At what point can one be considered a physicist?

[zoobyshoe]

To put it simply, Zooby's point is that experts don't own words and their scope (nobody owns them), society and common use dictates what they are.

That's right. The dictionary is a true and natural democracy. Majority rules. You look in the dictionary to find out what most people mean when they use a word. Lexicographers spend their time collecting examples of usage and derive their definitions from those.

There is an extremely interesting book called "The Professor and the Madman," which is the true story of the creation of the famous Oxford English Dictionary. That particular dictionary specializes in the history of usage, and you get an inside look at the whole process of how they painstakingly collect and sort examples of word usages dating back centuries to give the history of how a word has evolved over time. All dictionaries are constantly being updated. Meanings are derived from usage, not decided by committee.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Zooby you're taking it to an absolutely absurd degree by characterising my statements as policing what people should say. In what possible way am I policing? I'm not enforcing any doctrine or campaigning for any definition, I'm painting in no uncertain terms what I think is a reasonable use of the term.

You also seem to be arguing a bizarre double standard in which the dictionary definition is gospel because it's democratic and formed from how people use the word but my definition is instead tyrannical and policing. Some have both consensus and dismissal of anything that doesn't match with that? Sound reasoning there...

 

[russ_watters]

To put it simply, Zooby's point is that experts don't own words and their scope (nobody owns them), society and common use dictates what they are.

That's true for "physicist" and not true for "professional engineer" or "[medical] doctor" (the government owns those terms), but since the expert opinion and common usage are aligned, that isn't an issue that needs to be hashed-out. Let me repeat that from the other direction:

What you and zooby are arguing contradicts the commonly accepted usage/context of those terms.

You wanted a hypothetical example, but I can do a little better with an anecdote...

Ok, now I understand the angle. None of what I have been arguing applies to someone else mis-labeling you and certainly nothing said in the context of a joke need be taken seriously, much less corrected. In most such contexts, it is not necessary to correct someone because there is no implied claim of accuracy to warrant a correction. They are just throw-away jokes.

However, I can't comment on your first example because it seems to have a splice error in it and I can't figure it out. Who were "these people" who labeled you as a neuroscientist/phisicist/mathematician? Whether in a professional situation I would correct someone for mislabeling me does indeed depend on the context (if what I gather from that is the correct context). But either way, it is still a wrong description.

Also, calling Einstein a patent clerk is only ironic if you think peoples are limited to and defined by one label. On some of my profiles, I'm a "scientific programmer". It depends on the nature of the professional network I'm using.

If someone is asking you what your job is and you have only one job, then the question has only one answer. Or to be more exact, a group of closely related answers. In response to "What do you do?" I can say I'm an engineer, mechanical engineer, HVAC engineer, project engineer, etc., but not "astronomer". Since being a student is like having a job, it carries its own set.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me try to lay my position out as clearly and concisely as possible. The main part is pretty much exactly what ryan said:

The vast majority of the time (90%? 99%?), when someone asks "what do you do?", they are asking what you do for a living and you should respond with what you do for a living. If your job does not involve physics in a fairly direct way, you should not say "physicist".

Similarly, if you are in a conversation about physics and say something impressive and someone asks "oh, cool, are you a physicist?", that is exactly the same as the above.

There are exceptions/caveats for unusual circumstances, including but not necessarily limited to:
1. Recent/pending graduate
2. Recently unemployed/under-employed
3. Recent professional level contribution to the field
4. Retiree

But here's the kicker: the onus of avoiding misunderstanding is on the person giving the answer. So if one of the exceptions/caveats applies, you should say it explicitly. Ie: "I'm a currently unemployed physicist". That means you are a physics professional who's career is hopefully only temporarily on hold. Or: "kind of -- I just graduated and am looking for my first job". That's a "provisional professional" as Ben suggested.

Some more examples:
Back to "astronomer": I get some form of the second question or volunteer an answer to it without being asked (to avoid sounding like a random know-it-all), a lot. If someone askes "are you an astronomer?", the answer is never "yes". That would be dishonest. It doesn't matter how serious of an amateur I am - how much I love astronomy "in my heart" - or if I discover something that makes a real contribution to the field, like a comet or giant unexplained cloud on Mars. I'm an amateur and not including the qualification is misleading or conceited (when talking to a co-worker who knows what I am a professional at).

