Are Chemists Less Esteemed Than Physicists?

[Okki2]

my friend told me that chemists are failed physicists. like security guards are failed cops. any truth to this?

 

[Borek]

About as much as to the statement that singers are failed painters.

 

[confinement]

The ancient greek philosopher Aristotle noticed that our capability for abstract, rational thought was the primary quality which differentiated us from the lower animals. This formed a cornerstone of his thought, and so he ranked vocations in this order:

1) Philosopher
2) Mathematician
3) Physicist
4) Applied Scientist
5) Soldier
6) Artisan

that is, the work becomes less desirable with decreasing abstraction and increasing pragmatism. I apologize for launching into a long historical story, but Aristotle's influence is such that his thought is basically the source of the elitist ranking (from most to least elite) "math > physics > chemistry > biology > ...".

I feel that chemists work more hours then physicists in school (lots of long laboratory work), and their research work has more direct practical consequence for society.

 

[Gnosis]

my friend told me that chemists are failed physicists. like security guards are failed cops. any truth to this?

If I were you, I'd start looking for a smarter friend...

 

[harvellt]

I'm a physics major and about half way through my second semester of Organic Chem and it is by far the hardest class I have taken in my academic life. I have full respect for chemists.

 

[Okki2]

i mean its basically take a acid and base and you get a salt and water...

 

[Borek]

i mean its basically take a acid and base and you get a salt and water...

If that's all you (or your friend) know(s) about chemistry, I am not surprised by the conclusion.

 

[Dadface]

i mean its basically take a acid and base and you get a salt and water...

If that's all it is you should be able to explain why Tetrahedral complexes of the type ML4 do not exhibit geometrical isomerism.Is it because the ligands are equidistant?I haven't got a clue what I have written about here?
In England it has been a long enjoyed tradition for chemists physicists and biologists to take the mickey out of each other.Because of the work that is currently going on in genetics I think that biology is the biggest science at the present time.

 

[Danger]

Loathe though I am to contradict one of the greatest thinkers in history, Aristotle blew it big-time. Some minds might be more naturally drawn to certain endeavours than others, but that doesn't mean that they're superior. Was Linus Pauling a better thinker than Steven Spielberg?

 

[confinement]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

You just replaced something bad, with something just as bad. I don't think you understand what physicists or chemists do.

 

[gravenewworld]

Stop feeding the troll please.

 

[Brilliant!]

I don't agree with everything Aristotle has said on this topic. What I do agree with is his reverence for the philosopher.

 

[Bladibla]

I would say it is not true at all.

As a chemist myself, you might say I am biased, but at university level (at least) from what I observed the level of knowledge in each of the science disciplines is so specific that is is virtually impossible to compare. The level of knowledge required to know about, say, organometallic chemistry (my personal worst part...) would be much different of those required in general relativity for example, but they would be in their respective courses as hard as each other.

Having said that, it would be true (i think) to say Chemistry *is* a branch of physics; in fact, if you're being a really nitpicker, then all the disciplines are some form of physics. But that doesn't mean to imply at all that they are not as difficult as the other. The way I see it, If a Father and his son were to test their abilities, would the father be superior by virtue of the fact that he is older and gave life the to latter?

 

[WiFO215]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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?

Mine turns to gold. My gold cannon, BOOM!

 

[jobyts]

But, there is no chemical observation that cannot be explained by chemists, right? That makes it less interesting.

 

[Cyrus]

But, there is no chemical observation that cannot be explained by chemists, right? That makes it less interesting.

What...?

 

[confinement]

You just replaced something bad, with something just as bad.

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).

I don't think you understand what physicists or chemists do.

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).

 

[khemix]

my friend told me that chemists are failed physicists. like security guards are failed cops. any truth to this?

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.

 

[Cyrus]

Guys, the level of comments here is comedic at best. Please, for your own sake just stop. The level of ignorance is astounding.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

Hmmmm... you just disqualified yourself from commenting. Really, this is hog-wash.

 

[Cyrus]

Your right, I just couldn't stop my inherent bias from coming through, and for the record I do look down on chemists!

That's a pretty stupid thing to say, IMO.

The reason I look down on them is because their mathematical sophistication tends to be lower then that of theoretical physicists.

