Higher Archetype

Recently and some weeks back, some colleagues confide with me how frustrating can it be when one's own area of research is sidelined or looked down upon by others. I certainly know how it feels because I have been there. People would say that being theoretical physicist, I'm not very practical (notice the personification) or people would say things I do are not rigorous, hence inaccurate or I would accept anything as true in a rather demeaning way. In my youthful days I would probably do my utmost to prove them wrong or worse grow bitter. Now, I would probably ignore most of these. I am not quite sure whether I've grown wiser or simply numbed. I think what matters are how much one contributes and how much it benefits others (or closer to the truth that one seeks). Nevertheless I do wish people have wider perspective in their views and would be more kind and thoughtful in their remarks about other people's work.

Most areas have their unique characteristics and traditions that go along with them. Any area can be as hard and as sophisticated if explored deeply. Types of difficulty can also actually differ from area to area which makes any form of direct comparison to be misleading. I recall in one meeting some time last year, discussing on how much work that the academic has to bear, my mathematician friend made a remark that he has to bring his work home nowadays and work on them through most of the night. Then my physics colleague sitting besides me whispered to my ear, if only he could do the same, bring his lab and equipments home to continue his work. On the other hand, non-mathematicians or non-theorists do poke fun that all we need is pencil and paper and we would be able to do our research anywhere. The truth is we need an environment which is thriving with ideas, full of information, lots of (academic) discussions; rarely do we get good theoretical research simply out of nothing or deprived environment.

Another incident rather recently was in a lecture made by a colleague in the institute that mentions hierarchy of knowledge. I would have not noticed anything until another colleague sitting nearby, made a remark in jest that mathematics is higher than natural sciences (read physics). Not that I'm slighted by it but it crossed my mind that someone else might be taking this too literally. I understood the diagram is very much similar to that is touted by classic Muslim scientists and was discussed in the book by Osman Bakar. In fact, I would rephrase this hierarchy as an ordering along some "abstraction"-axis. In no way, I think it should be taken as something was nobler than the other without qualification. Would one judge the work of an engineer who consciously put the safety of users above all (technology was placed in the lower rung) be less in stature than the musings of a philosopher who strengthens his own thoughts? I'm pretty sure that this was not on the mind of my colleagues. Indeed I hope not that others take such simplified view. There is certainly much more dimension to human thoughts and actions. The argument here is very much analogous to the objection of putting single numbers like impact factor or h-index as sole criterion to judge academics but they nevertheless, with other factors considered, may help systemise thoughts.

I end with this wish that all of us in different disciplines work together in stimulating environment, feeding positive vibes off each other. As my professor once said, be generous with encouragement, it's free.