Cherry Pickers Deny Global Warming

Global warming deniers are like a broken record, repeating the same old climate change myths.  It is always possible to find supposed counterexamples to any well-established and impeccably-tested scientific theory such as evolution, the big bang theory, the germ theory of disease, etc. by cherry picking the data.  This despicable practice is forbidden by the scientific community, and those who practice it are censured and shunned.  Unfortunately, cherry picking is the favorite tool of politicians, lobbyists, and purveyors of ideology, who use it unashamedly with impunity.

Take the claim that global warming has stalled.  A plot of the mean global land-ocean temperature shows that the 2013 temperature is indeed below the 1998 value.  However, such variations are well within the expected range of statistical fluctuations.  Taken out of context and ignoring the rest of the dataset leads to the erroneous conclusion that warming has stopped.  The long-term trend is clear and agreement between the data and computer models (within computational and measurement uncertainties, of course) increases our confidence in the results.

What about the claim that scientists are changing terminology in an effort to hide the perception that global warming has stopped?  To be precise, the earth is experiencing global heating.  It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, which warms the atmosphere, land and oceans.  Manifestations of heating include temperature increase, evaporation of water, melting of ice, volatility, and changes in climate patterns.  Deniers see a conspiracy in what they believe is an intentional obfuscation on the part of scientists.  The fact that the media uses different words or has changed its terminology is irrelevant to the underlying facts.  The terms  global warming and climate change have been used by scientists for decades, and it has always been understood that these are consequences of heating.

Deniers like to downplay the scientific consensus.  According to several studies that analyze the vast literature on climate change, more than 97% of active climate scientists conclude that the data supports anthropogenic climate change.  The most meticulous study of this sort assembled a list of researchers who are both active climate scientists (judged by numbers of publications in refereed journals), and who have been signatories of public statements that either support or denounce anthropogenic climate change.  This study confirms the 97% figure.  Global warming deniers point to one specific report that suffers from a documented flaw in its methodology as evidence that the 97% number is incorrect.  They ignore all the other studies that confirm the sentiments of 97% of the climate researchers who concur that global warming is real.

Deniers call for productive discussions on climate change.  These are already taking place. Vigorous debate is common at scientific conferences, new and updated studies are inundating the journals with data, and interpretations of the data are continually being fine-tuned.  Scientists are not zombies who tow the party line.  Only after years of debate is a scientific consensus reached; and even then, scientists doggedly try to find holes in the evidence.  In contrast, the climate change denying machine cherry picks the data in a deliberate effort to cast doubt and plant misinformation in the popular press.

Demanding 100% certainty before taking action on global warming is a stalling tactic.  Prudence demands that steps be taken in proportion to the degree of confidence in the information.  Public debate should focus on finding the most economical ways with the greatest impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The scientists who have the deepest and broadest understanding of the literature have reached a consensus based on the preponderance of evidence.  We are fools for not heeding their warnings.

Teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design as Science in Public Schools

About a month ago I got a Linked-In notification of a post on the American Physical Society group about a White House petition to ban the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design as Science.  Being an educator who takes science literacy seriously, I happily signed the petition.

The petition was motivated by the relentless push of fundamentalists to teach Creationism and Intelligent Design as part of the Science curriculum in public schools.  I was surprised by the criticisms posted in response to the petition.  Below are the critical comments and my response.

You are trying to ban free speech. This is not an issue of free speech. The petition would only ban the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design AS science in public schools.

Not everything true is science. Science is a method that has been shown to be incredibly successful in understanding and controlling the material world.  Because Creationism and Intelligent Design do not provide falsifiable hypotheses, they are religion not science.  It is disingenuous to teach religion as science.

If science is all one can teach then education is reduced to propaganda.  We should only teach science in a science class.  There are plenty of non-science classes in the public schools.  Nobody is calling for only teaching science, though I think we need way more science education.

Who controls what is science?  Nobody controls science.  It is not a hierarchical system like a church where rules are handed down from authority.  Scientists pose hypotheses and do experiments to test hypotheses.  Once a huge body of evidence explains many things in a simple way, it is elevated to the status of a theory.  Scientists gather theories and distil them into books to help others learn what is known.

