• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

What does it take to be a distinguished physicist?

  • #26
987
123
There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men
No they were not, I have to find the exact source, but Einsteins brain (upon an autopsy) was found to be particularly unusual in such a way that it functioned better than the average brain.

Feynmann trained himself from a very early age, but it can be disputed that he was more intelligent than the average person to start with despite having an early interest in math and science.

There are people who cannot be NFL Lineman because they don't have the genetics to be 300+lbs of useful and functional muscle, there are also people who won't perform at the academic level of the Feynmanns and the Einsteins and the Newtons because they don't have the mental faculties to.
 
  • #27
Student100
Education Advisor
Gold Member
1,649
416
Which links exactly?

Evidence?
Your link on the heredity of IQ.

You should know, there is no such thing as evidence for a negative. I cant prove something doesn't exist, but you haven't shown something does exist either. You're basing your argument on intuition and faith, nothing more.

Find me evidence of something existing, and I’ll change my stance.

I made my assertion for not buying it due to a common theme that was shown by the OP and many of the people who comment here.
 
  • #28
341
51
Your link on the heredity of IQ.
OK, which part specifically is pseudo-science? All of it? Why is it pseudo-science? There are links to scientific papers, why are those invalid?

You should know, there is no such thing as evidence for a negative. I cant prove something doesn't exist
Sure you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

You're basing your argument on intuition and faith, nothing more.
Indeed I am, but so are you. Not sure when intuition became a bad thing however.

Find me evidence of something existing, and I’ll change my stance.
As long as you don't debunk the wiki link I posted, I provided evidence.
 
  • #30
Student100
Education Advisor
Gold Member
1,649
416
OK, which part specifically is pseudo-science? All of it? Why is it pseudo-science? There are links to scientific papers, why are those invalid?



Sure you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility



Indeed I am, but so are you. Not sure when intuition became a bad thing however.



As long as you don't debunk the wiki link I posted, I provided evidence.
If you actually read the link you posted you’ll see what I mean... So lets discuss your evidence... the first paper in the foot notes has this to say:

The reasons for the persistence of heritability estimates are worth some discussion. One is the intractability of most forms of behaviour to genetic analysis. Except in the case of relatively clear-cut Mendelian disorders such as Huntington's Disease the search for identifiable genes unequivocally associated even with conditions such as depression and schizophrenia has proved elusive. When it comes to the more elusive characters beloved of behaviour genetics (‘anti-social behaviour’, alcoholism, etc.) where one may question the reification of complex human interactions into presumed phenotypes with a biological locus in the individual, the hunt for ‘genes for’ this or that behaviour becomes even more embarrassingly vacuous. Heritability estimates become a way of applying a useless quantity to a socially constructed phenotype and thus apparently scientizing it—a clear-cut case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. And even if the estimate did indeed refer to a material reality rather than a statistical artefact one might question its utility. The practical relevance of claiming that some character in some environment is 80% heritable provides no guidance for how to respond—except in a purely ideological way, by arguing as first Jensen and later Herrnstein and Murray did that the measure indicates that there is a permanent genetically inferior underclass and that no amount of social engineering—to say nothing of social justice—will improve its lot.
Or the fact that the heritability calculations also are based mostly on environmental factors, small sample sizes, and testing methods that are called into question.

Contrary to your belief perhaps, but I did waste quite a bit of my time reading the wiki and papers.
 
  • #31
1,254
105
I would pose the question, what does that even mean? Any average human is capable of studying physics, thats my premise. Furthermore, anyone who studies physics is capable of making contributions to the field given time and resources.

To suggest everyone can emulate someone, well thats impossible, as differing environmental, dumb luck, and interests in a topic also play a role (as well a thousand other factors that might impact said emulation.) What I’m arguing is there is nothing magical or ingrained that can be isolated and studied that will predict ones success in any given area.

There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men who did amazing things. Thats the distinction that needs to be kept clear.
Sounds like a high school teachers platitude. You dont actually believe this do you? Its seems extreme. How can genes affect all of our traits, yet somehow magically all humans have the same potential when it comes to this narrow metric. Except those that dont, they are labeled "retarded" and dont count for some reason. Give me a break...
 
  • #32
341
51
If you actually read the link you posted you’ll see what I mean... So lets discuss your evidence... the first paper in the foot notes has this to say:



Or the fact that the heritability calculations also are based mostly on environmental factors, small sample sizes, and testing methods that are called into question.

Contrary to your belief perhaps, but I did waste quite a bit of my time reading the wiki and papers.
That's a bit of a controversial article. So you should expect that there are many papers claiming the opposite:

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/visscher_hill_wray_nrg2.pdf

Despite continuous misunderstandings and controversies over its use and application, heritability remains key to the response to selection in evolutionary biology and agriculture, and to the prediction of disease risk in medicine. Recent reports of substantial heritability for gene expression and new estimation methods using marker data highlight the relevance of heritability in the genomics era.
 
  • #33
Student100
Education Advisor
Gold Member
1,649
416
Sounds like a high school teachers platitude. You dont actually believe this do you? Its seems extreme. How can genes affect all of our traits, yet somehow magically all humans have the same potential when it comes to this narrow metric. Except those that dont, they are labeled "retarded" and dont count for some reason. Give me a break...
Oh please, it was quite clear in the initial argument that we were discussing the average billions of people who don’t suffer from a mental disability. That there is no physical mechanism or magic quality in your genes that say genius, or gifted.