If asked: "Do you have any hobbies?", it would be acceptable (though not grammatically correct) to say "I'm an astronomer" because that's a rare occasion where the question specifies the amateur nature of the pursuit. However, if you answer "I'm a physicist" without explanation, be prepared for some quizzical looks because it doesn't make a lot of sense to say you are a "physics hobbyist", since it is not something that can really be dabbled-in beyond reading a layperson's book or three. That's reading physics, not doing physics. But it does happen: one of my mom's cousins is a retired professor who hangs out at the UPenn particle accelerator doing research in his free time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby you're taking it to an absolutely absurd degree by characterising my statements as policing what people should say. In what possible way am I policing? I'm not enforcing any doctrine or campaigning for any definition, I'm painting in no uncertain terms what I think is a reasonable use of the term.

"Painting in no uncertain terms what I think is a reasonable use of the term" pretty much implies you think all other uses are unreasonable. "In no uncertain terms," is a term often invoked in "laying down the law" situations. The post in question (quoted below) starts off with a strong and specific assertion that is free of any indication this is your opinion, and therefore has the aura of a statement of law, so to speak. The attitude is one of policing, of imposing criteria. Your goal is not to explicate, but to weed out the false, the unqualified. Look at your language: "You are not a physicist unless...", "...you can only claim the title if...". You are trying to control who will be perceived as a physicist, which is a different activity than explaining what a physicist is. Because, if you don't, you conclude, it can have "very serious real world consequences."

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.

You also seem to be arguing a bizarre double standard in which the dictionary definition is gospel because it's democratic and formed from how people use the word but my definition is instead tyrannical and policing.

No, I'm not arguing the dictionary is gospel because it's democratic. I am pointing out it's democratic to emphasize the fact it is where you go to find out what people mean by the word, how it's actually used, as opposed to something that was decided by a committee of experts, or some such. I was indirectly supporting my method of approaching the question by saying, in effect, I'm doing it the way lexicographers do it. The dictionary's democratic nature is noteworthy for being unusual, and I thought that might interest anyone who wasn't familiar with it.

I'm also not equating policing words with tyranny. There's a place for policing word meanings. "Definitive" does not mean the same thing as "definite." You may recall that thread ((and in my view I was, in fact, policing the two words). But my understanding of the difference comes from the dictionary. It's not something I unilaterally determined should be the case.

Pythagorean said to Russ:

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.

I think he's got a point.

 

[russ_watters]

No.

Okie, dokie -- I do. I don't think anyone's ever published five significant papers in a year, much less all in the same year he earned is phd.

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.

You are the one who has been trying to put Einstein into exception status, so your rule will remain intact, I suppose, not me. I'm not claiming him as any kind of exception, but as the clearest example of what the rule actually is.

That doesn't sound right, but due to the multiple mixed and matched timeframes and qualifications from which to judge and lack of clarity on which you are referring to and how you are judging it, I still don't know what your point is, nor am I really intersted in guessing anymore. But if you'd like to say, clearly and succinctly, what your rule actually is, I'm all ears.

Consider a scenario: If we look we'll be able to find a physicist no one has ever heard of. Let's say he never made a name for himself because all he ever did was replicate other people's work to make sure it was replicable. It takes expertize in physics to do that, and his expertize in doing that is why we call him a physicist. The indicator of his expertize is not his degree or paycheck, but the quality of his work, his papers, and many conversations with colleagues over the years. He wasn't Einstein, a famous innovator, but we call him a physicist for the same reason we call Einstein a physicist: his expertize in physics. So, I am not presenting Einstein as an exception to the rule, but as a particularly clear example of what the rule (criteria) actually is.

As above, I still don't know what your criteria actually is, but based on your description it sounds like he had a physics phd and was employeed as a physicist, so he's right in the middle of what I consider the typical answer: The degree and paycheck do indeed provided a clear and objective criteria to make the judgement. Still not knowing what your criteria is, I can at least say that it sounds like you would base it on a subjective judgement of expertise. Is that correct? Ugh...I just tried to guess again...

No, I distained the source of your bolstering quote, which should not be mistaken for non-disagreement.

Fair enough. So how about actually responding to the point?

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:

Ryan and I are in complete agreement here. In particular, he said this:

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...

He is "observing what people mean when they use it".

...you didn't deny acting as a word policeman, and bolstered that characterization by saying: "...everyone needs protection from charlatans."

Yes. I've previously accepted labeling as pedantic. I'm perfectly fine with that. But:

To unilaterally decide on a meaning you want people to ascribe to a word and insist they do so, is lexicographical crackpottery.

The problem with that is that I'm not co-opting the definition for myself, contrary to what it really means. I'm arguing for what I see as the accepted definition and arguing that you are misusing it...not to mention the irony of mis-stating an apparently intended negative label: The police don't make-up the rules, Zooby, they just enforce them. That's why I think calling me a "word policeman" is apt.