I know a number of big science personalities that act as bullies against even other scientists for any idea that is not pure status quo. The status quo is routinely turned on its head as new evidence accumulates.  A scientist may be protecting his or her turf, but the community as a whole moves (sometimes glacially) in the direction that evidence takes it.  Many of the greatest ideas were proposed by young whipper snappers, which have become the basis of many of our most successful theories.

Banning the theory of creationism and ID sounds inconsistent with the scientific method. Scientifically we don't ban theories, we simply conclude that the theory is not supported by experimental results.Scientists are not banning Creationism and Intelligent Design.  The petition specifically bans only the teaching of Creationism and ID as science.

Wow, it is a bit disturbing to know that there are those who think that banning ideas is in harmony with our Constitution. Many have heard that old saying, "The church is a refuge for scoundrels". That truism is even truer for "science". Indeed, before condemning the teaching of "Creationism" in schools, one should feel some obligation to define "science". It most controversial discussions, the subject being discussed is never succinctly defined. Science has a precise and hopefully universally-known definition which is well stated on Wikipedia as follow: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

It is said history repeat itself. This petition remember me the French revolution and the campaign waged by the radicals to dechristianize France under the same banner, the age of reason and how Maximilien Robespierre delivered his speech in the festival of reason (The Cult of Reason), and also remember me the Stalinists when their leader Stalin said: "There are three things that we do to disabuse the minds of our seminary students. We had to teach them the age of the earth, the geologic origin, and Darwin's teachings". In both cases the radicals used the same tool to eliminate their opposing views, they used the power of government.  Science has determined the age of the earth, describes its geological origin, and understands the evolutionary process.  Each of these areas meets the definition of science.  The fact that some ruthless individuals in the past advocated for science is irrelevant.  Also, the goal of the petition is not to use government to snuff out religion, only to not teach Creationism and ID as science.

I won't be signing. Why get involved in debates about the unprovable? Evolution (of new species) and creationism/ID are all unprovable. I see a magazine cover on the news stands this week with Bill Nye "fighting" for evolution - I guess - he likes to debate the ID folks, but he can't prove anything either. Science never proves anything.  However, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution that has met rigorous scientific testing, so scientists accept it.  It is a false dichotomy to say two propositions are equivalent because they or both not 100% provable.  In these cases, the preponderance of evidence is used to make the choice. 

 I'm afraid if this banning happen we are going to end up with the burning of the books of creationism and ID in Washington, D.C. and the professors who insist to teach creationism and ID are going to be arrested (because it is illegal), just like what happened in Germany in May 1933. I mean the Nazi book burnings.  The petition does not prohibit the teaching of Creationism and ID, only teaching these topics as science in public schools.  It is frankly insulting to equate Nazis with those who defend science education.

Today's great theory is tomorrow's folly! The question whether our reality came about through creation or evolution is characteristically a 19th century question. Today, with our understanding of relativity and our technological advances, no scientist would ask such a question. However, the fact that there is a large body of scientists and creationists still asking and fighting over such a question, is a subject of keen scientific investigation in itself. For that reason, we cannot ban hypotheses. It's a very unscientific thing to do. The fact that lots of people are fighting for Creationism is not a sign that there are legitimate scientific issues that remain unresolved.  Creationism is not science because it offers no testable hypotheses.  The fight is between science and those who do not like where the evidence is leading.

Stating the earth is flat is not fraud in my opinion; it is inaccurate and lacking critical scientific evidence and completeness. Creationism and ID are not amenable to test under the scientific method and therefore not fraud to state in public--you cannot disprove or prove scientifically the existence of God. Why do you jump to conclusions and say it is falsehood. How do you know the context that creationism or ID is presented in every classroom where it is done. Because Creationism and ID are not amenable to scientific tests, it should not be taught as science.  This is not an issue of fraud.  At least the flat earth is a local approximation to a sphere but Creationism and ID do not overlap with anything that is testable.

