Issue87,限时[Flamy July],请拍:)

jetflameUID: 206544

TOPIC: ISSUE87 - "In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries."

Is beginner more likely than the expert to make important discoveries in any field of inquiry? I concede that in some fields, the beginner is more likely to succeed than expert. However, I can not agree with the speaker's assertion to every field.
Admittedly, beginners have intense curiosity about the unknown and great courage to try new things, while experienced experts tend to be more conservative, and therefore facilitate to make great discoveries, especially on newly developed subjects on which experience seems less important. As we all known, interest is the best teacher. On that matter, beginners generally have great interests on their subjects, which bring them power and courage to solving problems. Yet, experts who hold more experience are so familiar with their realms of inquiry that they probably lost much interests on those subjects, along with the decreasing of curiosity. For example, a glance on the winners of Nobel Prize will prove that. These years, a great many prizes are been given to young scientists who have made great discoveries in cutting edge realms, such as the nano-technology, genetic technology and so forth. The less need of experience brings the beginner and the expert to the same start point and then the beginner holds the advantage to make discoveries.
However, experience and insightful comprehension are vital for a researcher to achieve in most fields, especially in traditional fields. Firstly, take physics as an example. Apparently, physics is one of the most traditional subjects, and it is easy to understand how hard it is to find new discoveries, if any, probably has been found by our descendants. Understandably, if there are some new discoveries, they must be stand upon the shoulder of the great achievement which already exists. That is, it is the experience and insightful knowledge that lead to the success in modern physics research work.
Secondly, chemistry is also such an experience needed science whose achievement mainly relies on experts. On one hand, chemistry belongs to the kind of the oldest subjects of human beings, indicating that whatever is easy to fig out has been discovered. On the other hand, chemistry belongs to the kind of experimental science which suggests that in order to discover new phenomenon, we may do numerous experiments, which will emphasize much on experience. In conclusion, beginners lacking of experience are hard to achieve the same as experts.
Finally, engineering is a most convictive subject in which experts will surely be more likely to make great discoveries than beginners. For instance, in civil engineering, experience are most needed on the purpose of designing a new building or a new style of structure and our citizens are more likely to trust engineer who is full of design experience. Who will be like to give a great task to a beginner? Another example is about the physic. As I know, most treatments are been found by experienced doctors, and people just tend to choose experts to do operation. As for the new doctors, they need to do a pretty long time job as assistants in surgeries in order to be experienced.
In sum, generally speaking, experts full of experience are more likely to find great discoveries than beginner, although in certain realms, beginners have their own advantages. In the final analysis, in order to make our scientific research thrive, we should combine both characters owned by beginners and experts.
A skeptical and curious attitude, more like a beginner, towards research works could really help them find new miracles.