做研究的人大多都会关注这个问题。
在网上读某个专业人士的博客时，看到了他给出的关于科学研究黄金定律的相关解释和原文连接。我下载了原文看看，抄一部分过来。这个黄金定律的提出者似乎已经过世，但据他说这些黄金定律受到了很多人的肯定，有广泛的共识。
第一定律，属于内部范畴(从自身出发与外界无关的)，那就是：提高自己能力标准到最高，不做常规的事(不走寻常路)。
第二定律，属于外部范畴(与外界事务相关)，那就是：如果在社会认可度和学术意义两者间进行选择的话，那么，请选择后者。当然，如果两者不冲突更好。
第三定律，属于内外兼具的范畴(关系到你和你的同行)，那就是：不要去那些那些你能做好，而你的同行也能做得和你一样好的问题。 分析化学 仪器分析 红外光谱
目前，我还在理解和体会这三条定律。不知道各位看客有何感想?
附原文：
The Three Golden Rules for Successful Scientific
Research.
This note is devoted to three rules, the following of which is
necessary if you want to be successful in scientific research. (If you manage to
follow them, they will prove close to sufficient, but that is another story.)
They are recorded for the benefit of those who would like to be successful in
their scientific research, but fail to be so because, being unaware of these
rules, they violate them. In order to avoid any misunderstanding I would like to
stress, right in its first paragraph, that this note is purely pragmatic: no
moral judgments are implied, and it is completely up to you to decide whether
you wish to regard trying to be successful in scientific research as a noble
goal in life or not. I even leave you the option of not making that decision at
all.
The first rule is an "internal" one: it has nothing to do with
your relation with others, it concerns you yourself in isolation. It is as
follows:
"Raise your quality standards as high as you can live with,
avoid wasting your time on routine problems, and always try to work as closely
as possible at the boundary of your abilities. Do this, because it is the only
way of discovering how that boundary should be moved forward."
This rule tells us that the obviously possible should be
shunned as well as the obviously impossible: the first would not be instructive,
the second would be hopeless, and both in their own way are barren.
The second rule is an "external" one: it deals with the
relation between "the scientific world" and "the real world". It is as
follows:
"We all like our work to be socially relevant and
scientifically sound. If we can find a topic satisfying both desires, we are
lucky; if the two targets are in conflict with each other, let the requirement
of scientific soundness prevail."
The reason for this rule is obvious. If you do a piece of
"perfect" work in which no one is interested, no harm is done, on the contrary:
at least something "perfect"—be it irrelevant—has been added to our culture. If,
however, you offer a shaky, would-be solution to an urgent problem, you do
indeed harm to the world which, in view of the urgency of the problem, will only
be too willing to apply your ineffective remedy. It is no wonder that
charlatanry always flourishes in connection with incurable diseases. (Our second
rule is traditionally violated by social sciences to such an extent that one can
now question if they deserve the name "sciences" at all.)
The third rule is on the scale "internal/external" somewhere
in between: it deals with the relation between you and your scientific
colleagues. it is as follows:
"Never tackle a problem of which you can be pretty sure that
(now or in the near future) it will be tackled by others who are, in relation to
that problem, at least as competent and well-equipped as you."
Again the reason is obvious. If others will come up with as
good a solution as you could obtain, the world doesn't loose a thing if you
leave the problem alone. A corollary of the third rule is that one should never
compete with one's colleagues. If you are pretty sure that in a certain area you
will do a better job than anyone else, please do it in complete devotion, but
when in doubt, abstain. The third rule ensures that your contributions --if
any!-- will be unique.
I have check the Three Golden Rules with a number of my
colleagues from very different parts of the world, living and working under very
different circumstances. They all agreed. And were not shocked either. The rules
may strike you as a bit cruel... If so, they should, for the sooner you have
discovered that the scientific world is not a soft place but --like most other
worlds, for that matter-- a fairly ruthless one, the better. My blessings are
with you.
Plataanstraat 5
5671 AL NUENEN
The Netherlands
prof.dr. Edsger W. Dijkstra
Burroughs Research Fellow
