Post: #1

Since we're all about self-improvement and learning here and because science is important for knowledge of the world something I've always wanted to do is become more educated in it. I have a great distaste for the "I Fucking Love Science" types and people whose science education consists of retweeting Neil Tyson Degrasse quotes and of posting articles about how some scientist somewhere has discovered a way to detect cancer with his scrotum sweat or something so I want to do it the right way.

How far can you get from just studying on your own? Of course it would be great if I didn't have to worry about making a living and can drop everything I'm doing do get a PhD but obviously that's not feasible for a lot of people. There was a period of time in the 17th the 18th century where science could be done by a lone tinkerer working in his home but that seems to have past. How much can you really learn these days without having access to a fancy lab?

Post: #2

Do you mean learning or do you mean "discovering new shit"?

The former has never been as easy, the latter never been as hard.

Post: #3

How much time and effort do you want to invest?
Before you can really understand fancy applications, or even basic phenomena, you will have to build a big and boring but necessary foundation.

If you are interested in physics, electromagnetics, electricity, mechanics,… you need a strong background in calculus and algebra.

If you are interested in biochemistry or medicine, you need a strong background in basic chemistry and biology.

Are you motivated enough to study these subjects on your own? Because, depending on your background and your available time, it will take weeks, months or years before you have built the necessary foundation.
I hold a bachelor and master degree in electrical engineering. The first two years of my studies were very heavy in math. I know for sure that I would have abandoned the subject if it were not part of a formal education and the only thing I needed to be concerned with.

Also, I think that you can perfectly understand all subjects through self-study but if you want to become a practicing scientist you absolutely need lab experience. You only get to know the measurement equipment, the measurement techniques and the practical problems that arise in real life (theory always makes assumptions to simplify the physical reality) through hands-on experience.

Post: #4

If you need it for learning purposes, just go to a local college/university, see which books they are selling and buy them or buy older editions of them online.

If you want to become a researcher, you just need to start experimenting.

Post: #5

If you want to get an education and have time on your hands, but more importantly have the drive and conscientiousness to keep to a strict schedule, the resources are all out there.





The key is taking courses and taking the exams as quickly as possible so as to shorten the feedback loops between acquiring the knowledge and applying it. The quicker you see where you went wrong, the quicker you can adjust.

That is a legit advantage of online learning compared to traditional classroom learning. Makes homeschooling veeeery attractive.

As for actually doing science, most of the precocious prodigies you see having a lot of success early on had earlier direct lab experience, especially in the life sciences. Once you see how the science world works and learn new techniques you can accelerate improvement. You also have to rub elbows with other scientists to speak the language and be consistently exposed to it. Really, in life sciences, direct work is non-negotiably indispensable.

I don't know about physics and math though. I would assume that's the case. But to build the base? Yea, that should be easier.

Post: #6

If you go to around 4:17 of the youtube video from Kamikaze, the MIT syllabus contains a lot of bread and butter foundation courses for the engineering degree if you subtract out the comp sci heavy courses. Once you have the foundation, universities usually then stack major-appropriate courses on top... for example, mechanical engineering would be something like the foundation plus thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, machine design, hvac, more advanced physics and material science, etc. Chemistry would be organic chemistry, and a whole lot of lab stuff. You get the idea. This is a tried and true path for science and engineering.

During my undergrad, because of scheduling conflicts, I skipped some core freshman and sophomore year math classes and wound up taking them in the summer of junior year and during the senior year so when I ran into advanced engineering courses, I was lacking some math background. This wasn't a problem. I simply taught myself exactly the math that I needed to apply, and was able to pass the courses without a problem.

Taking Linear Algebra and Multivariate Calculus and Differential Equations for example... there are key concepts in both that are commonly used in the more advanced engineering classes... such as matrices, triple integrals, and ordinary/partial differential equations, respectively. If I had skipped all of these classes, it would not have been a problem to go backwards to teach it to myself, the way I did with differential equations.

When I actually got to differential equations, I was taught by the professor what I already taught myself, plus a whole lot of other math stuff that I never came close to using or could imagine using. To say that you NEED to take and understand all the math in the foundation courses in order to pass more advanced science courses, is completely untrue.

The above is my academic perspective on learning science through formal education.

Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

Post: #7

(09-30-2015 03:18 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  That is a legit advantage of online learning compared to traditional classroom learning. Makes homeschooling veeeery attractive.

It is coincidental you mention that. I remember watching a video titled "Are home-schooled children smarter?"

