At what point can one be considered a physicist?

[Mad scientist]

If you have an undergraduate degree in metallurgy you can find employment as a metallurgist, similarly with chemistry. However trying to find employment as a physicist without a PhD is next to impossible. So my question is if you only have a Bachelor of Science in physics could you be considered a physicist or do you need a PhD first?

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[Mad scientist]

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?

If you have a job as a physicist do you stop being a physicist when you loose your job? Interesting philosophical question. Would you call yourself a physicist on a Resume if you had a BSc but not a PhD?

 

[russ_watters]

If you have a job as a physicist do you stop being a physicist when you loose your job?

I've had that conversation with people. They answer: "I'm a currently unemployed XXXX".

Would you call yourself a physicist on a Resume if you had a BSc but not a PhD?

I don't call myself anything on my resume. It's just a factual list of my accomplishments/previous jobs/skills. I'm not even sure where one would put "I'm a physicist" on a resume.

 

[Pythagorean]

I have a friend that is the CEO of his own company that has nothing to do with physics, but he uses his money to develop his lab and he has published a paper or two. He doesn't even have a B.S. (he was in the same program as me, but got kicked out in his last semester due to being a crazy delinquent, but he had top grades in his class and would often help me with concepts I had trouble understanding).

I believe contributions to physics literature make one a physicist, regardless of current employ. But one can also be a physicist that doesn't publish if it's relevant to their employment. Sometimes, the guy with the bachelor degree in a biology research group is referred to as the "resident physicist".

 

[ZapperZ]

If you only have a Bachelor of Science in physics could you be considered a physicist or do you need a PhD first?

Yes, no or maybe?

You seem to have ignored all the replies that were posted in this thread.

First of all, where exactly in your resume that you have to declare who you are? You list your educational background, and all the relevant expertise/training. That should tell anyone of your educational qualification. You don't have to call yourself anything.

Secondly, as has been stated already, it depends on the situation and the employment that you currently hold. A lot of physicists, even with PhDs, call themselves "engineers", because that is the job title that they currently hold. I know of chemists who call themselves physicists, because they are now physics professors.

You can call yourself a "physicist" even with B.Sc degree, but you need to ask yourself if you are conveying an accurate picture, to the other person, of who you are! Would you want to mislead a potential employer by calling yourself that? You should have enough sensibility to decide this for yourself. If not, calling yourself a physicist or not will be the LEAST of your problems.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a friend that is the CEO of his own company that has nothing to do with physics, but he uses his money to develop his lab and he has published a paper or two. He doesn't even have a B.S. (he was in the same program as me, but got kicked out in his last semester due to being a crazy delinquent, but he had top grades in his class and would often help me with concepts I had trouble understanding).

I believe contributions to physics literature make one a physicist, regardless of current employ. But one can also be a physicist that doesn't publish if it's relevant to their employment. Sometimes, the guy with the bachelor degree in a biology research group is referred to as the "resident physicist".

Perhaps. However, consider the first few sentences of the wiki for Terry Lovejoy:

Terry Lovejoy (born 20 November 1966) is an information technologist from Thornlands, Queensland, Australia, most widely known as an amateur astronomer.[1] He has discovered five comets, including C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Lovejoy
Moderately famous for astronomy, nevertheless, he isn't an "astronomer", he's an information technologist and an "amateur astronomer".

 

[Mad scientist]

You seem to have ignored all the replies that were posted in this thread.

It may seem that way but I have just been exploring the issue. I have noticed that all the advertised jobs that have physicist in the description require a PhD..

First of all, where exactly in your resume that you have to declare who you are? You list your educational background, and all the relevant expertise/training. That should tell anyone of your educational qualification. You don't have to call yourself anything.

My Resume just has the academic suffix after my name (I may or may not keep it there) and lists my degrees in the descriptions.

Secondly, as has been stated already, it depends on the situation and the employment that you currently hold. A lot of physicists, even with PhDs, call themselves "engineers", because that is the job title that they currently hold. I know of chemists who call themselves physicists, because they are now physics professors..

You can call yourself a "physicist" even with B.Sc degree,

That's the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks.

but you need to ask yourself if you are conveying an accurate picture, to the other person, of who you are! Would you want to mislead a potential employer by calling yourself that? You should have enough sensibility to decide this for yourself. If not, calling yourself a physicist or not will be the LEAST of your problems.

Zz.

I don't call myself anything to a potential employer, when asked i just tell them what I have done. I have NEVER been dishonest or misleading to an employer.

 

[Astronuc]

I would think that one is a physicist if one practices physics professionally, i.e., one is compensated for practicing physics, and ostensibly one has at least a BS in physics. Ostensibly, if one has an MD and is board certified, one is a doctor, whether or not one practices medicine. If one is a practicing doctor, it usually comes with certification and a degree in medicine.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Being certified in a field doesn't mean one is super-knowledgeable. A degree to me is not any big at all. If you don't work with physics then don't call yourself a physicist in serious situations. If forums in the world are serious places, then you can share everything professionally private up here, we'll comment and have serious funs.