O-kay...

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).

<chuckle> what a load of crap.

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").

Actually, confinement, I know what I'm talking about and you don't.

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).

Sigh, okay.

 

[confinement]

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.

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.'

 

[Cyrus]

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.'

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.

For example:

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").

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.

 

[confinement]

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.

How weak of you.

What you have posted is both ignorant

(* detail needed *)

, and insulting

Somethings are more important than peoples feelings.

, and shows a general lack of appreciation or understanding of chemistry.

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).

Spare me your humility talk, and spend that time reading a book instead.

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.

What you've posted is crap and I'm not going to let that slide.

Back to the playground, well I'm not going to let you (play with the) slide either!

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.

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.

 

[gravenewworld]

What is with the hard on for being mathematically sound? I graduated with degrees in both mathematics and chemistry. I've studied pure mathematics like Hilbert spaces, logic & computational theory, and lots of analysis and I still say that by far and away some of the chemists I work with are the smartest people I have ever met, even if they would struggle to take the derivative of a simple function.

Who makes your medicine? Who makes the fuel that sends satellites up to outerspace so that you can have your cell phone? Who makes a lot of the components inside of your computer and HDTVs?

Chemists do.




So if chemists are failed physicists, does that mean physicists are simply failed mathematicians?

 

[rootX]

So if chemists are failed physicists, does that mean physicists are simply failed mathematicians?

 

[Cyrus]

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).

Hmmm, why is this relevant?

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 ?

Why is this mumbo-jumbo relevant to the topic at hand?

Of course, telling your debate opponent to 'go read a book' is the high school version of playground insults.

Making the statements you have given your background in science speaks even worse for you. This statement:

"and for the record I do look down on chemists!

Is pathetic by any measure.

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).

Again with the philosophical mumbo jumbo?

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.

You must be proud of yourself.

 

[rootX]

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.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/look+down+on

Are you referring to that meaning?

I didn't know that we use mathematical sophistication as one of the criteria for judging what's valuable.

 

[confinement]

Thank goodness that XKCD has arrived to defend my basic point!

The discussion of christian humility, and its oppressive force on society, is relevant because 'looking down on chemists' is not pathetic according to every measure, (indeed, XKCD has provided a measure by which it is valid) but it is not allowed according to christian humility.

Also, when you dimiss my comments as 'philosophical mumbo-jumbo' I guess that you are trying to appeal to the stupidity of the masses e.g. 'dis der guy talkin fancy, we oughta string em up, eh boys'. Otherwise, maybe you disrespect philosophy (or fear it) more deeply then my rather mild condescension towards chemistry.

 

[jobyts]

So far here's Cyrus' reply on this thread. We are still waiting for him to make a valid argument...

---------------------------
You just replaced something bad, with something just as bad. I don't think you understand what physicists or chemists do.

Mine turns to gold. My gold cannon, BOOM!

What...?

Guys, the level of comments here is comedic at best. Please, for your own sake just stop. The level of ignorance is astounding.

Hmmmm... you just disqualified yourself from commenting. Really, this is hog-wash.

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.

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.

Hmmm, why is this relevant?
.
.
(There are few more, but I lost interest in cut pasting crap)

 

[confinement]

I didn't know that we use mathematical sophistication as one of the criteria for judging what's valuable.

There are many kinds of value, and pragmatic value is only one of these, aesthetic value is another.

But yes, I do find non-trivial necessary and universal truths (theorems) to be more valuable then all the comforts of modern life that chemistry affords. It is a close call, since without the latter life would be difficult and painful, but without the former it would not be worth living at all.

Making the statements you have given your background in science speaks even worse for you.

If you mean that it speaks worse for my inability to conform and be indoctrinated, then I will take that as a complement. And no amount of implying that I am a shameful element of my profession is going to get me to stop thinking for myself, since I turn the eye of inspection on shame itself and find that it is empty.

 

[gravenewworld]

Hey look at me!

My mathematical penis is bigger than yours. Aren't I special now?


This entire thread is garbage.

 

[confinement]

Hey look at me!
My mathematical penis is bigger than yours. Aren't I special now?
This entire thread is garbage.

Beware these subversive tactics, which attempt to make you ashamed of your stength! Those who are weak would rather such matters not be discussed at all.

