Newtonic oath (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Hello,

Even though physics is a professional field practiced by licensed professionals there is no document establishing an ethical code of conduct. For instance, a medical doctor cannot just decide that he wants to use 18th century methods and starts treating his patients with bleeding! But in physics there is no regulation and any physicist can make any definition and call other professionals crackpots and other names. This reduces the prestige of the profession. In order to alleviate this situation I drafted a Newtonic oath in analogy to Hipocratic oath.

I created a wiki http://newtonicoath.pbwiki.com/" to discuss the topic.

I would like to ask the readers of this forum, if they think such a document is needed, and what form should it have, if needed. If physicists take an oath to uphold specific professional rules before they are issued their PhDs would it help make physics a better profession?

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,176
1,563
Well according to the Canadian Association of Physicists -
http://www.cap.ca/about/ethics.html

And it is being discussed within the American Physical Society
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p42.html [Broken]
Ethics and the Welfare of the Physics Profession
Responding to a survey by an APS task force on ethics, younger members of the physics community have raised significant concerns about the treatment of subordinates and about other ethical issues.
02.2 APS GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
http://www.aps.org/statements/02_2.cfm

It has already been mentioned on PF
Code Of Ethics
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doc Al

Mentor
44,641
966
Last edited by a moderator:

G01

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,641
16
I'm sorry, but your post here sounded very serious, but the page you linked to sounds like a Joke. None of those "guidelines" sound serious. Am I missing something?
 

Evo

Mentor
22,447
2,262
:rofl: That's hysterical.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,176
1,563
I'm sorry, but your post here sounded very serious, but the page you linked to sounds like a Joke. None of those "guidelines" sound serious. Am I missing something?
Yeah, I took it seriously without checking the page.

After checking the page, I concur with Evo. :rofl:
 

Evo

Mentor
22,447
2,262
:rofl: this is great -

I will not divide infinity by infinity


I proposed to name this "Oakley clause" after Chris Oakley who has been doing work on this topic. This is his reply:

4. I will not divide infinity by infinity.

5. If I divide infinity by infinity I will not cover up by calling it renormalization.



These should be combined; but I don’t want the clause named after me unless it is reworded thus:



“In the case of those eventualities in which my theory seemeth not to work, and when integrals that I expect to be finite convergeth not and there is lamentation amongst the People of the Study of the Elementary Particle on account of the fact that they convergeth not,


I swear that I will not introduce spurious and meaningless cutoffs in the offending integrals;
I swear that I will not introduce spurious and meaningless extra dimensions and
I swear that I will not introduce spurious and meaningless counterterms to get me out of this tight spot,


for I am cognizant of the basic mathematical fact that infinity minus infinity may get me the answer that I want, but then again, it may get me any other answer as well”
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1
80
I absolutely refuse to adhere to clause 10. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imaginary

A synonym for imaginary is Quixotic? So complex numbers have a 'real' part and a 'Quixotic' part? If my grade winds up being a complex number, I hope the 'Quixotic' part isn't greater than the real part.

Besides, you can't separate the term 'imaginary' from 'number'; it's all one term: 'imaginary number'. That has an entirely different definition than 'imaginary' and you have to know the definition of 'imaginary unit' to understand the definition of 'imaginary number'. It's kind of a complex topic.

The definition for 'pseudo' makes no sense - I looked that one up in the pseudodictionary, which surely has to be the penultimate authority on the word.
 

robphy

timelike observer
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,339
632
There's a wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonic_Oath [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,176
1,563
There's a wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonic_Oath [Broken]
Yeah

Wikipedia said:
It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
non-notable
:rofl:

Newtonic Oath is an initiative started by Pioneer1, the editor of the blog Freedom of Science, in analogy to Hipocratic Oath. The purpose of the Newtonic Oath is to draft by the wisdom of crowds method a document that will establish ethical and scientific behavior in academic physics.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonic_Oath"[/QUOTE] [Broken] :rofl:

Even Wikipedia is skeptical! :rolleyes:

One has to wonder if this an effort at self-promotion. :yuck:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,185
51
Hello,

Even though physics is a professional field practiced by licensed professionals there is no document establishing an ethical code of conduct. For instance, a medical doctor cannot just decide that he wants to use 18th century methods and starts treating his patients with bleeding! But in physics there is no regulation and any physicist can make any definition and call other professionals crackpots and other names. This reduces the prestige of the profession. In order to alleviate this situation I drafted a Newtonic oath in analogy to Hipocratic oath.
Actually, your analogy is flawed. A physician could indeed call someone who used 18th Century methods a quack. The Hippocratic oath does not prevent people from selling snake oil, it just provides a code of ethics that real physicians are expected to follow. It's really unnecessary. Scientists also have professional expectations, and when someone makes claims that are not consistent with that professionalism or level of education, they get called crackpots.
 
Actually, your analogy is flawed. A physician could indeed call someone who used 18th Century methods a quack. The Hippocratic oath does not prevent people from selling snake oil, it just provides a code of ethics that real physicians are expected to follow. It's really unnecessary. Scientists also have professional expectations, and when someone makes claims that are not consistent with that professionalism or level of education, they get called crackpots.
If only Einstein was trying to present his 'stuff' on the forum today--my, my, my-wouldn't some people --(hint, hint)--jump all over him
 
230
0
The Oakley clause had me laughing for a long time. :rofl:
 

Evo

Mentor
22,447
2,262
If only Einstein was trying to present his 'stuff' on the forum today--my, my, my-wouldn't some people --(hint, hint)--jump all over him
No, Einstein wasn't a crackpot that had wild ideas with no basis that appeared as if they had been pulled out of his arse after a very long drinking binge.
 
Thanks everyone for comments. Thanks also to Doc Al. His comment makes me reevaluate what I promote in my blog. The main idea that I promote is scientific skepticism and questioning of authority. I also believe that physics experiments are important and they lose their experimental value when they become sacred and they are no longer duplicated or reevaluated. I have been working on the Cavendish experiment to make it an experiment again, not a miracle that it is now. I also promote a better physics education. I am sorry to read that Doc Al considers these concepts oddball crackpottery. This is one reason why something like Newtonic oath will be helpful in physics. It will establish standards of evidence that everyone agrees upon. Instead of calling each other names then practitioners could evaluate ideas. Calling an idea crackpottery adds nothing to it.

Thanks again for the comments.
 

G01

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,641
16
Yeah, I took it seriously without checking the page.

After checking the page, I concur with Evo. :rofl:
OK as long as it's a joke!:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 

ShawnD

Science Advisor
638
1
No, Einstein wasn't a crackpot that had wild ideas with no basis that appeared as if they had been pulled out of his arse after a very long drinking binge.
Don't be so sure of that. On a technical (computer) forum I posted something that referenced time dilation, and the first response was by somebody who claimed I was making the whole thing up and that it can't be proven. Even after providing a link to wikipedia, he insisted that it was wrong and there's no way it could be proven.
I'm talking about something that had been proven decades ago. If Einstein posted that today, he would get shot down faster than a 911 truther.
 

turbo

Gold Member
2,760
43
ShawnD, by 1920, Einstein was convinced that space (the vacuum) was a dynamical player in not only gravitation and inertial effects, but was also responsible for gravitationally- based refraction as EM propagated through it. His contemporaries (not his peers, since he had none) thought he was nuts for bringing back the concept of an "ether", and almost 100 years later, we are still not a bit closer to uniting gravitation with EM than we were during his lifetime. I was born very shortly after he died, so I have no recollection of him - just an accumulated appreciation for his ideas and an undying respect for his passions in science and humanity.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top