They made three sample groups, Government Schooling, Structured Schooling and Unstructured schooling. Government Schooling is schooling provided by the government. Structured Schooling is a form of home schooling with a curriculum. Unstructured Schooling is schooling led and guided by the student. The population sample is based on primary schooled children.

Here are the conclusions they found.

Government Schooled children performed on par with their grade level as expected. Structured Schooled outperformed Government Schooled significantly. Sometimes they performed as much as five grade levels above the Government Schooled children. Unstructured Schooling student performed below Government School Children.





Start from 13:49. Everything before hand is mostly babble talk from women.

Post: #8

(09-30-2015 05:32 PM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

For personal enrichment mostly. I don't really have any plans to make it into my way to earn my bread but I'm open to all possibilities.

I'm very much into philosophy which is something that I've studied a lot on my own and I thought that learning more about the natural sciences would complement that knowledge. I feel like a lot of the humanities you can get far from just reading on your own but I'm not so sure with the natural sciences so I wanted to hear other people's views.

Post: #9

(09-30-2015 09:45 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:32 PM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

For personal enrichment mostly. I don't really have any plans to make it into my way to earn my bread but I'm open to all possibilities.

I'm very much into philosophy which is something that I've studied a lot on my own and I thought that learning more about the natural sciences would complement that knowledge. I feel like a lot of the humanities you can get far from just reading on your own but I'm not so sure with the natural sciences so I wanted to hear other people's views.

Then I would still advise from my previous statement. You can always pick up older editions of text books. You'll find the majority of learning comes from a text book and not a professor. Professors come in two flavors, they tend to be either PhD students who teaching because they have to and aren't very useful. Or a researcher who is doing it because they have to and don't really care. That is at least regarding the early science classes.

Post: #10

(09-30-2015 11:20 PM)PolymathGuru Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:45 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:32 PM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

For personal enrichment mostly. I don't really have any plans to make it into my way to earn my bread but I'm open to all possibilities.

I'm very much into philosophy which is something that I've studied a lot on my own and I thought that learning more about the natural sciences would complement that knowledge. I feel like a lot of the humanities you can get far from just reading on your own but I'm not so sure with the natural sciences so I wanted to hear other people's views.

Then I would still advise from my previous statement. You can always pick up older editions of text books. You'll find the majority of learning comes from a text book and not a professor. Professors come in two flavors, they tend to be either PhD students who teaching because they have to and aren't very useful. Or a researcher who is doing it because they have to and don't really care. That is at least regarding the early science classes.

I agree with PolyMath completely above, which is another reason the online courses are so great. For the most part, the online courses are well-designed courses that have garnered rave reviews from students. By well-designed I mean that the materials go beyond a textbook. They give exercises and problem sets with clear instructions, and eventually solutions. They are so clearly taught that, even though they're a lot of work and you have to be very organized, a monkey can do them. And don't feel bad about taking a course online and feel like you're missing out. Certain introductory courses can be taught to hundreds of students at a time. The only type of personalized attention you'll be missing compared to those elite institutions is that they'll have teaching assistants holding the undergrad's hands all along the course, shortening those critical feedback loops I was talking about. Other than that, for big classes with 700+ students, there's really almost no difference to sitting there taking it versus watching the videos online.

It used to be that access to education was a big issue because you were completely limited to Mr. Johnson or Mrs. Smith, the teachers who stopped caring about teaching 20 years ago. And that was that. I remember I had a teacher in high school who taught calculus when I was a Junior. First day of class she says "You know when you take class in a university, you're responsible for the material and for doing homework. So, though you will have homework assignments, I will not be checking homework or correcting it. It is your responsibility to learn the material."

My reaction?







At the end of the year right as we were heading to the AP exam, the same teacher told me "Kamikaze, you're one of my only hopes to get a good score on this test." I almost laughed in her face and told her "You're in for a surprise." I ended up getting a 1 (out of 5). For the record, only one girl got a 2, everyone else got a 1 out of 20+ people. Also for the record, the next year I took Calculus BC online and got a 5. Bitch checked my homework 3000 miles away through the magic of scanning technology. Go figure.

That's the difference between access to good and bad teachers. Good teachers are on your shit, and provide good materials to practice and explain. But now we have access to the best educators, at 0.5x if you don't understand, or 1.5x-2x if it's an easy topic. As a side-note, playing videos at 1.5x is a godsend for ADD types like me, because it actually helps me focus immensely on the message. it keeps me engaged, and squeezes as much as possible into my short 30-45 minute attention span.