Speaking of cards, your report of your experience with engineers tell me that, in reality, no one cares about the certification. All they care about is whether someone can actually engineer something.

No, that's not what I said at all. My boss(different boss) has been hounding me to get it for several years. It is a big deal in my industry - an important mark of competence. My other boss works around it via an absurd amount of experience, but he's a rare exception and if he can be legitimately called an "engineer" despite a lack of formal credentials it would be difficult to pinpoint which decade the transition occurred in.

 

[russ_watters]

You also seem to be arguing a bizarre double standard in which the dictionary definition is gospel because it's democratic and formed from how people use the word but my definition is instead tyrannical and policing. Some have both consensus and dismissal of anything that doesn't match with that? Sound reasoning there...

My favorite part of that irony is how in the real world, the police are charged with enforcing the law (which is arrived at democratically), yet in our case, police apparently write their own laws.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What you and zooby are arguing contradicts the commonly accepted usage/context of those terms.

Don't think so:

doc·tor
ˈdäktər/
noun
noun: doctor; plural noun: doctors; noun: Doctor; plural noun: Doctors

1. 1.
   a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician

 

[russ_watters]

Don't think so:

doc·tor
ˈdäktər/
noun
noun: doctor; plural noun: doctors; noun: Doctor; plural noun: Doctors

1. 1.
   a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician

Ehem: "Qualified" how? Practicing how? Perhaps a slightly less succinct definition would be more useful?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Okie, dokie -- I do. I don't think anyone's ever published five significant papers in a year, much less all in the same year he earned is phd.

Funny game: you're pretending my "no" addressed your first sentence instead of the second. Ha ha, I guess.

That doesn't sound right, but due to the multiple mixed and matched timeframes and qualifications from which to judge and lack of clarity on which you are referring to and how you are judging it, I still don't know what your point is, nor am I really intersted in guessing anymore. But if you'd like to say, clearly and succinctly, what your rule actually is, I'm all ears.

Wow, you're just all confused. This reminds me of nothing so much as the way Ivan used to suddenly not be able to understand anyone's posts.

As above, I still don't know what your criteria actually is, but based on your description it sounds like he had a physics phd and was employeed as a physicist, so he's right in the middle of what I consider the typical answer: The degree and paycheck do indeed provided a clear and objective criteria to make the judgement. Still not knowing what your criteria is, I can at least say that it sounds like you would base it on a subjective judgement of expertise. Is that correct? Ugh...I just tried to guess again...

I think Ivan's point when he started to not be able to understand anything anyone said was to try and exhaust them by forcing them to repeat things over and over.

Anyway, you got it! Almost. The criteria is a judgement of expertize, which I probably said three times, if not more.

Fair enough. So how about actually responding to the point

I did a bit later.

Ryan and I are in complete agreement here. In particular, he said this:

He is "observing what people mean when they use it".

Not sure why you're quoting that post of his. I was talking about a different post, which I quoted when I addressed it. I didn't have any objection to this post you just quoted, or similar ones by you.

The problem with that is that I'm not co-opting the definition for myself, contrary to what it really means. I'm arguing for what I see as the accepted definition and arguing that you are misusing it...not to mention the irony of mis-stating an apparently intended negative label: The police don't make-up the rules, Zooby, they just enforce them. That's why I think calling me a "word policeman" is apt.

It did not escape me that you and Ryan were convinced you were in possession of the true, correct, ultimate understanding of the word. Therefore, "policing". No irony there. Separately, I was trying to persuade you you aren't in possession of that. Not saying I am, it's just irritating to encounter someone who thinks he is.

No, that's not what I said at all. My boss(different boss) has been hounding me to get it for several years. It is a big deal in my industry - an important mark of competence. My other boss works around it via an absurd amount of experience, but he's a rare exception and if he can be legitimately called an "engineer" despite a lack of formal credentials it would be difficult to pinpoint which decade the transition occurred in.

So, why don't you get it?

 

[Astronuc]

Physicist is also dangerously close to physician. It's even close to pysch when physics is shortened to phys. (for the dyslexics among us)

Try physiatrist - or rehabilitation physicians, who are nerve, muscle, and bone experts who treat injuries or illnesses that affect how one moves. Rehabilitation physicians are medical doctors who have completed training in the medical specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R).

One still needs certification or licensing from an accredited board. PM&R is one of 24 medical specialties certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ehem: "Qualified" how? Practicing how? Perhaps a slightly less succinct definition would be more useful?