 

[chemisttree]

I look down on both Chemists and Physicists... of course I'm 6'4".

EAT IT small CHEMIST! Ha Ha Ha Ha! I TOWER OVER YOU!

Wow! Like, this forum is like sooo AWESOME! (dude)

 

[cpb11]

he ranked vocations in this order:

1) Philosopher

Hmmm... what did Aristotle do for a living again?

 

[Cyrus]

So far here's Cyrus' reply on this thread. We are still waiting for him to make a valid argument...

---------------------------
You just replaced something bad, with something just as bad. I don't think you understand what physicists or chemists do.

Mine turns to gold. My gold cannon, BOOM!

What...?

Guys, the level of comments here is comedic at best. Please, for your own sake just stop. The level of ignorance is astounding.

Hmmmm... you just disqualified yourself from commenting. Really, this is hog-wash.

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.

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.

Hmmm, why is this relevant?
.
.
(There are few more, but I lost interest in cut pasting crap)

Do you have a point?

 

[Cyrus]

Beware these subversive tactics, which attempt to make you ashamed of your stength! Those who are weak would rather such matters not be discussed at all.

Wow, that's hilariously lame. I can't believe you just wrote that - honestly. Did you get this from a comic book?

 

[Cyrus]

Thank goodness that XKCD has arrived to defend my basic point!

The discussion of christian humility, and its oppressive force on society, is relevant because 'looking down on chemists' is not pathetic according to every measure, (indeed, XKCD has provided a measure by which it is valid) but it is not allowed according to christian humility.

Also, when you dimiss my comments as 'philosophical mumbo-jumbo' I guess that you are trying to appeal to the stupidity of the masses e.g. 'dis der guy talkin fancy, we oughta string em up, eh boys'. Otherwise, maybe you disrespect philosophy (or fear it) more deeply then my rather mild condescension towards chemistry.

I don't understand why you have some incessant need to talk about 'christian humility'. What does this thread have to do with christian values? Basically, you want to talk about philosophy because you think it makes you sound smart and knowledgeable. It's doing the opposite.

Im also glad you use a comic strip to defend your position.

Please restrict your posts to the philosophy section of PF. This pointless mumbo-jumbo you're posting is getting out of hand. You are using and abusing scientific disiplines and terms left and right while justifying it by saying its due to "my inability to conform and be indoctrinated".

The moment you stated you look down on chemists (with an ! mark none-the-less), invalidated anything you have to say on this subject.

Example of your ignorance:

But yes, I do find non-trivial necessary and universal truths (theorems) to be more valuable then all the comforts of modern life that chemistry affords. It is a close call, since without the latter life would be difficult and painful, but without the former it would not be worth living at all.

So chemistry is only trivial and unnecessary truths - right. Nice try.

Would you like to throw in some more plato mumbo jumbo to try and justify such an outrageous statement?

 

[NBAJam100]

Otherwise, maybe you disrespect philosophy (or fear it) more deeply then my rather mild condescension towards chemistry.

Your command of the English language amazes me almost as much as your knowledge of philosophy does.

Schoolyard insult, sure. Schoolyard thread, yes. This is going nowhere fast.

 

[confinement]

I don't understand why you have some incessant need to talk about 'christian humility'. What does this thread have to do with christian values?

Why is it pathetic for me to look down on chemists, on the grounds that they have low mathematical sophistication? I agree that it seems arrogant, but why is this a bad thing?

One explanation (put forth not by me, but by great thinkers in modern times) for why arrogance carries a strong negative connotation is that we live in a culture that has long prized the christian virtue of humility. Even if you are not a christian, and you were not raised as a christian, as a member of western society you are still under the unconscious influence of christian values.

In other words, the reason I am questioning christian values in this thread is because otherwise anyone who chooses to hold the elitist (by definition) position of 'looking down on chemists' is going to be accused of being arrogant e.g. the sarcastic 'size of mathematical penis' remark a few posts ago and then the conlclusion of the argument depends on the audience association 'arrogant = bad', a deeply ingrained connotation which I claim is an obstacle to human progress.

Basically, you want to talk about philosophy because you think it makes you sound smart and knowledgeable. It's doing the opposite.