Facts are debated before the are established. Many theories and dogma that were believed to be fact have been discarded in the past when new information displaced them. Why should Creationism/ID be any different? The truth here is that you are being even more dogmatic than the Creationists/ID whom you are trying to ban. They are not advocating the banning of science or evolution. They just want equal time for their dogma, theory or whatever....truth shall prevail. The scientific method itself is dogma that needs to be scientifically validated from time to time as we learn more about our reality. I learned the scientific method and I learned creation. Today I am in a position to make arguments for or against either of them....they both have "issues". Do you want future generations to be ignorant simply because you fall on one side of the argument? Asserting that "Creationism/ID is not science therefore should not be taught in a science class" Is equally foolish because the scientific method knows nothing sacred. Everything is subject to investigation. I would doubt that Francis Bacon or Karl Popper would agree that there are any subjects which are "out of bounds" for scientific inquiry.  Science is not a dogma, but a way of gathering information that leads to a body of knowledge that is objectively true, in the sense that its elements are testable and reproducible.  Creationism and ID are dogma that cannot be tested.  Competing scientific hypotheses deserve equal time, but Creationism and ID are not science so should not be presented as a competing scientific view.  Popper and Bacon would disagree with you.  Popper proposed that only falsifiable propositions are testable, and religious dogma is not.  Similarly, Bacon espoused the scientific method. Creationism and ID are not suitable candidates for study based on the nature of the claim.

Belief in either ID or Spontaneous Generation origin theory (neither are yet proven and re-producible law) takes a leap of faith. What is unscientific about considering more than one origin theory? It appears that many SG advocates are emotionally invested in their origin theory, and this makes than uncomfortable with comparison beyond what they can demonstrate.  My personal observation of trends is that science is on the verge of proving ID of new life forms, and this makes SG 'experts' more than a little uncomfortable -- to the point of demanding censorship of ID origins theory. If ID presented testable and falsifiable hypotheses, it would be the object of scientific study; and, if the hypotheses were shown to be true, ID would become accepted on the evidence.  SG theory, as you call it, has many testable hypotheses.  For example, how are complex molecules made?  ID people say GOD created them.  What is the testable hypothesis?  None are offered.  Scientists propose that SG requires that early earth conditions should spontaneously yield complex molecules from simple ones.  Miller and Urey  did  the experiment by simulating early earth conditions in a test tube.  They exposed  water (H₂O), methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), and hydrogen (H₂) (known early earth atmosphere and oceans) to an electric discharge (lightening).  A goo forms on the bottom of the test tube.  An analysis shows that it contains amino acids - the building blocks of life.  There are thousands of similar experiments that test various aspects of SG.  This is science.  ID is not.

There are at least a billion people who pay taxes and believe in Creationism....and you want their children to grow up ignorant of the implications of what they are supposed to believe? About there being two creation stories; have you heard of Einstein's twin brothers analogy? While it has its issues, those issues are not germane to it's analogy of the two creation stories. In my view both the evolution and creation narratives suffer from the concepts brought about by the twin brother analogy. Creationism IS a creation story and evolution, big bang cosmology, etc. IS science.  Teach science as science and Creationism as religion.  People can teach their children whatever they want, but in a science class, we are paying schools to teach science so that we can produce scientists who cure diseases, make our lives comfortable, and give us leisure to pursue our interests.  The money spent on science returns dividends that surpass the investment.  That is why we invest in science.

Parting Comments

People take advantage of what science produces but are uncomfortable when the knowledge gained conflicts with their religious beliefs.  The comments posted here testify to the respect that Science has won; everyone wants their beliefs to be associated with science as proof of their veracity.  Since Science carries so much weight, it is natural for Creationists and IDers to

push there agendas by forcing these topics into science classes.

Science, unlike people, is honest.  It is the best process to create an accurate representation of the material world that allows us to control nature and understand our origins.  The scientific method works best when its practitioners approach it without preconceived notions about how the world should be.  Forcing Creationism and ID into a Science curriculum corrupts the process and at its root is a dishonest act of self interest.

Those of you who think that banning the teaching of creationism is stifling free speech should read the decision of Judge Jones in the famous Dover case. He is a conservative christian appointed by Bush and gave the most impeccably logical arguments of why ID/creationism is not science and should be banned from being taught as science.

It's ironic that so many people use the argument that we can't disprove religion/creationism/ID so leave us alone and let it be taught in schools. This is exactly what makes religion/creationism/ID not science so it should not be taught as such.

