To wrap things up, I felt that it would be interesting to
take a look at The Ortega Hypothesis
written by Jonathan R. Cole and Stephen Cole in Science 178. What even is the hypothesis? It is simple: For it is necessary
to insist upon this extraordinary but undeniable fact: experimental science has
progressed thanks in great part to the work of men astoundingly mediocre, and
even less than mediocre. That is to say, modem science, the root and symbol of
our actual civilization, finds a place for the intellectually commonplace man
and allows him to work therein with success. In this way the majority of
scientists help the general advance of science while shut up in the narrow cell
of their laboratory, like the bee in the cell of its hive, or the turnspit of
its wheel.
Mediocre? Less than mediocre? Harsh words, no doubt, but
perhaps it is reassuring to see the importance of the work of these many
scientists that don't have their praises sang in articles, on TV, or over the
internet.
Except that isn't actually the case, or at least, that
wasn't the case back in 1972 when Cole and Cole did this research. Their
findings found that most of the discoveries and papers that were cited came
from a disproportionate number of "elite" scientists at prestigious
institutions. But were those scientists dependent on the mass as Ortega
implies? Reading through it, it seems hard for me to accurately say. Cole and
Cole seem to not have a definitive stance for sure.
Why does this all matter to students entering physics now
though? In all honesty, things may have changed where it doesn't. We would have
to look at new research and see what the results are.
The takeaway for this though I think is that you go become a
scientist because you have the passion and calling for it. If you have that,
does any other consideration matter?
Jonathan Cole and Stephen Cole, "The Ortega Hypothesis," Science, Vol. 178, pages 368-375 (1972)