No, I am talking about philosophy because it is relevant (I forgive that your lack of education in this area prevents you from seeing that). As for what opinion you will form of me on this basis, I can honestly say that no thoughts of that kind ever crossed my mind.

Im also glad you use a comic strip to defend your position.

First of all, it is better than nothing, which you have presented.

Second, the fact that XKCD enjoys reasonable popularity is evidence that this joke makes sense to many of us, and my original point in this thread was that there is a common base notion of the elitist rankings of these professions, which agrees exactly with the aristotelian one (aside from philosophy which lately has fallen into a disreputable public perception, which you have tried to exploit several times in this thread against me; at least some forum members are too bright for these tactics).

Please restrict your posts to the philosophy section of PF. This pointless mumbo-jumbo you're posting is getting out of hand. You are using and abusing scientific disiplines and terms left and right while justifiying it by saying its due to "my inability to conform and be indoctrinated".

The real problem is that my posts are best read by an educated person who is willing to suspend judgement and read between the lines (i.e. think) to see that what I am posting is not nonsense.

When you accuse me of abusing 'scientific disciplines and terms' you are attempting to construe me as violating the rules of this forum, but I have only discussed matters of opinion and you will not se me contradicting any accepted scientific facts.

When I say that I was not indoctriated, I mean that I learned the facts without absorbing the thoughtless opinions of the drones who taught them to me.

The moment you stated you look down on chemists (with an ! mark none-the-less), invalidated anything you have to say on this subject.

Within the framework of a polite christian discussion I agree with you, but if you are willing to entertain that arrogance may be valid and even healthy, then I do not see why my opinion is automatically invalidated. What rule of coversation have I broken, if arrogance is fair game?

So chemistry is only trivial and unnecessary truths - right. Nice try.

This is rich --- you have either constructed a straw man, or you have demonstrated how low your perception is by your blatant error in attempting to negate a proposition.

By claiming that chemistry does not contain "non-trivial necessary and universal truths" I am claiming that all the truths of chemistry are either trivial, not necessary (in the sense of logic, as in "the conclusion necessarily follows", since I know you had the ordinary meaning in mind), or not universal. By the way, the trivial truths are things like "Liquids boil at their boiling point" i.e. this is necessary (follows necesssaily by definition) and universal but it is also trivial.

Your mistake is that the negation of a conjunction should be a disjunction, whereas you arrived at a conjunction (I concede it may have been a straw man attempt to waste my time).

Would you like to throw in some more plato mumbo jumbo to try and justify such an outrageous statement?

If that is how name-calling is played, then I have had enough of your Cyrus mumbo-jumbo.

 

[turbo]

Somebody please lock this ignorant thread!

 

[confinement]

Your command of the English language amazes me almost as much as your knowledge of philosophy does.

I'm sure that it does, but the typo that you have found is not a very good illustration of the glorious splendor of knowledge that I have bestowed upon you.

Wow, that's hilariously lame. I can't believe you just wrote that - honestly. Did you get this from a comic book?

Well you had better believe it, there are no limits to how lame I am willing to sound in order to deconstruct the post-modern hyper-fear of arrogance.

I also support locking this thread, before witch-doctor Cyrus gets to spout any more of his mumbo-jumbo-gumbo. That way everyone can return to their ordinary, mundane existence without questioning the moral value to which they hold dear!

 

[Proton Soup]

The ancient greek philosopher Aristotle noticed that our capability for abstract, rational thought was the primary quality which differentiated us from the lower animals. This formed a cornerstone of his thought, and so he ranked vocations in this order:

1) Philosopher
2) Mathematician
3) Physicist
4) Applied Scientist
5) Soldier
6) Artisan

that is, the work becomes less desirable with decreasing abstraction and increasing pragmatism. I apologize for launching into a long historical story, but Aristotle's influence is such that his thought is basically the source of the elitist ranking (from most to least elite) "math > physics > chemistry > biology > ...".

I feel that chemists work more hours then physicists in school (lots of long laboratory work), and their research work has more direct practical consequence for society.