The bottom line is that we are wasting precious classroom time teaching non-science that should be dedicated to teaching science; and in the process making students willfully ignorant citizens who will not believe that HIV is real, that vaccines cause autism, and that climate change must be a conspiracy because it snowed in my backyard.

The Supreme Court of Science

I recently read a short article in The Economist on the topic of fairness. The gist of the piece was that fairness depends on the perspective of the observer. For example, a conservative may argue that an entrepreneur is entitled to keep the proceeds resulting from hard work provided that the rules ensure a level playing field. If all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate, and the rewards are in proportion to the effort, then any redistribution would be unfair. Even under such idealized conditions, a liberal might argue that it is unfair for someone to keep all the profits because the resources would be better spent by a benevolent government on projects that are more noble than the greedy and wasteful accumulation of wealth by an individual.

Imagine a sporting event where two teams battle for a couple hours before throngs of cheering fans. At the end of the contest, the winning team is required to donate points to the opponents to force a tie. Now would this be fair? Clearly, this solution would anger all parties. Such analogies gloss over the nuances and complexities of the real issues, and are the staple of spin doctors that make for hyper-actively-delivered sound bites on Fox News. This is not to say that a Utopian society run by a benevolent government is a viable alternative to the unscrupulous industrialists portrayed by liberals.

Members of a free society are entitled to jabber nonsense and to exercise personal preferences in private or with like-minded (or mindless) individuals. However, when such nonsense finds its ways into politics and fills the halls of power, government becomes dysfunctional. The problems are compounded by politicians who are forced to pander to the masses. Many of us complain that politicians all lie. The root of the problem resides in the stupidity of the electorate, not in the politicians who must walk a fine line that avoids the minefield of our dogmatic sensitivities yet satisfies our contradictory demands.

This craziness originates in the way our neurons are hard-wired. Scientific evidence has documented all sorts of peculiar but fascinating traits of the human brain such as confirmation bias, which selectively reinforces beliefs based on dubious evidence and ignores floods of data to the contrary. We fool ourselves into believing all kinds of wacky ideas while easily detecting the folly in the conviction of others. We do not hesitate to accept contradictory concepts of truth. All this leads to vigorous ideological wars. The scientific method is designed to minimize these biases when seeking the truth.

Consider the irrational protest against childhood vaccinations. While nothing is totally risk free, the benefits of inoculations far exceed the risks. In addition to a growing swell in deniers of the efficacy of all vaccinations, some individuals believe that some vaccines cause autism. There is no scientific evidence that shows autism to result from the mercury compound used to preserve vaccinations (the rate of autism is no different with and without the mercury compound), but large numbers of people don't buy it and are applying political pressure to remove the important preservative. Though it is one of the most powerful theories in all of science, there are large numbers of people that do not believe in evolution. Similarly, many people can't seem to shake the belief that power lines and cell phones cause brain tumors.

False beliefs are innocent enough, but when these beliefs lead to action - such as forcing teachers to give equal weight to evolution and creationism/intelligent design or withholding inoculations from children - humanity suffers. Real children die and the power of ignorance fuels further disinformation that leads to a decrease in the quality of life.

The supreme court weighs in on legal matters, so why not assemble a group of unbiased and open-minded scientists to rule on the veracity of issues that can be resolved with evidence-based methods? The patent office automatically rejects perpetual motion machine filings, so why not automatically disallow a bogus settlement against a defendant who has science on her side? Empower science court to strike down a proposed curriculum that teaches religion under the guise of science, to veto consumer pressure to force insurance payments to alternative medical practices whose methods are baseless, and to disallow lawsuits that break the laws of physics.

Legal courts arbitrate disputes between parties using the law of the land as the basis of a decision. When science becomes an integral part of a case, the courts rely on expert witnesses. Unfortunately, it is always possible to find an "expert" with seemingly acceptable credentials who will contradict the scientific consensus. In these cases, jurors may end up returning verdicts based on the way the testimony is extracted rather than on the weight of the evidence. This method of interrogation may be the best available when deciding whose side of the story to accept, but scientific truth is best gleaned by a careful analysis of the evidence in the absence of theatrics and emotions.

