Creating an Ethical Code of Conduct for Physics Professionals

[Pioneer1]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

 

[Doc Al]

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

It's certainly in keeping with the rest of the oddball crackpottery that you promote on your site.

 

[G01]

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]

:rofl: That's hysterical.

 

[Astronuc]

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:

 

[proton]

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

I also concur. This is a joke, right?

 

[Evo]

: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]

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]

There's a wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonic_Oath

 

[Astronuc]

There's a wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonic_Oath

Yeah

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] :rofl:

Even Wikipedia is skeptical!

One has to wonder if this an effort at self-promotion. :yuck:

 

[Moonbear]

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.

 

[rewebster]

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

 

[Thrice]

The Oakley clause had me laughing for a long time. :rofl:

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[rewebster]

 

[Pioneer1]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

But this is very different. You are trying to convince the general public, or people who have little expertise in physics. You cannot compare that and make speculation on how the physics community would respond.

I referee for several journals. I sometime get really weird and far-out paper submission to review. In most cases, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, because I myself have been told that I sometime "over reach" beyond that is necessary. Now I certainly can't say for sure what I would do if I were to get Einstein's papers, but I certainly would NOT label it as crackpottery. Why? Because his papers, especially on SR and photoelectric effect, were addressing something that couldn't be explained by conventional terms. When a paper is written to address an unexplained phenomena, it WILL tend to go into areas that can seem a bit out there. This is not unusual even today.

I think that it is a bit of an exercise in futility in trying to speculate on how Einstein would be received today. Still, as the late http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/10/crazy-but-correct.html" in his terrific article in Nature titled "Crazy but correct"

"The trouble is that journals can easily become too conservative, because editors find it easier to reject the unusual than to take a chance on the unthinkable... The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society."

Compare to how scientific publishing is done back then, and how it is done now, I'd say that Einstein would have a good chance of getting published somewhere and his idea would have been known.

Zz.

 

[J77]

It is a joke, right...?

 

[Doc Al]

Thanks everyone for comments. Thanks also to Doc Al. His comment makes me reevaluate what I promote in my blog.

I see no evidence of that.

The main idea that I promote is scientific skepticism and questioning of authority.

"Questioning authority" is meaningless unless you have the requisite understanding of what you are questioning.

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.

This is comical, since the Cavendish experiment is a standard teaching experiment duplicated regularly throughout the world. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand the physics involved. (But thanks for playing!)

I also promote a better physics education. I am sorry to read that Doc Al considers these concepts oddball crackpottery.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that you promote physics education or scientific skepticism.

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.

Your "Newtonic Oath" is a joke. And "crackpot" is a useful flag to alert others to nonsense. Of course, the mere labeling of something as crackpottery is not an argument.

In this case, I recommend to anyone interested to see and judge for themselves whether Pioneer1 promotes crackpottery or real physics education, or even understands the issues that he discusses: Read his posting history on this site and on sci.phys.research, and read over the entries on his website.

 

[Astronuc]

It is a joke, right...?

That's the way I perceive it.

Pioneer1 may have some serious intent, but the method undermines that. This isn't the way to go about it if the intent is serious.

The oath is way too prescriptive and the points are absurd or otherwise nonsense.

There is nothing about ethics on the website.

The APS has already (several years ago) established an initiative. Most institutions have some code of conduct/ethics regarding work, including scientific research. It was part of my employment contract.

 

[D H]

Most institutions have some code of conduct/ethics regarding work, including scientific research. It was part of my employment contract.

Some of those code of conduct/ethics aren't very ethical. My previous employer attempted to claim rights to all IP I developed, including IP that I developed on my own time and that didn't create a competitive or ethical conflict. I claimed exception to that clause, every year. My boss expected me to get fired over it -- never happened.

 

[Astronuc]

Some of those code of conduct/ethics aren't very ethical. My previous employer attempted to claim rights to all IP I developed, including IP that I developed on my own time and that didn't create a competitive or ethical conflict. I claimed exception to that clause, every year. My boss expected me to get fired over it -- never happened.

I was very careful about that and made it clear at both companies that if I invented something not related to work or what I did, I retained all 'rights, title and interest'. Both companies agreed.

 

[Pioneer1]

And it is being discussed within the American Physical Society
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p42.html

Astronuc,

Many thanks for taking the Newtonic Oath initiative seriously and providing the link to APS discussion. To me, that discussion clearly shows the need for something like Newtonic oath. But I believe that the recommendations are too vague. And also I would say that data fabrication is not limited to experimental physics. I consider, for instance, titling a paper with a catchy title that does not describe what is in the paper to be fraud similar to data fabrication.

I think specific guidelines about topics such as the ones listed below would be helpful as a starting point:

• how to title an article
• how to publish a paper (is it ok just to write a press release and send it to the media instead of publishing in peer reviewed journals?)
• how to use citation (is it ok to cite automatically by copy and paste from another paper without reading what is cited?)
• Is duplication of experiments a requirement, an option, or a myth?
• What are guidelines for scientific discourse? Is it ok to call other professionals crackpots?
• What are scientific topics that a physicist can study? Are reading the mind of god, or claiming to fabricate a universe in a basement, or speculating about the universe before universe was created legal topics in physics?

I created http://Newtonicoath.wordpress.com/" taking into consideration the right criticism here by you and others about being serious. I think it would be great to develop an international guidelines and submit that to APS for consideration.

Thanks again.

 

[Evo]

Astronuc,

Many thanks for taking the Newtonic Oath initiative seriously and providing the link to APS discussion.

Astronuc didn't take you seriously, I guess you missed his retraction where he admitted he made that post without reading your nonsense. He agreed that what you wrote appears to be a joke.