At what point can one be considered a physicist?

[anorlunda]

It always strikes me as unseemly jealous when people argue that use of titles should be associated with education rather than real world accomplishments.

Speaking as a retired engineer, my nominee for the best engineer of the 20th century is Enrico Fermi. Based on Fermi's Wikipedia article, I see that he had zero education as an engineer.

I am also honored to have known another favorite engineer was Charlie Concordia. Concordia was a Fellow of the IEEE, ASME, and AAAS, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and NSPE, a founder and National Treasurer of the Association for Computing Machinery, and first chairman of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers' Computer Committee, forerunner of the IEEE Computer Society.

Mr. Concordia's education ended with high school. According to some, he had no right to call himself engineer or scientist.

 

[wabbit]

To me, that is the answer to a question, so it depends on the wording of the question. If the question is "What do you do?" then the answer is what you get paid to do (it may not be explicit, but that is what people typically mean when they ask). If you have a phd in physics and you serve drinks, you are a bartender, not a physicist.

So, what is the question that can be answered with "I am a physicist" if you don't have a job doing physics?

I don't know, I'm a patent clerk.

 

[russ_watters]

OK. Now the question is, was Einstein a physicist when he wrote the famous 5 papers which he conceived of while working as a patent examiner?

It would be confusing, at least, to say something like, "Amazing guy! He wasn't even a physicist when he wrote those 5 papers!"

Right. So my little pet peve isn't 100% on point there, but the overall issue is. I described the history above, but to put it another way...
If Einstein walked into a bar in 1904 and someone asked "What do you do?" He'd probably say something like: "I'm a technical patent examiner and physics PhD student."

If the same thing happened in 1906, he might say:
"I'm a technical patent examiner, but recently got my physics phd and published a few papers and I'm looking for a job as a physics professor."

Incidentally, the wiki for "patent clerk is actually titled "patent examiner" and lists the term "patent clerk" as "historical". But the reference for that is an article titled "A Patent Clerk's Legacy", a clear attempt to sensationalize Einstein as a layman.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know, I'm a patent clerk.

Really? Is it a technical or administrative job? Can you link me to a job description?

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree with that (that people shouldn't say they're a physicist as a title before they are when asked "what do you do") but I don't think discussion of what one is is limited to what one "does" (for money). Andrew Wakefield was a con artist ideologically, but a doctor by title. He would have said "I am a doctor" when asked the same question in a bar.

 

[Don harwood]

Every time a baby fals down they are studying physics and Occupation does not define a scientist,

It's in the heart, a desire to know

I'm not a PhD but I am a physicist...

 

[blue_leaf77]

I wonder that I could call myself a super saiyan, you know, I used to idolise the main character of that kid's film Dragon Ball and desired to be like him.

One can be called a physicist regardless of his occupation but as long as he has the sufficient knowledge and capability to be called so. A middle schooler is a beginner in physics and wants to learn it in deeper from that moments on, he is not yet a physicist.

 

[russ_watters]

Every time a baby fals down they are studying physics and Occupation does not define a scientist,

It's in the heart, a desire to know

I'm not a PhD but I am a physicist...

No. The danger here - and it is real danger - is that allows an anti-vax crackpot to claim "I'm a doctor" while giving crackpot anti-vax advice.

Would you allow a person who calls himself a "doctor" to operate on you without knowing if he has a medical degree?

For some professions it is illegal to misrepresent yourself as one, but for the rest it is still at least unethical/improper.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You are not a physicist (or any scientist) unless you are paid to be one or at the very least have contributed to the field in a measured way (i.e. published a paper). With regards to either I'd argue that you can only claim the title if those are ongoing i.e. just because you published a paper once does not mean you can continually call yourself a physicist.

I agree with Russ here that this is more than just semantic debate, it has very serious real world consequences.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Right. So my little pet peve isn't 100% on point there, but the overall issue is. I described the history above, but to put it another way...
If Einstein walked into a bar in 1904 and someone asked "What do you do?" He'd probably say something like: "I'm a technical patent examiner and physics PhD student."

If the same thing happened in 1906, he might say:
"I'm a technical patent examiner, but recently got my physics phd and published a few papers and I'm looking for a job as a physics professor."

