Issue87 又一次超时了

newsilencerUID: 2371471

In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries.


I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's assertion that the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries in field of inquiry. While the beginners are not constrained by routines and rules, the experts usually process more advantages. Thus the assertion deserves a case by case analysis.
Admittedly, the beginners have the motivation, ambition and aspiration to attain success in their field, thus they are more willing to delve into their work and work more efficiently and effectively than the experts. Besides, due to the comparative lack of experience, the beginners don't follow the routines and break the rules set by their predecessors, and jump out of the existed experience and examples. Therefore they usually have the qualification to make important discoveries and even major breakthroughs by doing something the experts dare not do or never put in mind. The discovery of the Theory of Relativity serves as a good example. When Albert Einstein discovered the epoch making theory by theoretical deduction, he was no more than a neophyte of physics who had just graduated from university and worked in a patent bureau in Switzerland. His daring hypothesis-- the speed of light is constant in any given reference system is the key of his successful theory. No physician before him ever dare make such a hypothesis that ostensibly flies in the face of existed physical laws as well as empirical observation. Being a beginner Einstein bravely stepped out and advanced it, which was proven later.
Nevertheless, because of devoting themselves in certain fields of inquiry for years, the experts are comparatively familiar with thus adept in their work. Besides, due to abundant experience and acute intuition, which were fostered and sharpened by years of hard work, they are more likely to perceive the laws hidden behind ostensibly complicated phenomena and eventually unearth them by study. Moreover, the expert usually forms a well-round route or system for their research, from observation, experiments to reasoning, conclusion and finally theorization. For instance, in order to discover the link between electricity and magnet, Faraday did countless, all kinds of experiments for more than 10 years, and finally found the law of electromagnetic induction. It is hard to imagine that he would achieve success without the experience accumulated form the previous 10 years' endeavor.
Another example is concerned with Thomas Edison and his preeminent invention-- the bulb. To found a proper material for making filaments, Edison tried more than 30,000 materials within 3 years and finally found tungsten. After he succeeded, some people asked him if he felt that the many previous experiments he did were meaningless. He said no for the reason that although he failed numberless times, those failures were still beneficial to him since at least they proved that those materials were not suitable for filaments. No one could deny the vitality of experience in his invention.
To sum up, while some beginners may make important discoveries by flexible thinking and strong aspiration, it is too presumptuous to conclude that the experts are less likely to do it than their younger peers. After all, it is experience, skills as well as proficiency that play a crucial role in the fields of inquiry.