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.Don harwood said: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...
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.russ_watters said: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."
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.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.
I live about 20 miles from West Chester, by the way. This means I need to up my game considerably.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.
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."
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.zoobyshoe said: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.
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.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.
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.Pythagorean said: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.
But earlier you said:russ_watters said: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.
russ_watters said:If you have a phd in physics and you serve drinks, you are a bartender, not a physicist.
russ_watters said: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 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.zoobyshoe said:But earlier you said:
*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!Pythagorean said: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 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.Pythagorean said: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").
Your criteria is jumping around. The earlier quote says that, even with a PhD, he could only call himself a Patent Examiner.russ_watters 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.
Pythagorean caused that by citing Einstein circa 1905, not me.zoobyshoe said:Your criteria is jumping around. The earlier quote says that, even with a PhD, he could only call himself a Patent Examiner.
russ_watters said:So, what did you win?
What argument was misrepresented, and how?Pythagorean said:Well, my argument has been misrepresented...
Proving competency is done (in part) through demonstrating rigor to a recognized authority.Don harwood said: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.
Ben Niehoff said: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!
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.russ_watters said: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?
zoobyshoe said: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).
Khashishi said: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.
The question is whether or not you would shift your criteria if Einstein had already completed his PhD and been employed as a physicist when he wrote his famous 5 papers. And whether you would shift it the other way if he had only completed his undergraduate work and not started a PhD yet. In other words, I think you're fitting your criteria to Einstein's situation as it was, because he's too huge to ignore, even though you'd rather have much more stringent criteria. In my mind, Einstein was a full-fledged physicist at that time, not because he was a PhD candidate, but because of the knowledge and expertize he possessed. I mean, he pretty much out-thought everyone in play at the time with those 5 papers, didn't he?Ryan_m_b said: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?
I think it would be perfectly normal and acceptable for an out of work physicist to call him/her self a physicist. It's a career, not merely employment. Feynman worked for a time, I think about a year, as a research chemist. I don't think he would have been misrepresenting himself to call himself a physicist during that time. It was a side excursion when he couldn't find the work he really wanted. At Los Alamos he ended up doing more work in computer science than anything else. There was also the time he was commissioned to do a painting for a massage parlor. (Absolutely true.) I don't feel he should have felt obligated to stop referring to himself as a physicist during those other paid activities. His career was physics.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.
I've already said that you can have Einstein as an exception if you want him, just to get us off of that. But I don't think it really helps your point to try to create a rule-of-thumb around a singularly unique individual. Or, at least, it doesn't help me understand your point.zoobyshoe said:The question is whether or not you would shift your criteria if Einstein had already completed his PhD and been employed as a physicist when he wrote his famous 5 papers. And whether you would shift it the other way if he had only completed his undergraduate work and not started a PhD yet. In other words, I think you're fitting your criteria to Einstein's situation as it was, because he's too huge to ignore, even though you'd rather have much more stringent criteria. In my mind, Einstein was a full-fledged physicist at that time, not because he was a PhD candidate, but because of the knowledge and expertize he possessed. I mean, he pretty much out-thought everyone in play at the time with those 5 papers, didn't he?
I agree. And that "only reason" is what applies almost all of the time because almost all of the time, that's the only way to demonstrate it. It's like Lombardi said: it isn't just the only thing, it's everything.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 agree.I think it would be perfectly normal and acceptable for an out of work physicist to call him/her self a physicist. It's a career, not merely employment.
Not just the naive: everyone needs protection from charlatans.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).
No one has claimed that a job title guarantees competence. But lack of job title and/or educational background is nearly a guarantee of incompetence.Pythagorean said:It's "job titles can be misleading too"...[example: Andrew Wakefield]
I already agreed to that....and that "without qualifiers, context is important"...
Disagree, and I already provided an example of an amateur astronomer who accomplished what basically represents the pinnacle of what an amatur can do. Despite that, he went out of his way to emphasize his amateur status. So if he can't do it, I don't see how anyone could. Please provide at least a hypothetical example of context where you think that substitution/omission would be acceptable....and that "amateur astronomer" and "professional astronomer" are a subset of "astronomer".
Please reread the OP: It focused entirely on employment. He was basically asking if there are any job titles that say "physicist" without requiring a phd."What do you do" wasn't what the OP, asked; his question seemed more general to me and employment was just one factor.