I don't disagree, but the thing I want to point at is the fact we automatically consider him to have been a physicist at the time he wrote those papers. "Einstein was a physicist who came up with the theory of relativity." You could write that in any book, or anywhere on the internet, and no mainstream thinker would object. We're calling him a physicist based exclusively on his level of expertise at the time, I'd say. Calling someone by a particular label is often just a matter of recognizing they demonstrated expertise in that field.

Incidentally, the wiki for "patent clerk is actually titled "patent examiner" and lists the term "patent clerk" as "historical". But the reference for that is an article titled "A Patent Clerk's Legacy", a clear attempt to sensationalize Einstein as a layman.

You're probably right about people doing that (sensationalizing), so I suppose it's best to specify that he was a patent examiner to avoid suggesting he was just an office clerk.

 

[russ_watters]

Apropos:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/16/mars-erupting-plumes/23497289/

Amateur astronomers have spotted huge cloudlike plumes erupting from Mars – a phenomenon that scientists are at a loss to explain...

The researchers initially were skeptical, but "we came to the conclusion that what we were seeing is actually real," says study co-author Antonio García Muñoz, a planetary scientist at the European Space Agency. The plumes are "exceptional. … It's difficult to come to terms with this."

This scientific brainteaser first came to light in early 2012, when amateur astronomer Wayne Jaeschke was poring over footage of Mars he had captured at his private observatory. He came across a puzzling image showing the Red Planet with a blob billowing off the planet's rounded edge.

In all his years of peering at Mars, "I'd never seen anything like that," says Jaeschke, a West Chester, Pa., resident who spends about 100 nights a year training his gear on the heavens. He quietly ran the image by a few friends, then circulated it among a larger group of both amateur and professional astronomers.

I live about 20 miles from West Chester, by the way. This means I need to up my game considerably.

The article makes explicit delineation between amateur and professional - despite this being a pretty nice scientific contribution - and Jaeschke isn't conceited about it either:

As an amateur, Jaeschke is happy to let the academics argue over what exactly he saw.

Amateurs "only dabble," he says, so it's "exciting … (to) have seen something that stumped the professionals."

 

[russ_watters]

I don't disagree, but the thing I want to point at is the fact we automatically consider him to have been a physicist at the time he wrote those papers. "Einstein was a physicist who came up with the theory of relativity." You could write that in any book, or anywhere on the internet, and no mainstream thinker would object. We're calling him a physicist based exclusively on his level of expertise at the time, I'd say. Calling someone by a particular label is often just a matter of recognizing they demonstrated expertise in that field.

Yes, and it is certainly a grey line between "physics PhD candidate" and "physics professional". But that was my point here since Einstein was brought-up: he is NOT a good counterexample to my position.

You're probably right about people doing that (sensationalizing), so I suppose it's best to specify that he was a patent examiner to avoid suggesting he was just an office clerk.

Or even better and more relevant: a physics PhD candidate. When asked what qualifications he had for making it worth a reviewer's time to read his paper, I think we can guess which he responded with.

And that was my point here:

He was publishing his most influential work the same year he was completing his thesis. He might not have been a professional physicist but he was already a physicist "at heart".

Quibbling over the word clerk is tangential.

No, he was much more than just "a physicist at heart". Yes my quibble was tangential; what was worse than saying "patent clerk" was not mentioning his physics credentials at all. The statement was more wrong for what it didn't say than for what it did but shouldn't have.

 

[Don harwood]

Splitting hairs is not healthy. Physics is the Study of the physical universe and our place in it. Anyone who studies this with scientific rigor is a physicist. What you quibble over is competency. The comparison to other professions is lame because skill sets are not common.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, he was much more than just "a physicist at heart". Yes my quibble was tangential; what was worse than saying "patent clerk" was not mentioning his physics credentials at all. The statement was more wrong for what it didn't say than for what it did but shouldn't have.

But earlier you said:

If you have a phd in physics and you serve drinks, you are a bartender, not a physicist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, and it is certainly a grey line between "physics PhD candidate" and "physics professional". But that was my point here since Einstein was brought-up: he is NOT a good counterexample to my position.

Or even better and more relevant: a physics PhD candidate. When asked what qualifications he had for making it worth a reviewer's time to read his paper, I think we can guess which he responded with.

And that was my point here:
No, he was much more than just "a physicist at heart". Yes my quibble was tangential; what was worse than saying "patent clerk" was not mentioning his physics credentials at all. The statement was more wrong for what it didn't say than for what it did but shouldn't have.