 

[Pythagorean]

Perhaps. However, consider the first few sentences of the wiki for Terry Lovejoy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Lovejoy
Moderately famous for astronomy, nevertheless, he isn't an "astronomer", he's an information technologist and an "amateur astronomer".

Is "amatuer astronomer" not in the subset "astronomer?"

My point, I guess, is that it's a word, and in different contexts it does the job for communicating someone's role. A title really isn't enough to judge someone by unless you have complete context.

 

[symbolipoint]

I've had that conversation with people. They answer: "I'm a currently unemployed XXXX".

I don't call myself anything on my resume. It's just a factual list of my accomplishments/previous jobs/skills. I'm not even sure where one would put "I'm a physicist" on a resume.

Include TITLE of jobs held.

 

[russ_watters]

Is "amatuer astronomer" not in the subset "astronomer?"

No. "Astronomer", by itself, comes witht the unwritten amplifier "professional". That's why this issue is somewhat important: If you don't qualify it, you may give people a false impression.

My point, I guess, is that it's a word, and in different contexts it does the job for communicating someone's role. A title really isn't enough to judge someone by unless you have complete context.

Yes, context is important.

 

[russ_watters]

Include TITLE of jobs held.

Good point.

 

[Mad scientist]

A title really isn't enough to judge someone by unless you have complete context.

True, the title of my last full time job was a 'Graduate Chemist' but I spent more of my time performing metallurgical test work than I did chemistry.

 

[Pythagorean]

No. "Astronomer", by itself, comes witht the unwritten amplifier "professional". That's why this issue is somewhat important: If you don't qualify it, you may give people a false impression.

I think what you mean is it sometimes comes with the unwritten amplifier. It's fair to expect people not to imply they are a professional astronomer with equivocation. But it's also fair to not expect the listener not to jump to conclusions when qualifiers aren't provided and context is ambiguous. In many conversations, "scientist" and "physicist" don't have the unwritten amplifier "professional" but instead the unwritten amplifier "ideological".

 

[Choppy]

The first thing to keep in mind is that there is no legal, professional "physicist" delegation. What that means is that technically anyone off the street can call him or herself a "physicist" regardless of educational background or employment and no one will have any authority to stop it.

The Canadian Association of Physicists has been issuing a P.Phys. or "professional physicist" designation for some time now (see: http://www.cap.ca/en/certification-pphys/requirements), and according to their site they may pursue legal action against anyone using the P.Phys. designation, but (a) I'm not sure that they would seriously do anything more than a cease and desist order, and (b) I doubt they would have much success in a law suit.

The best we can hope for out of such a discussion is a consensus among those with experience in the field about what's generally accepted with the use of the title "physicist" and in my experience even that might be too much to hope for. In practical terms I suspect if you did some kind of a survey among people academically or professionally involved in physics you'd get a situation-specific response along the following lines (percentage of agreement that said person qualifies as a "physicist").

1. Tenured professor in a physics department. 100%
2. Post-doctoral researcher in a physics department: 95%
3. Person with a PhD in physics performing industrial research & development: 90%
4. PhD student in a physics department: 60%
5. BSc in physics working as a video-game developer: 30%
6. Undergraduate student majoring in physics: 20%
7. Guy who personally developed a theory of everything, needs someone to do the math, but won't show his work to anyone because they might steal his ideas: 1%

Personally, I have tended to follow the CAP's guidelines for the P.Phys. designation in my own opinion of who can be called a physicist. This is because CAP is the only organized body of physicists that's made a call on the matter (that I'm aware of, and not that I've looked around much.) Also, I was introduced to the whole P.Phys. concept early on in my undergraduate career. According to them, you need (i) an undergraduate degree in physics and (ii) three years of work experience that "uses physics directly or significantly utilizes the modes of thought (such as the approach to problem-solving) developed in your education and/or experience as a physicist." The second part is extremely vague and even the first part is exempt-able if the candidate can convince a committee it should be. And although these are valid critiques I worry that once you start drawing lines in the sand all you end up accomplishing is making yourself look like an elitist.

 

[russ_watters]

I think what you mean is it sometimes comes with the unwritten amplifier.

I think it is a lot more than just "sometimes" and in particular is in the case of the subject of the thread.

In many conversations, "scientist" and "physicist" don't have the unwritten amplifier "professional" but instead the unwritten amplifier "ideological".

I don't even know what that means. What is an "ideological physicist"?

 

[Bystander]

could you be considered a physicist

If you've stayed with this thread, you will have noticed that there are many different definitions of the word "Physicist." Pick whichever lodge, fraternity, benevolent and protective order you wish, learn the "secret handshake," and cross their palms with silver, and be licensed to regard the rest of the world as "outsiders."

 

[onethatyawns]

I think the world of science could use less formalities, not more.

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

I'm just going to start calling myself Lieutenant Einstein in the Professor Poopypants Brigade.

