Are Chemists Less Esteemed Than Physicists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Okki2
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the perceived hierarchy between chemists and physicists, with participants debating whether chemists are "failed physicists." Aristotle's historical ranking of disciplines is referenced, placing philosophers and mathematicians above physicists and chemists. Participants argue that while physicists may engage in more abstract thought, chemists contribute significantly to practical applications and societal benefits. The discussion concludes that both fields require distinct skill sets and cannot be directly compared in terms of superiority.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Aristotle's philosophical hierarchy of sciences
  • Basic knowledge of chemistry and physics concepts
  • Familiarity with the educational paths of chemists and physicists
  • Awareness of the societal impacts of scientific research
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Aristotle's influence on modern scientific disciplines
  • Explore the differences in educational requirements for chemistry and physics majors
  • Investigate the societal contributions of chemists versus physicists
  • Learn about the role of empirical research in chemistry compared to theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in the sciences, educators discussing the value of different scientific disciplines, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of scientific hierarchies.

  • #61
confinement said:
If I really thought that philosophers did not say anything meaningful then I would put them in the same category as raving lunatics. Do you look down on raving lunatics? Let's leave mental illness out of this, let's say that they choose to be lunatics (actually I guess that is the popular definition of a philosopher).

Maybe it is just a language problem; do you look up to some professions more than others ? Then, if later in life you belonged to one of the professions that you held in higher esteem but your rankings had stayed the same, wouldn't you then be looking down on the careers that you previously had looked up to less?

For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing. When I was young I could say "I look down at criminals and capitalists, I look up to chemists and engineers, and I look up to to physicists to an even greater degree." Now that I am a physicist I am required to 'look down' at chemists in order to maintain self-consistency, but that doesn't mean that I think chemist are bad, just less good.

Wow, you're rationalizing your own arrogance.

I'd like to know how you reconsile:

"For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing."

with:

"I look down on chemists"


Mumbo-Jumbo-Gumbo!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #62
And ? Did you find the rationalization to be rational ?
 
  • #63
confinement said:
If I really thought that philosophers did not say anything meaningful then I would put them in the same category as raving lunatics. Do you look down on raving lunatics? Let's leave mental illness out of this, let's say that they choose to be lunatics (actually I guess that is the popular definition of a philosopher).

Maybe it is just a language problem; do you look up to some professions more than others ? Then, if later in life you belonged to one of the professions that you held in higher esteem but your rankings had stayed the same, wouldn't you then be looking down on the careers that you previously had looked up to less?

For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing. When I was young I could say "I look down at criminals and capitalists, I look up to chemists and engineers, and I look up to to physicists to an even greater degree." Now that I am a physicist I am required to 'look down' at chemists in order to maintain self-consistency, but that doesn't mean that I think chemist are bad, just less good.

Well if you are talking about it in terms of you respecting one more than another, I understand. I interpreted your looking down on comments in a more disrespectful way than you intended I guess. Maybe you could have used a less harsh term to get your point across... If you feel superior to chemists (in a non disrespectful way), that's fine, its your opinion. No beef... errr gumbo... here
 
  • #64
everybody is a philosopher, it seems. there's a reason philosophy is a lounge subforum.
 
  • #65
confinement said:
And ? Did you find the rationalization to be rational ?

Nope.

"Chemists are not bad, just less good".

That's a pretty ambiguous statement. Actually, its a statement of disrespect towards chemists.
 
  • #66
Proton Soup said:
everybody is a philosopher, it seems. there's a reason philosophy is a lounge subforum.

I only see one "philosopher" here. Everyone else is trying to fend his trickery off!
 
  • #67
Cyrus and NBAJam, I say without sarcasm that you really have gotten through to me. I never meant that chemists were bad or unworthy of respect and admiration. As I said, I am only maintaining self consistency.

Cyrus said:
I'd like to know how you reconsile:

"For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing."

with:

"I look down on chemists"

The reconcilliation occurs as purely logical technicality. I have always considered physicists to be greater than chemists, and I am physicist, therefore I look down on chemists.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K