I didn't say "just", and the point would still stand even if Einstein would have had 3 PhDs in physics since we've already established in the first page of the thread that a PhD isn't enough (^Zooby caught that too). My point about Einstein and my reason for bringing up Andrew Wakefield is that the professional title is insufficient; being something requires an intrinsic adherence to the principles of that job (thus, "ideological").

All the baggage you're carrying of old arguments with laymen that think they're Einstein (I've seen the threads) is a separate discussion that I agree with you on. I feel like the mentor involvement in this thread is kind of PC-oriented about the dangers of that, and I get it, but it misses the broader context.

 

[russ_watters]

But earlier you said:

I also said he was a PhD student. Whether working at a bar or at the patent office, when talking about his early physics accomplishments it is a pretty glaring oversight to say he worked at a patent office and not to mention that he was a PhD candidate.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say "just", and the point would still stand even if Einstein would have had 3 PhDs in physics since we've already established in the first page of the thread that a PhD isn't enough (^Zooby caught that too).

*I* said "just" because you just listed his work at the patent office. I'm not sure, based on your statement, if you even knew of his physics credentials when you said it! That's why it was such a glaring omission!

You are looking for a hair to split in my original statement that isn't there. The only relevant line in that original statement applied to Einstein is between student and professional, not nonpracticing and practicing.

A better try would be his two years after publishing and before he got his first physics job.

Or, whether his patent job was technical enough on its own to qualify.

 

[zoobyshoe]

My point about Einstein and my reason for bringing up Andrew Wakefield is that the professional title is insufficient; being something requires an intrinsic adherence to the principles of that job (thus, "ideological").

I have to agree. At the same time titles imply proper education and vetting, they don't guarantee it. The ability to jump through hoops is a mere demonstration of the ability to jump through hoops.

I also said he was a PhD student. Whether working at a bar or at the patent office, when talking about his early physics accomplishments it is a pretty glaring oversight to say he worked at a patent office and not to mention that he was a PhD candidate.

Your criteria is jumping around. The earlier quote says that, even with a PhD, he could only call himself a Patent Examiner.

 

[russ_watters]

Your criteria is jumping around. The earlier quote says that, even with a PhD, he could only call himself a Patent Examiner.

Pythagorean caused that by citing Einstein circa 1905, not me.

Look guys, you want a win? You want me to say Einstein couldn't call himself a "physicist" for the two years after getting his PhD and before getting his first job in academia despite his job requiring an STEM degree? Arguable, but you can have it. So, what did you win?

 

[Pythagorean]

So, what did you win?

Well, my argument has been misrepresented in a snooty tone. So there's that, I guess. Yay.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, my argument has been misrepresented...

What argument was misrepresented, and how?

 

[Pythagorean]

Well for one, that my interest is in winning an internet argument. I was raising points about the deficiency of a working title. Your jumping to conclusions and carrying on based on an omission. And a completely justified omission since the thing that was omitted was just eliminated as sufficient criteria and the focus was shifted to working title (and you participated in that). I have been on physicsforums long enough to see the threads about Einstein's education and math skills.

 

[Pythagorean]

Once you recognize the extreme case (Andrew Wakefield) as a valid example of when a title's insufficient (and acknowledge that what Wakefield lacked, Einstein had even when he didn't have the title), then we can move onto more debatable cases, like lemons. People that have the title, but don't really do anything productive in research, aren't good teachers, are nothing but problems for administrators. Perhaps they had a brother or father in the department that got them their position, perhaps there was some featherbedding involved. That's the thing about professional titles - they're arrived at via events that aren't always merit-based.

 

[russ_watters]

Splitting hairs is not healthy. Physics is the Study of the physical universe and our place in it. Anyone who studies this with scientific rigor is a physicist.

Proving competency is done (in part) through demonstrating rigor to a recognized authority.

Is it any wonder that scientific literacy is so low and measles is making a comeback when people think so little of science that they would strip it of its status as a profession?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Hell, I have a physics PhD and a postdoc job doing research in physics, and I would consider myself kind of a "provisional" physicist (or maybe mathematician). I wouldn't feel comfortable getting too attached to that title until (unless?) I get a permanent job.

Suggesting you can call yourself by a professional title because you "feel it in your heart" is absurd. Feel free to say you're a hobbyist or an amateur, though; hobbyists and amateurs are great!

