.  Given two experiments that will shed equal amounts of
light on the mystery of the universe, why would anybody choose the harder
experiment, just because it is harder?

My point is that there are all too many people out there who have been
trained to respect an experiment for how difficult it is.  Humbug!  We
should most respect an experiment that gets the beautiful and/or useful
result *without* unnecessary fuss and bother.

If you want to go climb a mountain the hard way, go ahead -- but don't
expect me to pay for it.

______________________________________________________________
copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker             jsd@monmouth.com