For example, there is no evidence linking brain tumors to electromagnetic radiation from power lines and cell phones. Not only is there no statistically significant correlation between the two, but all plausible mechanisms of electromagnetically-induced tumor growth are inconsistent with the laws of physics describing the interactions of electromagnetic waves with matter. Suits against power companies for causing brain tumors should not be permitted to be brought to trial when the best scientific evidence shows the accusation baseless. That such cases are even heard implies ignorance of the facts; or, perhaps the courts believe that they can determine the veracity of the underlying science in lieu of the well-established body of literature.

In the absence of evidence, a typical vacuous argument posits that there might be a connection based on unknown science. This is equivalent to stating that unicorns cause sexual dysfunction. We would chuckle if an individual brought a case against a supermarket for allowing invisible unicorns to roam its isles, endangering the reproductive ability of its shoppers. The electromagnetic suits are scientifically equally ridiculous, but are not met with the incredulity they deserve.

A science court would make rulings based on the best available scientific evidence - the statutes being the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. If an electromagnetic tumor case were to be filed, it would be dismissed before wasting society's resources. A suit against a pharmaceutical company for causing autism would also be dismissed as would a suit to force feed creationism in public schools under the guise of science.

Science evolves to accommodate new evidence. The guiding principles used by the judges of science court would be adjusted to take into account new discoveries. In short, science court would provide the most current and up-to-date information to ensure that judgments are made on the basis of the best available evidence rather than emotional bias or political philosophy. Judges, who are experts in the law, are well qualified to deliver verdicts pertaining to legal matters. Individuals who are well versed in the scientific method should rule on issues that are based on scientific principles, and to set precedents that would be used by the legal system. It is time that we recognize that science is not legislated, but discovered as a result of carefully-designed experiments that minimize bias.

Bias colors the perceived fairness of an outcome, even when each party draws on the same facts. To be ignorant of the established scientific consensus when deliberating a settlement is unconscionable. To purposefully ignore or obfuscate the facts to obtain a favorable outcome is criminal, especially when championing an ideology . To me, fairness starts with a process of evaluating and accepting the scientific consensus and using it as the bedrock of the laws. The establishment of an independent judicial branch that codifies the best science into a practical form is a necessary step for moving forward into a future that is both dependent upon and threatened by the technologies that science has enabled.

There is No Shortage of Scientists

In her article on, "The Real Science Gap," writer Beryl Lieff Benderly points out that there is no shortage of scientists. Rather, there is a shortage of high quality jobs:

It’s not insufficient schooling or a shortage of scientists. It’s a lack of job opportunities. Americans need the reasonable hope that spending their youth preparing to do science will provide a satisfactory career.

She goes on to describe what every Ph.D. student learns firsthand upon earning his or her degree. Full-time job openings in physics and related areas are not the norm. According to a recent report by the American Institute of Physics, "About 60% of the new PhD's in the classes of 2005 and 2006 accepted postdocs after receiving their degree..."

"...An academic position at a college or university remains the prevailing long-term employment outcome to which most new physics PhDs aspire. The majority (76%) of individuals who had a long-term goal to work in a college or university position accepted a postdoctoral appointment after receiving their degree. A postdoc is typically expected as a necessary step to obtain such a position. New PhDs who aspired to a career within the civilian government or at national labs also had a high proportion (77%) accepting postdocs upon completing their degree"

Having experience in both academics and industry, I have found that students who aspire to work in academics or the national labs are lured by intellectual stimulation. This is not to say that industrial physicists are dolts. In my 5-year tenure at Bell Labs as a member of technical staff (1985-1990), I interacted with many very bright and dynamic individuals.

Back then, Bell Labs was a huge operation distributed over 22 geographic locations, employing about 20,000 individuals - a minority of which were researchers (many of them were office staff, accountants, etc.). That still left a large number of researchers that were doing varied jobs. Some labs were chartered to develop a particular product, and thus focused on a scientifically narrow goal. Other labs, like the one in which I worked, gave its scientists the best facilities and the freedom to pursue science. Some of the science was focused on areas that could potentially make a profit (my work), whereas other labs had the luxury of working on esoteric topics. Bell Labs used sexy research to enhance its public image, and to attract the best and brightest.

Ninety percent of the researchers that I considered top-notch scientists ended up in academics. The others, who had an interest in developing products and serving humanity through technological advances remained in industry, some of whom are high-level managers at large high-tech companies whose products we all know and use.

