- #1
Okki2
- 40
- 0
my friend told me that chemists are failed physicists. like security guards are failed cops. any truth to this?
Okki2 said:my friend told me that chemists are failed physicists. like security guards are failed cops. any truth to this?
Okki2 said:i mean its basically take a acid and base and you get a salt and water...
Okki2 said:i mean its basically take a acid and base and you get a salt and water...
confinement said:I totally agree Danger, it is just one man's opinion (albeit a great man who supported his opinions with rhetorical arguments) blown way out of proportion. But I do maintain that greek philosophy is where this whole nonsense about "X is a better thinker than Y" got started. Personally I avoid the words "intelligent", "smart", "dumb" etc in favor of the less ambiguous "quick", "accurate", "good memory", "creative", etc.
If the question was "who thinks more about the fundamental nature of space, time, energy and matter?" then the answer would be physicists, and if the question was "who is more successful at creating predictive models which can be used to benefit society?" then the answer would be chemists.
anirudh215 said:I'll say it's a hell of a lot of fun! Imagine this if you haven't seen it. You have this red solution in front of you. If it turns blue when you add some other solution it has a H+ or OH- or something. (I don't remember litmus colors. I always mix up. Look that up.) If your solution on addition of Magnesia mixture goes sky-blue, it contains Magnesium. If you add Nessler's re-agent and NaOH, and the solution goes orange, then it contains ammonia. Isn't that awesome?? It's one big puzzle. Like a Rubik's cube, only its not a cube, but more pieces to the puzzle. Don't tell me you don't like puzzles?
jobyts said:But, there is no chemical observation that cannot be explained by chemists, right? That makes it less interesting.
Cyrus said:You just replaced something bad, with something just as bad.
I don't think you understand what physicists or chemists do.
Okki2 said:my friend told me that chemists are failed physicists. like security guards are failed cops. any truth to this?
khemix said:No that is stupid. There are a lot of physicists I know who could not stand organic chemistry. Likewise, many chemists cringe at the thought of vector calculus.
I would say chemistry is easier to learn because it is very concrete, unlike physics. However, people don't drop down into chemistry because they can't handle physics. Difficulty is not the only factor people have for declaring a major. It has mostly to do with interest and future prospects. And some people are just better at learning certain things over others.
confinement said:Your right, I just couldn't stop my inherent bias from coming through, and for the record I do look down on chemists!
The reason I look down on them is because their mathematical sophistication tends to be lower then that of theoretical physicists.
This argument does not apply to artistic geniuses, because of the dichotomic nature of life, on one hand we have art/yin/dionysian aspects and on the other hand life has logical/yang/apollonian aspects. These latter aspects of life are most practiced by logicians, mathematicians, philosophers, and theoretical physicists. These people search for non-trivial universal and necessary truths i.e. synthetic a priori propositions. Chemists practice the same apolonian aspects of life but at an inferior level, by fully embracing knowledge a posteriori with their myriad of empirical relations (one could ague that physicists are guilty of the same, and I would concede, but clearly chemists are guity to a greater extent).
Actually, Cyrus I suspect that you and I define these vocations in incompatible ways. I claim that to you a physicist is a typical holder of a doctoral degree in 2009, while for me these classes of folks are too mundane and insignificant to merit discussion. For me a physicist is an ideal type that has been manifested only imperfctly and even then only in those who are generally regarded as among the greatest contributors to the subject in history (one is reminded of Kierkegaard's remark that "they are not so uncommon, there are at least 10 christians in copenhagen alone").
Almost by definition chemists have given up on seeking truth and are content to find 'a certain fictive hypothesis which suffices to explain many phenomena' (a quote by Leonard Euler, seemingly undermining my point {since Euler was a great mathematician and physicist} but as I stated earlier the chemist are guilty of this comprimise to a higher degree).
Cyrus said:That's a pretty stupid thing to say, IMO.
O-kay...
<chuckle> what a load of crap.
Actually, confinement, I know what I'm talking about and you don't.
Sigh, okay.
confinement said:I find your 'response' to be antagonistic, defensive, and lacking in content. Something about this thread strikes a bone in you, Cyrus, there must be some reason why you would immediately reply to me with schoolyard level insults. I would be happy to argue with you, but you have to state why you think such-and-such 'was a stupid thing to say' in order for a discussion to take place.
Beware the notion of 'humility' as a virtue, this was put into place by the weak majority in order to protect themselves from the strong minority. It is as if a bunch of sheep were able to protect themselves from the wolves by calling the wolves 'arrogant.'
For me a physicist is an ideal type that has been manifested only imperfctly and even then only in those who are generally regarded as among the greatest contributors to the subject in history (one is reminded of Kierkegaard's remark that "they are not so uncommon, there are at least 10 christians in copenhagen alone").
Cyrus said:Let me put it to you this way, I'm not a chemist; however, even as a non-chemist I'm insulted by your comments for all chemists.
What you have posted is both ignorant
, and insulting
, and shows a general lack of appreciation or understanding of chemistry.
Spare me your humility talk, and spend that time reading a book instead.
What you've posted is crap and I'm not going to let that slide.
What is this nonsense? You're in a physicsforum try askings the actual physicists what it means to be one instead of using some 'philosophical' mumbo-jumbo definition pulled out of kierkegaards butt.
gravenewworld said:So if chemists are failed physicists, does that mean physicists are simply failed mathematicians?
confinement said:As an undergraduate I took intro chemistry and physical chemistry (an upper division course for chem majors) and I dominated that course (mostly because the chemists had to approach it as a math class, while for me the math was elementary and I just wanted to learn more about chemistry).
Are you already so familiar with Nietzsche's deconstruction of christian humility as an obstacle to human progress ? Is it because you are unwilling to face the idea that this might be true ?
Of course, telling your debate opponent to 'go read a book' is the high school version of playground insults.
"and for the record I do look down on chemists!
First of all, proof by authority is logically invalid. Second, just because someone has a degree in physics (sadly) does not mean they know about the history of great physicists, so it is unlikely that such a person would choose to define physicists as an ideal type (an idea that goes back to Plato, the Keirkegaard comment was an aside).
Furthermore, I hold a degree in physics as well as one in mathematics and another in philosophy. The entire business of philosophy is to think, to examine the things that ordinary people take for granted, such as most people with physics degrees (my classmates) taking for ganted that they are physicists without 'worrying too much' about their overall place in the universe. Well, I have thought for myself, I don't depend on the traditional definitions of authorities.
confinement said:I do look down on chemists!
The reason I look down on them is because their mathematical sophistication tends to be lower then that of theoretical physicists.
look down on somebody/something
to consider someone or something as not important or of value look down your nose at somebody/something “A lot of people look down on us because we're homeless,” she says.
rootX said:I didn't know that we use mathematical sophistication as one of the criteria for judging what's valuable.
Making the statements you have given your background in science speaks even worse for you.
gravenewworld said:Hey look at me!
My mathematical penis is bigger than yours. Aren't I special now?
This entire thread is garbage.