Textbooks generally are obfuscating and don't provide solutions to answers because they want to sell you the solutions manual at the same price as the book. Textbook writers don't always write for clarity, and even so, some topics are not easily explained with just words and pictures.

Online courses with good problem sets and exams with their corresponding solutions are the greatest hack in education in our lifetime. Compared to our parents, we had computers... compared to us, our kids will have access to the best teachers and materials out there, almost for free, period. I wonder how long this model will last, actually.

So yea, if you're just looking to learn about science for personal fulfillment, that should be easy. For some things even Khan Academy is alright, but I'm not a huge fan. Just find free courses, including MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. Say what you will about schools like that, but they often have the most brilliant scientists and educators in the world. Check out reviews and you can choose which classes will be worth it or not.

Post: #11

(09-30-2015 09:45 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:32 PM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

For personal enrichment mostly. I don't really have any plans to make it into my way to earn my bread but I'm open to all possibilities.

I'm very much into philosophy which is something that I've studied a lot on my own and I thought that learning more about the natural sciences would complement that knowledge. I feel like a lot of the humanities you can get far from just reading on your own but I'm not so sure with the natural sciences so I wanted to hear other people's views.

If I were you, I wouldn't start with textbooks or online classes at all. A lot of the stuff I learned from foundation math and science courses had no overlap with anything I learned later on. So even though I was able solve crazy math problems and understand diasteromers in chemistry... I couldn't make a mental bridge between that knowledge and how it is used or works in the real world. If I wanted to discover it, I would have to seek it out, and the connection is not always obvious. This is what I consider one drawback of the traditional education route. There is definitely a one big direct main link between basic math and science to the advanced sciences, or a few main links/branches but along each, there are little side branches of knowledge that lead to nowhere - discarded never to be used again even if you are a practicing engineer or scientist.

To become a more well rounded person with useful, applicable scientific knowledge, I would use the method that my kooky professor taught me - an emphasis onunderstanding SYSTEMS. This involves a top down approach to learning science and understanding stuff in general in any subject. It helps if it's a topic you're interested in, or can visualize or interact with. You start by asking questions until you are satisfied that you understand all you care to know. For example: you're cooking and want to boil an egg and want to understand how that works. Well there's a fire coming from the stove. What is fire? You look that up and eventually learn that it's combustion which combines something in the air with gas causing heat. Then you ask exactly what is gas, and what is in the air, and how they combine. This leads you to oxygen and nitrogen and hydrogen and methane. Keep digging and you inevitably find yourself at the level of the basic sciences which will force you to learn about elements, different types of elements, molecules, carbon, exothermic reactions, bonding. Once you've learned the lowest level of science, you can then go back up the chain and ask stuff like: ok how do different fuels differ from methane. What other kinds are there? Gasoline is a fuel... it's used in engines... how do engines work? And in digging down again, you will get down to the basic level of chemistry but you won't have to re learn every definition since you had some base knowledge from your first investigation, and the process gets faster.

By analyzing and learning in this manner, you never have knowledge in a vacuum that is unconnected. Going the traditional education route takes years and although it sets up a foundation for you to easily understand how everything works since there is a solid foundation of basic science and math, you said yourself that you can't drop your life to go get another education so the method above is the best I can think of. It guarantees that there is no wasted time learning stuff that you won't be able to connect to in life.

Post: #12

(09-30-2015 02:01 PM)Wutang Wrote:  How far can you get from just studying on your own? Of course it would be great if I didn't have to worry about making a living and can drop everything I'm doing do get a PhD but obviously that's not feasible for a lot of people. There was a period of time in the 17th the 18th century where science could be done by a lone tinkerer working in his home but that seems to have past. How much can you really learn these days without having access to a fancy lab?

All the way. It's all written in books, and the remainder of the newest stuff in papers. A PhD is just someone very gently breathing down your neck to study and experiment harder. All the science 'Olympiads' are guys who just read their way through books out of pure interest.

Post: #13

(10-01-2015 11:43 AM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:45 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:32 PM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

For personal enrichment mostly. I don't really have any plans to make it into my way to earn my bread but I'm open to all possibilities.

I'm very much into philosophy which is something that I've studied a lot on my own and I thought that learning more about the natural sciences would complement that knowledge. I feel like a lot of the humanities you can get far from just reading on your own but I'm not so sure with the natural sciences so I wanted to hear other people's views.