People that remain on the academic track are willing to spend six to eight years getting a Ph.D. degree followed by about 5 years of relatively low-paying post doc positions in hope of getting the rare assistant professor position, after which it takes an additional 6 years to maybe get tenure and lifelong job security.

I was willing to jump through the hoops, not because I wanted a guaranteed income for the rest of my life, but because I wanted to have the guarantee of perpetual intellectual stimulation and the resources for making new discoveries. Teaching and research provide the kind of high that makes the whole crazy process worth it. Those who fail may disagree.

This brings up the winner-takes-all system of incentives that seems to be more common in the U.S. than elsewhere. In many European countries, the typical high school student is already pigeon-holed into a career path. In contrast, the U.S. system is a war of attrition. The best undergraduates get into grad school. The best Ph.D. students get the top-notch post doc positions, the best of whom get faculty positions.

The academic path is similar to the entrepreneurial path. Many individuals work for years, some for decades, motivated by the small chance of making millions of dollars. And money is not always the motivation. Many entrepreneurs delight in the idea that their product might save lives or make life more meaningful.

Independent of the motivation or the activity, the common thread is that many people are working very hard over long periods of time with little compensation in hope of reaping the benefits of their labor. The question I find most interesting: is this system the most efficient in providing society with the most benefit?

It is difficult to answer this question, but let's consider the narrower topic of the merits of rewarding a small cadre of winners. Conservatives would say that entrepreneurs deserve the money they make because they earned it. Liberals might counter that no-one deserves such a high monetary payout.

These polar-opposite responses miss what I believe to be the important point. Innovation in science, commerce, the arts, or any other worthwhile activity requires not only lots of hard work, but all sorts of crazy ideas need to be tried and culled in a process similar to Darwinian evolution.

Recall that evolution requires reproduction, mutations/variations, and selection. In a free market, good ideas or products propagate between human hosts, wacky ideas or products are the mutations, and the selection process resides in the willingness of the consumers to shell out valuable resources in exchange for the new product. The free market system encourages "mutations" by promising huge rewards to the winners. It is this promise that fuels innovation. The winners do not deserve their rewards based on the intrinsic value of their contribution (whatever that means), their hard work, or their intelligence. Rather, the promise of rewards drives the players to participate. Limiting the steep reward structure would limit the needed fluctuations that send tendrils of innovation into uncharted territory.

The same may be true in science. If resources are not sufficient to grant tenure to all the brightest people with Ph.D.s, perhaps the dangling of the coveted tenured position as a reward motivates scientists to differentiate themselves. Consider Alan Guth's inflationary model of the universe, which he reported at the end of a decade-long string of temporary post doc positions. In addition to getting him a faculty position at MIT and several prestigious awards, his work has been extremely influential in cosmology and forms the foundations of a theory of the early universe. There are undoubtedly tens of physicists who fail for every Alan Guth who succeeds.

It may appear heartless to curse bright individuals with advanced degrees to years of temporary positions and unemployment. However, such individuals have the skills to seek alternative employment opportunities in engineering, finance, industry labs, and start-up companies that offer potentially lucrative careers. It's a choice left to the individual.

So, while it may not be possible to prove this hypothesis, I posit that perhaps our form of capitalism attracts risk takers that thrive in a winner-takes-all competition, leading to the fluctuations that are required for innovation.

The mantra that we need to "train more scientists for the future" has been around at least since I was an undergraduate in the 1970s. I have yet to see huge shortages of talent. When domestic talent dries up, the foreign pipeline gushes open. On the other side of the issue, Benderly bemoans the lack of job opportunities and the need to provide more meaningful employment to attract the brightest students. Both extreme positions point to the same conclusion. The supply of PhD scientists seeking academic positions exceeds demand.

My essay may appear to be the self-serving pontifications of a tenured academic who does not care about all the poor souls who have lost the academic marathon. On the contrary, I write this as would a father informing his son about the realities of life. I would counsel my son to follow his heart based on full knowledge of the facts, and to work with full intensity knowing the odds. In fact, I have a son who is a Ph.D. student in Physics, and this is the advice I continue to give to him.