<philosopher hat on> philosophy is for people who can't do any of those other things, but feel compelled to comment on all of it </pho>

 

[confinement]

<philosopher hat on> philosophy is for people who can't do any of those other things, but feel compelled to comment on all of it </pho>

I disagree, you should read the last book of Plato's republic where he describes the career path of a philosopher. At age 18 he/she joins the military, then they spend 8 years studing math and physics, etc.

Also, when I took upper division chemistry I found that the students were mathematically crippled in comparison to students from my departments and I had no problem beating them on all of the tests. Therefore, at least in my case, it is not true that I "couldn't" do chemistry but only that I "wouldn't" choose to. On the otherhand, these chemist-to-be could not have succeeded in mathematics if theirlives depended on it.

 

[NBAJam100]

I'm sure that it does, but the typo that you have found is not a very good illustration of the glorious splendor of knowledge that I have bestowed upon you.

Hail to Lord Confinement! My weak mind has been enlightened! Thank you oh great one!

Good thing that the majority of philosophy isn't pure BS or anything... oh wait...

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it pathetic for me to look down on chemists, on the grounds that they have low mathematical sophistication? I agree that it seems arrogant, but why is this a bad thing?

One explanation (put forth not by me, but by great thinkers in modern times) for why arrogance carries a strong negative connotation is that we live in a culture that has long prized the christian virtue of humility. Even if you are not a christian, and you were not raised as a christian, as a member of western society you are still under the unconscious influence of christian values.

In other words, the reason I am questioning christian values in this thread is because otherwise anyone who chooses to hold the elitist (by definition) position of 'looking down on chemists' is going to be accused of being arrogant e.g. the sarcastic 'size of mathematical penis' remark a few posts ago and then the conlclusion of the argument depends on the audience association 'arrogant = bad', a deeply ingrained connotation which I claim is an obstacle to human progress.



No, I am talking about philosophy because it is relevant (I forgive that your lack of education in this area prevents you from seeing that). As for what opinion you will form of me on this basis, I can honestly say that no thoughts of that kind ever crossed my mind.



First of all, it is better than nothing, which you have presented.

Second, the fact that XKCD enjoys reasonable popularity is evidence that this joke makes sense to many of us, and my original point in this thread was that there is a common base notion of the elitist rankings of these professions, which agrees exactly with the aristotelian one (aside from philosophy which lately has fallen into a disreputable public perception, which you have tried to exploit several times in this thread against me; at least some forum members are too bright for these tactics).




The real problem is that my posts are best read by an educated person who is willing to suspend judgement and read between the lines (i.e. think) to see that what I am posting is not nonsense.

When you accuse me of abusing 'scientific disciplines and terms' you are attempting to construe me as violating the rules of this forum, but I have only discussed matters of opinion and you will not se me contradicting any accepted scientific facts.

When I say that I was not indoctriated, I mean that I learned the facts without absorbing the thoughtless opinions of the drones who taught them to me.



Within the framework of a polite christian discussion I agree with you, but if you are willing to entertain that arrogance may be valid and even healthy, then I do not see why my opinion is automatically invalidated. What rule of coversation have I broken, if arrogance is fair game?



This is rich --- you have either constructed a straw man, or you have demonstrated how low your perception is by your blatant error in attempting to negate a proposition.

By claiming that chemistry does not contain "non-trivial necessary and universal truths" I am claiming that all the truths of chemistry are either trivial, not necessary (in the sense of logic, as in "the conclusion necessarily follows", since I know you had the ordinary meaning in mind), or not universal. By the way, the trivial truths are things like "Liquids boil at their boiling point" i.e. this is necessary (follows necesssaily by definition) and universal but it is also trivial.

Your mistake is that the negation of a conjunction should be a disjunction, whereas you arrived at a conjunction (I concede it may have been a straw man attempt to waste my time).



If that is how name-calling is played, then I have had enough of your Cyrus mumbo-jumbo.

You really enjoy hearing yourself talk. Don't be afraid of the light I shine on you! \sarcasm

 

[confinement]

Ernest Rutherford was the one who said "All science is physics and stamp collection." Ironically Rutherford is remembered as a chemist!

 

[Pythagorean]

Haha, I agree with confinement's semi-trolling. Accusing someone of arrogance is not the same as invalidating what they're saying. In some cases, people will refuse to listen to a logical argument because of the arrogance of its presenter.