There is definitely a one big direct main link between basic math and science to the advanced sciences, or a few main links/branches but along each, there are little side branches of knowledge that lead to nowhere - discarded never to be used again even if you are a practicing engineer or scientist.

Out of all the sciences the one I'm most interested in right now is physics. How much of the math that is taught in a typical uni do you think would be needed in order to have a basic understanding of physics? I took 2 semesters of calc back in undergrad but I am definitely rusty,

Post: #14

(10-01-2015 03:38 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 11:43 AM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:45 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:32 PM)StarcraftGG Wrote:  Wutang, can you please be more specific as to why you want to become more educated in science? It would help me formulate a better answer to your question.

For personal enrichment mostly. I don't really have any plans to make it into my way to earn my bread but I'm open to all possibilities.

I'm very much into philosophy which is something that I've studied a lot on my own and I thought that learning more about the natural sciences would complement that knowledge. I feel like a lot of the humanities you can get far from just reading on your own but I'm not so sure with the natural sciences so I wanted to hear other people's views.

There is definitely a one big direct main link between basic math and science to the advanced sciences, or a few main links/branches but along each, there are little side branches of knowledge that lead to nowhere - discarded never to be used again even if you are a practicing engineer or scientist.

Out of all the sciences the one I'm most interested in right now is physics. How much of the math that is taught in a typical uni do you think would be needed in order to have a basic understanding of physics? I took 2 semesters of calc back in undergrad but I am definitely rusty,

Physics has many branches - the core ones being Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism (with Waves), Optics (Light), Modern (Quantum) Physics, and maaaybe Thermodynamics. To have a good understanding of this stuff, you will need elements of calc 1, calc 2, vector (multivariate) calc, linear algebra, and differential equations.

But, staying with the top down learning approach, I would start by studying only physics and when you get stuck, teach yourself the specific math needed for what you are studying. This way, you will be maximizing your understanding of physics without wasting time studying any math that will never be used. With calc 1 and 2 as a base, you should have all you need to teach yourself the other math courses, which will then enable you to understand the physics.

Post: #15

Check out this oldschool TV-series "The Mechanical Universe and beyond". It's from the 80ies and was done by the California Institute of Technology, I believe. 52 episodes and in each they talk about the fundamental concepts/ phenomena of physics.

http://www.primewire.ag/watch-448067-The...nline-free

Post: #16

I did a PhD in science (93-97). It was actually very easy compared to my Bachelors. All it took was a lot of work (60+ hour weeks) and the commitment to write up my findings, whereas a lot of my peers ended up getting highly paid jobs and never actually finished writing that thesis. Oh, and one exam at the end (the viva).

Bear in mind that back then I needed access to world class libraries, whereas now there's so much online. So it's much easier to do your own research.

As to studying - was it worth it?

Financially no. I did get a good sponsorship so broke even during the 3.5 years it took to do my PhD. It has added little to my value in the jobs market, but 70% of interviewers do like to ask me about it. Compare that with roughly 0% who ask me about my English teaching CELTA qualification!

Socially, well postgrads are worshipped by undergrads but I was way too beta at the time to capitalise on that.

Post: #17

Wutang,

If you are interested in learning some physics on your own, start reading The Feynman Lectures on Physics. The complete edition is available online here:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

The only math you will really need for the first parts (mechanics and electromagnetism) is calculus.

If you find that these lectures draw you in, just keep reading. If not, that would mean that you probably don't have much of a real interest in physics (which is fine, of course) so just let it go.

Post: #18

TLOZ I find it interesting how you are into different subjects, I will be paying more attention to your posts.

Post: #19

You're going to get stuck with certain things. Even if you think you're prepared. Even if you're actually prepared.
That's why the teacher is useful, sometimes there just is no substitute for coming in during office hours and asking a question.
If that's not an option then cough up the 20 bucks a month and find a tutor online.

Post: #20

You can learn all the foundational stuff on Khan Academy. Most of the beginner level physics and all the math up to differential equations is on there. It'll keep you busy for a long time and it's free.

Post: #21

I wrote up this huge post in the quantum thread but I realized that it would be better here.

Paul's Online Math Notes. This is for learning how to do calculus. It's one of the best references and it delivers to you good explanations for how different things work.

Octave Online. Octave is very similar to Matlab, it's a matrix calculator. You can do a lot of things with Octave/Matlab, learning-wise it's for graphing functions and solving matrix equations. It's also a good way to softball yourself into some programming. Sagemath is also great to use.

