On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vorl Bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote: > > >> > > Gene went from a top academic career to working in a >> > > warehouse at night to feed his family. >> > > >> > >> > He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, >> > no. >> > > In my opinion, being the science writer at MIT puts you at the top of your > career. > Maybe I'm quibbling, but it's not an academic career was the point. An academic career, to me, involves primarily research. And a top academic career would be a chair at a university or director of a research institute. A science writer is a journalist. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not usually considered academic. Some people, like Sagan, mixed them successfully, > Gene knew every major science writer in the U.S., many other writers such > as Arthur Clarke, and hundreds of scientists worldwide. This was before the > Internet. He had hundreds of important people in his Rolodex, and file > cabinets full of correspondence from them. I spent a lot of time in his > office wading through old correspondence. > > You did not know him. You did not spend weeks at his house, as I did. You > do know what he accomplished, or what difficulties he faced. > Completely irrelevant. I didn't know Feynman, but I know he had a top academic career. I didn't know Clarke, but I know he didn't. I don't know Gary Taubes, but I know he doesn't either.
