tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post2260986861614831282..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: Gernot Frenking is not happy...not at allWavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-1018000789960850442008-09-29T14:31:00.000-07:002008-09-29T14:31:00.000-07:00Who is talking about "ceding" to theorists? But th...Who is talking about "ceding" to theorists? But the history of science makes it clear that theorists have as much claim to prediction that experimentalists have to then validate, as experimentalists have claim in producing stellar results which theorists have to explain. To say that theorists have to predict things which experimentalists can make or observe easily is in my opinion as much of an insult to experimentalists as it is to theorists. You are right that chemistry is mostly about things that we can experience, but as Carl Sagan said sometime, scientific experiences can have their own "variety"Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-37330444469021618662008-09-16T10:25:00.000-07:002008-09-16T10:25:00.000-07:00The suggestions are heavily biased towards experim...<I>The suggestions are heavily biased towards experimentalists' preferences</I><BR/><BR/>May it ever be so, or they can stop calling themselves theoretical chemists and pitch their tents with physicists! Frenking is getting a little uppity!<BR/><BR/>All kidding aside, I hope that chemistry never degenerates to the point that physics has, where an experimentalist can too easily become a data-monkey for theorists. Chemistry need not be easy, not at all, and clearly, it isn't. But part of the charm of chemistry is that it is <I>mostly</I> about stuff that you can experience. <BR/><BR/>Qualitative and semi-quantitative models are both necessary (because of complexity) and sufficient (because more decimal places doesn't necessarily yield insight). There are oddballs that violate simple models that have a lot to teach us, and very delicate compounds well worth making to ascertain that we are, in fact, on solid ground theoretically. But I will not cede chemistry to theorists. No way. <BR/><BR/>I know several theorists, admire and love their work (as I do Frenking's from what I have read), but in chemistry, they are helpful peers and <B>not</B> masters, and I'll not sit still for theorists trying to run things. I'll make stuff, and they can explain why it does what it does, but they only get to do that if I can't do it first!<BR/><BR/>I started life as a physics major, and postdoc'd at a physics lab. I love them, too, and am fine with the way physics is driven by theorists. But boy, I would sure hate to see chemistry go that way.Robin St. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18079748114787155061noreply@blogger.com