Khan Academy. I bring this one up a lot, but it really is awesome. I've used it again and again to brush up skills that I've gotten rusty on. It's literally a one stop shop for drilling the basics.

My Open Math. I haven't used this, but it's free. It looks a lot like Khan Academy for beginner math.

Schaums Outline of College Physics 9th Edition. I like Schaum's Outlines, they tend to explain things better then most textbooks and they can be had under 20 bucks (or free).

Barring all these things, if you have a problem with a certain subject, there's generally a Schaum's Outline of it which will teach you the basics. Older editions can be found for free online.

For example, here is one for modern physics.

Schaums Outline of Modern Physics in PDF form (free). It's the 2nd edition so it's pretty old, but it's free.

If you want to go a step further you can register on the physics forums and ask questions there. There's a ton of knowledgeable guys who are willing to help out.

Post: #22

I think the internet and a brain is all you need to educate yourself. Not just in science, but just about anything.

Theory anyway...

You still have to get out there for your practice!

Post: #23

I wasn't really sure where to post this.

For any STEM students out there, if you're struggling with exam taking and shit, a pretty common theme I have found is that oftentimes the exam posted in a STEM class takes (for the average student) one to one and a half hours from start to finish, and usually you only have about 50 minutes from the time the exam is handed back to the time you have to leave to get it done. Even if you know everything on the exam, if you can't fill out the sheets in time before you have to hand it in, you might as well not have bothered learning it in the first place.

The first two or three problems might go OK, with students scrambling to get the last (biggest) problem done. Even if everything is perfect, an incomplete test can't really be better than a low B.

The only solution I have found to this problem is that when studying for an exam, run through the book or problem sets. Pick problems that you just figure are "going to be on the exam". Look through it like you're a teacher and trying to punish lazy students. If they're especially shitty, they're probably going to be on the exam. I've done this a few times now and my "correct selection rate" (how often I pick a problem that ends up on the exam) is about 33%, which if you factor in how large the problem set pool actually is, is an excellent figure.

Then take your exam, print off a few copies, and (bare minimum) start running through it FOR SPEED at least two days ahead of time. Cheat all you want with the solution manual, the goal here is to study and memorize the solutions and internalize the problem set structure while running the problem sets FOR SPEED.

I pick four problems (exams are three to four) and don't stop drilling until I can get the exam done in 30-40 minutes.

If I have less time to prepare I will just drill one or two especially shitty problems and try to get them done in 10-20 minutes or less.

This may seem like common sense to some, but I would argue that about 90% of teachers in America think that "drill and kill" and rote memorization is stupid because they think that everything can be derived on the fly, flawlessly, and demand this be the case. Oftentimes they speak out against it. "You don't have to know the formulas - know the concepts".

What they often fail to realize is that almost all physics and engineering exam problems are structured pretty heavily. They grade (without mercy) from the solution manual. Teachers are among the least qualified people to be telling somebody how to take an exam - oftentimes they have been working with similar problem sets for years and years while their students have only seen them for a few weeks.

If you invest time in just learning the structure by rote, you can bullshit out the solution to any problem with basically plug and play, significantly less effort than doing it organically, even if you've never seen it before. If you don't believe it works, try it some time.

The majority of points in most courses comes from exam work. If you want everything to go up a letter grade you have to spend some time doing it drill and kill style. Homework does not prepare you for an exam. The exam has to be gamed.

The last tip is hand your exam in early. Read through it once, don't wig yourself out, and if you're done early then hand it in early.

Post: #24

Great post, Hades.

Even smart, motivated students in quantitative subjects can take for granted how important "drill and kill" is, and speak derisively of memorizing formulas and practicing techniques. However...

Could you be a great Salsa dancer if you have to think about the next step to take? No.

Could you be a great tennis player if you have to think about your service motion every time? No.

The banal must be automatic and seamless if one hopes to gain mastery at something.

And as you noted, 50 minute exams are actually 1.5 hour exams in disguise. Any hesitation or "wrong turn" can be fatal, especially in an upper division or graduate course at a top program, where some of your classmates are world beaters and will wreck the curve (even non-explicitly curved classes are de facto curved).

Post: #25

This site is phenomenal:

http://www.khanacademy.org

Informative and interesting video lectures on all subjects to give you a solid understanding and, dare I say, education in science subjects such as:

physics
calculus
Differential equations
thermodynamics
electro magnestism
chemistry
statics and dynamics
all advanced mathematics
biology
astronomy
computer science

and much more. Khan has a real passion in his videos which, in my estimation, makes learning these things easier.