A dictionary is not an encyclopedia. The fact of qualification is conveyed. It doesn't say: someone who practices medicine.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, you're just all confused. This reminds me of nothing so much as the way Ivan used to suddenly not be able to understand anyone's posts.

I think Ivan's point when he started to not be able to understand anything anyone said was to try and exhaust them by forcing them to repeat things over and over.

Look, Zooby: I've been explaining myself in detail for three days now and unless I've missed it, you still haven't explained your point -- I've been guessing from the start, and I still am:

Anyway, you got it! Almost. The criteria is a judgement of expertize, which I probably said three times, if not more.

Sure: your criteria has something to do with expertise. I get that: so what is it? Please explain yourself.

 

[russ_watters]

A dictionary is not an encyclopedia. The fact of qualification is conveyed. It doesn't say: someone who practices medicine.

Yes, a dictionary definition is distilled to as few words as possible. It is seems incomplete only because it is so succinct. But it still contains the two key elements, it just doesn't explain them in detail:
Qualified: by degree, work experience and medical board certification.
Practicioner: having a job as a doctor.

These are exactly the criteria I judge by, the vast majority of the time.

There is an additional level of wrong here when you view this choice of what definition to cite in light of your "police" criticism: the physician/doctor job: the title IS policed. The rules are written and enforced by the government and you can indeed be arrested and jailed for violating them:

http://www.10news.com/news/woman-convicted-of-practicing-medicine-without-license-arrested-again-050514

 

[Pythagorean]

Amother dictionary definition:

"Physicist"

1. an expert in or student of physics.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Look, Zooby: I've been explaining myself in detail for three days now and unless I've missed it, you still haven't explained your point -- I've been guessing from the start, and I still am:.

The criteria is expertize. You are really irritating me now because you already agreed to this a couple pages ago when I first proposed this is why people call Einstein a physicist even before he had a degree or job.

You seem to be insisting there's no way to tell if someone is expert unless they have a PhD or paycheck, but how then would the people who grant PhDs know if someone deserves one?? "We can't give this guy a PhD because he doesn't have a PhD." Ridiculous. It's trivial that expertize precedes the degree and therefore can exist without the degree, and therefore can be observed in the absence of the degree. Because, if it couldn't, no one could ever get the degree.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, a dictionary definition is distilled to as few words as possible. It is seems incomplete only because it is so succinct. But it still contains the two key elements, it just doesn't explain them in detail:
Qualified: by degree, work experience and medical board certification.
Practicioner: having a job as a doctor.

These are exactly the criteria I judge by, the vast majority of the time.

There is an additional level of wrong here when you view this choice of what definition to cite in light of your "police" criticism: the physician/doctor job: the title IS policed. The rules are written and enforced by the government and you can indeed be arrested and jailed for violating them:

http://www.10news.com/news/woman-convicted-of-practicing-medicine-without-license-arrested-again-050514

You're misunderstanding the crime, and you're misunderstanding what's being policed.The government polices the practice, not the title. Dr. Dre has not been, and never will be, arrested for calling himself "Dr."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre
On the other hand, someone who merely calls himself "Mr. Dre" would be arrested if he started treating patients for lyme disease. The offense is "practicing medicine without a license." It is not, 'calling yourself "doctor" without a license'. The government doesn't own the word, the title, and isn't even trying to own it. It's concerned about the actual activity.

In a larger sense, the sense Pythagorean meant, no one owns words because no one can control what the word means, and it's meaning could shift if enough people start using it to mean something different than it means today.

 

[Pythagorean]

the title IS policed. The rules are written and enforced by the government and you can indeed be arrested and jailed for violating them:

http://www.10news.com/news/woman-convicted-of-practicing-medicine-without-license-arrested-again-050514

It seems more like it was practicing without a license than illegal use of a word. She actually did stuff.

If I randomly told a cop I was doctor on the street, he couldn't arrest me for it. Chiropractors and pharmacists can call themselves doctors, but they wouldn't be able to do what real doctors do.

 

[Mad scientist]

If you ask a carpenter who has been unemployed for an extended period of time or temporarily working as a bartender he/she might respond with "I am a carpenter by trade". It would depend on what they identify themselves as. But then there's what you call yourself and there's what other people call you.

 

[Khashishi]

Pharmacists are generally Pharm.D.s and/or PhD.s, so they are doctors in that sense. (but I know what you mean...) They, and not medical doctors, are the experts in drugs and drug interactions.

