<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Depth-First: How to Fail in Science (or Anything Else)</title>
    <link>http://depth-first.com/articles/2007/02/01/how-to-fail-in-science-or-anything-else</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>Walking the Web of Chemical Informatics</description>
    <item>
      <title>How to Fail in Science (or Anything Else)</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://flickr.com/photos/goatopolis/147227855/"&gt;&lt;img src="http://depth-first.com/demo/20070201/lightbulb.jpg" align="right" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;Also, I've come to see that there is one big thing that ruins these fields of amateur research. That thing is SECRECY. Every time amateurs [and plenty of professionals] think they've stumbled across something important, they go silent and treat their discovery as a Big Important Secret which must be preserved at all costs from the many enemies who want to steal it. This is garbage! It is a trap which leads to paranoid megalomania. At the same time, it wrecks their discovery by burying it. ...&lt;/p&gt;

    &lt;p&gt;-&lt;cite&gt;William Beaty, &lt;a href="http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html"&gt;Rules for Unconventional Research&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What are the most reliable ways to fail in science? Of course, no scientist sets out to fail, but an understanding of that path can lead to a better understanding of the path to success.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;By way of &lt;a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/"&gt;Seth Godin's Blog&lt;/a&gt;, I came across some interesting &lt;a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/01/rules_for_failu.html"&gt;rules for failure&lt;/a&gt;. Seth's article cites the above quoted essay. Its author is a self-styled "amateur researcher." I don't necessarily subscribe to everything written, but his essay contains more than a few grains of truth.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So, if you're looking for good ways to fail in science, here are some starting points:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Don't tell anyone about your idea - they might steal it.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When you do tell (shame on you!), don't listen to negative feedback - nobody knows your idea like you.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Focus on selling your idea to the government or a big company - this is your ticket to fame and fortune!&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assume other scientists will be blown away by your discovery - the ones that don't get it are incompetent.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Don't bother to build a working prototype - it's a waste of time. If, for some reason, you do build one, keep it under lock and key (see rule 1).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Notebooks and record keeping are busywork - focus on real work instead. Like coming up with more ideas.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Scientists showing these symptoms probably suffer from the mistaken belief that ideas are more important than hard work. Thomas Edison's remark about success being 99% execution and 1% idea couldn't be more true today. Ideas are cheap. People with the determination, ability, and humility to make their ideas work are the precious commodity.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:062e5c40-84a2-41e1-8e0f-8ddee990135f</guid>
      <author>Rich Apodaca</author>
      <link>http://depth-first.com/articles/2007/02/01/how-to-fail-in-science-or-anything-else</link>
      <category>Meta</category>
      <category>science</category>
      <category>failure</category>
      <category>success</category>
      <category>research</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