 

[Pythagorean]

Hell, I have a physics PhD and a postdoc job doing research in physics, and I would consider myself kind of a "provisional" physicist (or maybe mathematician). I wouldn't feel comfortable getting too attached to that title until (unless?) I get a permanent job.

Suggesting you can call yourself by a professional title because you "feel it in your heart" is absurd. Feel free to say you're a hobbyist or an amateur, though; hobbyists and amateurs are great!

When I said Einstein was a physicist "at heart" and it put it in quotes, I didn't mean "because he felt it in his heart". I just meant, that intrinsically, he was a physicist. Whereas somebody like Andrew Wakefield, who had the title doctor, was not intrinsically a doctor.

 

[Khashishi]

I think you are committing a no true Scotsman fallacy in saying Wakefield was not a doctor (prior to being barred from practice). Certainly, he wasn't a good one, but he was at one point practicing the profession, and he had the education and license to back it up, and he published papers, so I don't think you can retroactively say he wasn't a doctor at the time.

As far as Einstein goes, I think it is common practice outside of academia to call physics grad students who are doing physics research 'physicists', at least when describing a team of researchers in news media. For example, "Physicists at the University of ... find that something interesting happens" often refers to work done by grad students.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Pythagorean caused that by citing Einstein circa 1905, not me.

Look guys, you want a win? You want me to say Einstein couldn't call himself a "physicist" for the two years after getting his PhD and before getting his first job in academia despite his job requiring an STEM degree? Arguable, but you can have it. So, what did you win?

No, the opposite. My approach to the OP's question is to ask myself what people mean when they call someone a physicist. When people call Einstein a physicist before he got his PhD and before he was paid for it, they must be referring to his great knowledge of, and expertize in, physics. In fact, I would argue the only reason a degree and paycheck are ever considered as criteria is that they automatically imply knowledge and expertize.
I think you (and Ryan) are approaching the question in a completely different way, which is to try to police the word, to arrive at criteria delineating who should be called a physicist, with the specific goal of protecting the naive from charlatans (or something like that).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No, the opposite. My approach to the OP's question is to ask myself what people mean when they call someone a physicist. When people call Einstein a physicist before he got his PhD and before he was paid for it, they must be referring to his great knowledge of, and expertize in, physics. In fact, I would argue the only reason a degree and paycheck are ever considered as criteria is that they automatically imply knowledge and expertize.
I think you (and Ryan) are approaching the question in a completely different way, which is to try to police the word, to arrive at criteria delineating who should be called a physicist, with the specific goal of protecting the naive from charlatans (or something like that).

I don't see a problem with calling someone a physicist/biologist/historian/w.e whilst they are doing their PhD. When people refer to Einstein as a physicist are they not always referring to his life as a physicist and not any time before?

My approach to the question is pretty simple: when someone asks you what you do 99% of the time they are asking about your employment, if you respond that you're a physicist then that should be because you are employed as one. The only alternative I can think of that would be acceptable would be if you weren't a physicist most of the time but did regularly contribute papers. Partly this is to protect against abuse but mostly it's because I can't see anything else that makes sense, regardless of job.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think you are committing a no true Scotsman fallacy in saying Wakefield was not a doctor (prior to being barred from practice). Certainly, he wasn't a good one, but he was at one point practicing the profession, and he had the education and license to back it up, and he published papers, so I don't think you can retroactively say he wasn't a doctor at the time.

As far as Einstein goes, I think it is common practice outside of academia to call physics grad students who are doing physics research 'physicists', at least when describing a team of researchers in news media. For example, "Physicists at the University of ... find that something interesting happens" often refers to work done by grad students.

Wakefield was not just a bad doctor. He was a con-artist that looked to profit from intentional misinformation. He violated the hippocratic oath. He published papers that he knew had false information in them. This is an extreme example, but this isn't uncommon (particulalry in the medical sciences):

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

You're misunderstanding the Scottsman fallacy (or my conclusion); my conclusion isn't "Andrew Wakefield is therefore not a doctor".
It's "job titles can be misleading too" and that "without qualifiers, context is important" and that "amateur astronomer" and "professional astronomer" are a subset of "astronomer".

"What do you do" wasn't what the OP, asked; his question seemed more general to me and employment was just one factor.