 

[Choppy]

For what it's worth, titles such as "medical doctor" can be protected by law - and much will depend on which law applies and the regulating bodies in your state or country.

I don't know that people are commonly if at all ever arrested for title use. But this becomes an issue in terms of professional identification. For example in some places a homeopath would not be able to use titles such as "doctor, physician, or surgeon" professionally because the title is restricted to those registered with the state or provincial college of physicians and surgeons.

The consequences of violating something this are, I believe, generally civil rather than criminal i.e. the college may sue those using a restricted title.

 

[Evan Maxwell]

I think physicist has more value than other titles doctors would have if for no other reason that there are so few of us that we should stick together and support each other with pride.

As for when you are a physicist, well, if you have at least a B.S. and are doing some kind of computing work or any related work that utilizes your knowledge of physics and utilizes the same kind of techniques you would use to solve problems in classical or quantum mechanics, than my view is that's good enough for me.

 

[Anding]

Perhaps a provocative point of view, but one way of looking at it is to say there are only of handful of true physicists existing in each generation. These are the people who make the kind significant and fundamental contributions to theory or experiment that will be read about again and again by generations to come. By their nature, these kinds of contributions are rare! All others who receive university, government, or corporate funding for activities in the field of physics you could call "physics professionals". Those who study or think about physics, whether in a university or an independent setting, you could call "students of physics". Under this definition, to be called a true physicist a person needs to have succeeded in making a breakthrough with the big questions that subsequent generations will hold in honour. Thus it can only be judged in retrospect those of whom are currently physics professionals or students of physics, will turn out to number among the physicists of history.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Not provocative, just uninformed. Physics does not make progress primarily via the lone genius who has popularizations ghostwritten. It makes progress by a large number of people chipping away at little pieces.

 

[Anding]

Not provocative, just uninformed. Physics does not make progress primarily via the lone genius who has popularizations ghostwritten. It makes progress by a large number of people chipping away at little pieces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

Come on there is more to it that that :-) I believe you are well aware of Thomas Khun and may even have read the book (I haven't).

I don't necessarily agree with the point of view I suggested, but in posting it I wanted to get away from the idea of defining physicists as those who have a physics job , rather as those who will be remembered as physicists. It seems a more reliable criteria to apply (albeit in retrospect), even if it is overly selective.

 

[Evan Maxwell]

It sometimes seems to me that the days of individual physicists single-handedly making discoveries that completely transform science as Einstein, Neils Bohr and Rutherford did are long gone and in our times our academic climate is such that it is often teams and collaborations - which can grow to be very, very large - all working alongside each other in some capacity to achieve future ground breaking discoveries. Perhaps this may be a reason why the definition of who is and who is not a physicist should be expanded beyond its historic categories.

 

[ZapperZ]

I must say, after 5 pages of discussion, I find it rather amusing that so much time is devoted to something that I consider to be rather superficial. Is there really an issue or a problem here waiting to be solved? Is there really is a need to have such definitive guideline on when one calls oneself a "physicist", etc.? When and where did this problem crop up? In my professional line of work, and in all the years of my interactions with other professionals, I had never encounter a situation where I had to identify myself as a "physicist" or even question what someone else calls him or herself. Especially in the field of accelerator science where one can be from either a physics or engineering background, such issues are meaningless and irrelevant!

Or are we really making an issue out of a non-existent problem, the way many news agencies tried to do to fill up their broadcast time? Maybe we all here have come up with a solution waiting for a problem! How about that?

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

Is there really an issue or a problem here waiting to be solved? Is there really is a need to have such definitive guideline on when one calls oneself a "physicist", etc.?

No.

 

[Evan Maxwell]

ZapperZ, I think the sad truth is we live in a world where labels are often absolutely vital. And getting rid of this entirely, at least in the near future, is totally a pipe dream. Sad but true.

 

[Evo]

I must say, after 5 pages of discussion, I find it rather amusing that so much time is devoted to something that I consider to be rather superficial. Is there really an issue or a problem here waiting to be solved? Is there really is a need to have such definitive guideline on when one calls oneself a "physicist", etc.? When and where did this problem crop up? In my professional line of work, and in all the years of my interactions with other professionals, I had never encounter a situation where I had to identify myself as a "physicist" or even question what someone else calls him or herself. Especially in the field of accelerator science where one can be from either a physics or engineering background, such issues are meaningless and irrelevant!

Or are we really making an issue out of a non-existent problem, the way many news agencies tried to do to fill up their broadcast time? Maybe we all here have come up with a solution waiting for a problem! How about that?

Zz.

And this is a good place to end this thread.