One of my favorite TV shows, "Scrubs", dedicated an entire episode to that issue. The show followed a group of doctors for 8 years, starting with their internship.Ben Niehoff said: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.
"Engineer" is probably the most complicated, mostly because of the existence of professional engineer registration. Most engineers, however, never get PEs because they work in fields where they don't get government building permits. My dad was an engineer in the steel and industrial gas industries for some 40 years and only ran across a few PEs among the hundreds or thousands of engineers he worked with in that time.anorlunda said: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.
I don't present Einstein as an exception. I present him as a particularly clear example of why we call anyone a physicist: expertize in physics.russ_watters said:I've already said that you can have Einstein as an exception if you want him, just to get us off of that. But I don't think it really helps your point to try to create a rule-of-thumb around a singularly unique individual. Or, at least, it doesn't help me understand your point.
Yes, but Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Sports figures say stuff.I agree. And that "only reason" is what applies almost all of the time because almost all of the time, that's the only way to demonstrate it. It's like Lombardi said: it isn't just the only thing, it's everything.
I suppose, but debunkers aren't lexicographers. Lexicographers don't police the words they define. They gather multitudes of examples of how people use the word and deduce what the majority use it to mean. (Debunkers don't necessarily police words, either, but that's what you're ending up doing here.)Not just the naive: everyone needs protection from charlatans.
You don't consider Einstein signularly unique? You seemed to be arguing that he was someone for whom the rule needed to be re-written. And he certainly isn't clear, as an example, to me. Because Einstein is unique and you could pick one of several different dates and resumes of his to judge (and it appears you and Pythagorean have mixed and matched), both with or without hindsight, it isn't at all clear which you would select, how you would judge, and why. It just seems to me like you are saying, "Look, you'd exclude Einstein so your criteria must be wrong!" without saying what your criteria is that you think would work and applying it...and without recognizing that I wouldn't exclude Einstein. Please clarify your criteria.zoobyshoe said:I don't present Einstein as an exception. I present him as a particularly clear example of why we call anyone a physicist: expertize in physics.
Since you didn't disagree with what I said, I'll assume you recognize that I (and the others) are correct.Yes, but Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Sports figures say stuff.
I have no idea what you are talking about with that.I suppose, but debunkers aren't lexicographers. Lexicographers don't police the words they define. They gather multitudes of examples of how people use the word and deduce what the majority use it to mean. (Debunkers don't necessarily police words, either, but that's what you're ending up doing here.)
No. He is someone who clarifies what the rule actually is. You claimed the rule was either a degree or a paycheck. Einstein's case clarifies that it's actually the person's expertize we are referring to when we call them a physicist. You already agreed I was correct in that. But then you reverted to asserting paycheck and degree, giving the reason these are the only sure indicators of expertize.russ_watters said:You don't consider Einstein signularly unique? You seemed to be arguing that he was someone for whom the rule needed to be re-written.
No, I distained the source of your bolstering quote, which should not be mistaken for non-disagreement.Since you didn't disagree with what I said, I'll assume you recognize that I (and the others) are correct.
I have no idea what you are talking about with that.
Zooby said:I think you (and Ryan) are approaching the question in a completely different way [edit:than me], 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 characterized you and Ryan as policing what people should understand the word (physicist) to mean, instead of simply observing what people mean when they use it. This is more evident in what Ryan says here, than in your posts:Russ said:Not just the naive: everyone needs protection from charlatans.
Ryan is more explicit and detailed about controlling what people should understand the word to mean, but you didn't deny acting as a word policeman, and bolstered that characterization by saying: "...everyone needs protection from charlatans."Ryan_m_b said: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.
I am characterizing you as a debunker (of charlatans), but cautioning that doesn't give you any special insight into word meanings. 'Word meanings' is the province of lexicographers. I described how they go about it. And, I'll be blunt: To unilaterally decide on a meaning you want people to ascribe to a word and insist they do so, is lexicographical crackpottery.Zooby said:I suppose, but debunkers aren't lexicographers. Lexicographers don't police the words they define. They gather multitudes of examples of how people use the word and deduce what the majority use it to mean. (Debunkers don't necessarily police words, either, but that's what you're ending up doing here.)