 

[QuantumCurt]

I think it's far more important to consider what one actually does. If someone gets a bachelor's in physics and then spends 20 years working in something that is completely unrelated to physics, it would be silly to call them a physicist. If someone is actively employed with a facility to do research in physics...then they are a physicist. There's a lot of extra ground between those two points. There's a lot of space between those two points though. There have been quite a few instances in recent years of amateur astronomers making new discoveries. However, their abilities might limit these discoveries to nothing more than simple observation. To actually study the objects in question will often require the findings to be passed off to the professional astronomers/astrophysicists. How do we classify the person that discovered it? They're amateurs or hobbyists. These hobbyists are quickly becoming indispensable in the field of astronomy. There are hobbyists helping to sift through the mountains of data from CERN and other particle accelerators. They aren't professional physicists by any means, but they understand the field enough to participate in it to at least some degree.

 

[DrDu]

If you have an undergraduate degree in metallurgy you can find employment as a metallurgist, similarly with chemistry.

Do you really? At least here in Germany chemistry has the highest percentage of PhD absolvents as this is more or less required for a chemist to work as a chemist. You need to work some years in a lab on your own to get the experience.
I think the problem with physics is that there are far less jobs entitled "physicist" outside university as there are for e.g. chemistry. Rather you compete with software engineers, financial mathematicians and engineers as a mathematical and experimental alrounder.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't even know what that means. What is an "ideological physicist"?

Something like Einstein when he was professionally a patent clerk, but was making competent contributions to physics. He appeared to have genuinely cared and worked on the state of physics.

Wheras a professional scientist with an professional title could be a fraud (I.e. Andrew Wakefield) that doesn't care about their discipline and isn't ideological about objectivity or the scientific method.

 

[russ_watters]

Something like Einstein when he was professionally a patent clerk...

Einstein was never a patent clerk.

...but was making competent contributions to physics. He appeared to have genuinely cared and worked on the state of physics.

Einstein was a phd student when he was developing his 5 big papers, though I'm not sure of the exact order of the events of his graduation/publication (all happened in 1905). Either way, I would say he was a physicist-in-training at the time.

Now, following that, it did take about 2 more years for him to get an academic position, during which time he might have fit your term. However, using Einstein as an example seems to me to argue against your point, given Einstein's singular uniqueness and the relatively short time he spent outside of academia.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Einstein was never a patent clerk.

Are you quibbling over the word "clerk?" Every source I've encountered certainly maintains he was a patent examiner:

With the help of Marcel Grossmann's father Einstein secured a job in Bern at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office,[42] as an assistant examiner.[43] He evaluated patent applications for a variety of devices including a gravel sorter and an electromechanical typewriter.[44] In 1903, Einstein's position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he "fully mastered machine technology".[45]

Much of his work at the patent office related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time.[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Patent_office

 

[russ_watters]

Are you quibbling over the word "clerk?" Every source I've encountered certainly maintains he was a patent examiner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Patent_office

Correct.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Correct.

Because:

clerk
klərk/
noun

1.a person employed in an office or bank to keep records and accounts and to undertake other routine administrative duties.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clerk+definition

 

[russ_watters]

Because:

clerk
klərk/
noun

1.a person employed in an office or bank to keep records and accounts and to undertake other routine administrative duties.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clerk+definition

Correct.

And while it is possible that it is just an archaic/no longer used term, I've never seen any evidence of that. I've only ever seen the term "patent clerk" used by media or cult-of-Einstein crackpots to gloss over the technical nature of the job. Indeed, if you Google just "patent clerk", about half of the top ten are links to Einstein biographies and the other half job search sites that don't list "patent clerk" in the job title

 

[zoobyshoe]

Correct.

And while it is possible that it is just an archaic/no longer used term, I've never seen any evidence of that. I've only ever seen the term "patent clerk" used by media or cult-of-Einstein crackpots to gloss over the technical nature of the job. Indeed, if you Google just "patent clerk", about half of the top ten are links to Einstein biographies and the other half job search sites that don't list "patent clerk" in the job title

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!"

 

[Pythagorean]

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. The point wasn't to downplay his technical expertise (as far as I know, clerk then was like secretary today. The Secretary of State doesn't file paperwork.) You still wouldn't call a patent examiner a professional physicist.

Today, thanks to government funding, most grad students (and many undergrads) can easily find RA's and interships suited to their study, often with their adviser, directly in their field of study.

Einstein is an obvious example, and Andrew Wakefield was an obvious counterexample (where he had a professional title but lacked the ideology). There exists a whole spectrum inbetween. I just was in a career seminar in which our speaker (an environmetal engineer) did something similar, contributing to his field before he had a professional position in it. And, of course, his contributions are what helped him finally get a tenured academic position. It took him 10 years between his PhD and his professional appointment.

But again, context is important. Most people on the street (especially today with the fetishization of science) care about the ideology: the respect for the scientific method, the pursuit of truth, active investigation and contribution. Because, as Wakefield demonstrated, the professional title can be misleading too! Look what it's done to public perception of vaccines.

 

[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.