R1,

From the second wiki, nature article I particularly like this:

Is the use of LTWM and episodic memory structures the principal factor differentiating prodigies from normal people, and if so, at what age or stage does this occur? Gamm said that at school he was “very bad at arithmetic” because the teachers never explained the concepts in ways he could understand10. Being able to
grasp the meaning, structure and relationship of objects in the expert domain seems to be critical in setting up easily retrievable structures in long-term episodic memory, just as it is in our mastery of language. This study, though focused on a remarkable individual, illuminates the unremarkable as well as the extraordinary skills we all possess.
This suggest an environmental factor for child prodigies, not a physical one. I still can’t find any evidence for a physical mechanism in your posts.
 
  • #35
341
51
This suggest an environmental factor for child prodigies, not a physical one. I still can’t find any evidence for a physical mechanism in your posts.
I never claimed that only genetics are responsible, did I?? Clearly, both nature and nurture are important! So indeed, I never denied an environmental factor in intelligence.
 
  • #36
341
51
Oh please, it was quite clear in the initial argument that we were discussing the average billions of people who don’t suffer from a mental disability. That there is no physical mechanism or magic quality in your genes that say genius, or gifted.
And why exactly are we excluding people who suffer from mental disabilities? Because they don't fit your belief system?
 
  • #37
Student100
Education Advisor
Gold Member
1,649
416
And why exactly are we excluding people who suffer from mental disabilities? Because they don't fit your belief system?
You're also arguing nature plays a role in intelligence, not just nurture as I posit.

I don’t include them because I believe the body of research that suggests physical genetic variations can result in a developmental disability. I have no belief system, I’m countering against something that hasn’t actually been shown to exist. We can’t quantify intelligence in people without disabilities, and no physical mechanism that can studied allows us to do so.

Nowhere has the debate about nature and nurture been so controversial as in the study of mental ability in humans5,90,91. Controversies about the concept and use of intelligence quotient (IQ), a phenotypic measurement of relative performance on a series of mental ability tests, are manifold. They include: its definition (‘intelligence is what intelligence tests measure’90); documented historical abuse relating to eugenics; inference about the cause of observed differences between ethnic groups (see BOX 2); incorrect statistical inference from observational studies90; and disputed implications of IQ differences between individuals and groups on social and economic interventions92,93. We will not discuss the uses and abuses of measures of cognitive ability, but we will point out that there is abundant empirical evidence that shows that IQ is a good predictor of outcomes in life, including educational attainment, income and health94. Controversy about IQ is by and large because of social, not scientific, reasons. Here, we focus on one point of controversy about IQ: its heritability.
Right afterwards they go on to claim that IQ is genetic, but without addressing any of the above. No where is the above addressed.
 
  • #38
1,254
105
We can’t quantify intelligence in people without disabilities, and no physical mechanism that can studied allows us to do so.
How do you think people get quantified as mentally disabled to begin with? Its not a line where everyone falls on a side, its a continuum from very high functioning to very low functioning and everywhere in between. If there is one retarded person out there that is mentally incapable of being a physicist (distinguished or otherwise) then not all people can be physicists. Retarded people are people too. As you go up the continuum you get to people that are not so retarded that they get SSD, but they are borderline. They are going to have a real hard time being a physicist. Many of them can barely maintain the basics of life without the help of friends and family.

Have you ever worked with a disadvantaged population? If you did I doubt you would be making these claims. Its a ridiculous politically correct fantasy that anybody can do anything if they try. That a lie that teachers tell students to keep them motivated and its a way that smart people convince themselves they earned their status rather than being born well equipped.
 
  • #39
Student100
Education Advisor
Gold Member
1,649
416
How do you think people get quantified as mentally disabled to begin with? Its not a line where everyone falls on a side, its a continuum from very high functioning to very low functioning and everywhere in between. If there is one retarded person out there that is mentally incapable of being a physicist (distinguished or otherwise) then not all people can be physicists. Retarded people are people too. As you go up the continuum you get to people that are not so retarded that they get SSD, but they are borderline. They are going to have a real hard time being a physicist. Many of them can barely maintain the basics of life without the help of friends and family.

Have you ever worked with a disadvantaged population? If you did I doubt you would be making these claims. Its a ridiculous politically correct fantasy that anybody can do anything if they try. That a lie that teachers tell students to keep them motivated and its a way that smart people convince themselves they earned their status rather than being born well equipped.

Go on misrepresenting the argument, thats fine. Border line what? How much of that not so retarded isn’t an easily diagnosed genetic defect and instead environmental opportunity.

There have been no genes linked to a preposition of physics learning ability. The Flynn effect basically shows that a genetic correlation for IQ, if it exists which hasn't been shown, contributes a far smaller amount to what we call intelligence than environment.

We can’t even accurately define intelligence, let along quantify it and show the physical mechanism.

Again, we already know the silencing or damaging of certain genes can result in developmental issues, we aren’t talking about this group.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
341
51
Go on misrepresenting the argument, thats fine.
Now you're just avoiding the argument. If he's misrepresenting the argument, point out where and set straight what your actual argument is. No need for passive-aggressive replies such as this one. This is not youtube.
 
  • #41
Student100
Education Advisor
Gold Member
1,649
416
Now you're just avoiding the argument. If he's misrepresenting the argument, point out where and set straight what your actual argument is. No need for passive-aggressive replies such as this one. This is not youtube.
I’m quite done with the argument, actually. I don’t think it’s getting us anywhere. 
 
  • #42
341
51
  • #43
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
I don’t think it’s getting us anywhere.
This makes for a good ending point for this thread.

Thread closed.
 

Related Threads for: What does it take to be a distinguished physicist?

Replies
6
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top