14 thoughts on “Freeman Dyson”

  1. Please don’t do that. Saw the title with nothing else and immediately thought another old hero of mine was dead.

    1. I hope you don’t do that with every headline that just says “Kim Kardassian” or some other over-exposed, under-cooked celebutante.

      To do so would prove repeatedly disappointing.

  2. A commentor, “Granite Sentry” made a good point about something the interviewer said:

    “You knew a lot of people who worked on the atomic bomb … the most exciting time of their lives. Yet there’s a deep irony. Their work produced the most devastation we’ve ever seen.”

    Great interview, but have to quibble with this. The devastation produced by The Bomb didn’t amount to a sliver of the destruction produced through the war by conventional ordnance. In fact the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs — terrible as they were — ended that destruction. And the following generations of nuclear bombs probably played a huge role in keeping the West and the East from tumbling into an even more devastating third world war.

    In reality, it’s probably the exact opposite of devastation. There’s probably large parts of the world that are thriving today because they discovered the atomic bomb.

    2. I think your “Granite Sentry” commenter was reading too much into the interviewer’s question and created a false analogy. Atomic bombs certainly created more destructive force per weapon. We can be very thankful that only two were used.

      You are probably correct that the memory of the A-bomb’s devastation prevented the nuclear arms race from going hot.

  3. I had the great privilege of attending a lecture series by Dyson when I was in college (many years ago, now). He was an absolutely mesmerizing speaker, and I could have gone every night for a month and not been bored. Thanks for the link, Rand.

  4. Rand,
    What specific reforms would you recommend for the PhD system? Dyson seems to suggest deemphasizing research. I’m sure there are many people who would like to get an advanced education, and then turn around and just teach. That would require significantly reforming our whole university system. I suppose advanced learning could also be practically applied in commerce and industry without the necessity of having demonstrated original research.

        1. I disagree. But I do think there should be a requirement that government funded research will be used by the government for a practical purpose and there should be field trials. DARPA is a good example.

        2. PS: The NSF is usually considered a bad example and mostly a waste of resources. Still sometimes the odd gem does occur (like the Mosaic browser). Give smart and motivated people the tima and means to conduct their own research and stuff will happen regardless if the government wants it to happen or not. Sometimes stuff will happen even despite the government’s interference. Another example, this time a more theoretical one, would be Ufimtsev’s radar research in the Soviet Union.

      2. Well, fair enough. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was seeking greater understanding of your thought. In the interview, Dyson seems to suggest deemphasizing research for a doctorate. What I wanted to know is if that was also your thinking or if you had other reforms in mind, either along with or instead of eliminating the dissertation? If a program were created that involved several years of advanced study but no original research, should the degree still be called a Doctorate of Philosophy, or something else maybe? I seem to remember reading somewhere that some schools offer what they call a Doctorate of Science (D.Sc.) which does not involve a dissertation, but I could be wrong about that. Some Master’s degrees don’t involve a thesis, but they are still called master’s degrees.

    2. I don’t know about that. I think the criteria of doing original research is a sound idea. Otherwise you would have the equivalent of a Masters. The Masters also requires you to do research but the need to do original work isn’t as strong there.
      Having gone through the process I do agree with Dyson that the PhD takes way longer than it should. I don’t know why so many institutions or companies require someone to have a PhD to do work that a Masters, or even a graduate, student with the proper motivation could do however. I think it is just a reflection of too many people for too few jobs though. These entities require the PhD because they can. It’s a way to filter the candidate pool without requiring much work. It’s a meat grinder though. I wouldn’t recommend anyone to enter a PhD program unless they are really passionate about their research.

Comments are closed.