Why do doctors and lawyers make more money than physicists?

[Mulder]

I think it should be mandatory for everyone in the NBA and NFL to give one fourth of their sallary to a charity of their choice. Why doesn't the owner of one of these major sports leagues make a rule like that?

Becuase it infringes on human rights?

 

[ludi_srbin]

All modern society isn't about sports. Many countrues around the world take great interest in Science&Technology like Germany and Japan.

As for The States, we've got a lot of work to be done.

And although they take mocrobiology I doubt a dcotor's collegiate schooling is as hard as a physicist's.

Trust me doctors have to study A LOT! I don't know if you ever saw their anatomy books and how detailed that crap is. I would bet that it takes just as much studying to become a doctor as to become a Physics Profesor. Lawyers? Well in my oppinion they are an important part of our society since they take care that everyone gets equal chance before the law, but their jobs are way overrated. Now I agree with you. Engineering and Science are not as well paid as they should be. I just looked at my course catalog in Electrical Engineering, and I"M SCARED! I can only imagine what awaits me in the next 6 years, and for what? For some 50,000-60,000 per year. I mean it really isn't fair since if I fail in calculating something or designing people could die, and a lot of bad stuff could happen. I will have the same responsability as any doctor, not to mention a lawyer. But again, we are more than welcomed to go into the law and become insanily rich lawyers whose life is centered arround volumes of book of boring crap. When I think of their sleepless nights of going through some boring legalities I feel better.

 

[Rayne]

re

I think it should be mandatory for everyone in the NBA and NFL to give one fourth of their sallary to a charity of their choice. Why doesn't the owner of one of these major sports leagues make a rule like that?

USA=Free Market=Voluntary Exchange of goods?

 

[0rthodontist]

I can't imagine that being a physicist is easier than being a doctor. Isn't physics just about the most competitive field in academia?

 

[Rayne]

My guess is Physics is more esoteric academically and harder to grasp but the daily grind and stress and workhours of being a Doctor exceeds that of being a Physicist, on average.

As far as salary goes though isn't it based on supply-demand? Is there some kind of federal price floor on wages of Doctors at public hospitals that artificially keeps their salary high?

I know some nurses are making outragious salaries compared to Doctors and Science professionals because they are in high demand...

 

[0rthodontist]

I'm willing to bet that the average professor of physics is 10 or 20 IQ points above the average medical doctor.

 

[ludi_srbin]

I'm willing to bet that the average professor of physics is 10 or 20 IQ points above the average medical doctor.

No doubt, however there are a lot more doctors than physics professors.

 

[G01]

Knowing Engineers, Scientists and Doctors, and Lawyers personally, I've come to the conclusion that all have a heck of a lot of studying to do. Yes they study different things, but is one really easier than the other? I know some biology majors who say they hate physics and can't stand it. I as a physics major couldn't even imagine going to med school. It sounds crazy. Lawyers also work hard i think, but their job is different, instead of focusing on analytical problem solving, their main focus is on argument, convincing others of their point of view. In order to do this they do have to know a lot of information to back up their argument, and they must be credible and intelligent.

In conclusion, all of these different fields require a hell of a lot of work, but in different areas. Physcists and engineers in math and problem solving. Doctors, in problem solving(curing diseases, they do have to apply all that stuff they have to memorize you know) and in knowledge of medicine. Lawyers in law and the skill of argument.

Also, this talk about how physicists are more important, or doctors are more important is nuts. Heres some advice. If your planning on being a doctor or lawyer or scientist just so you can feel for important than other people, then don't do it. You will be dissapointed when you find out that your not. A doctor would have a hard time without the MRIs, etc supplyed by physicsts and engineers. And the engineers would have a hard time developing technology without doctors who keep them alive long enough to make anything important. And neither of these groups could function without someone to speak for them (a lawyer), and protect them from others who would want to take advantage of them etc.

This is the reason we have these different areas of study. No one could possible do all these things themselves.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I'm willing to bet that the average professor of physics is 10 or 20 IQ points above the average medical doctor.

Too bad IQ doesn't mean anything, huh? Or else you might have actually had something there.

You can't compare doctors to scientists. If a scientist doesn't keep up with the world around him, he can't do anything (related to his field) and drops out of the race. A doctor can just open up a clinic.

I went to a doctor once with a bad knee. He told me not to squat down or do anything that involves bending it for about 10 years (my injury wasn't very bad and you see athletes back in the game not even a year later. That's because they REHAB it, not just sit around). Wow, that was really worth my $300. Next, I went to a dentist that fudged 3 or 4 of my teeth and now I need root canals. Awesome.

But, the GOOD doctors do keep up with everything. It's just that there is no real incentive to be a good doctor.

What do you call someone who graduates at the top of their class in medical school? A doctor. What do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of their class in medical school? A doctor. What do you call someone who graduates at the top of their class in um... physics school...? A physicist. What do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of their class in physics school? Unemployed.

That being said, doctors aren't exactly stupid. They get payed more, sure, but they aren't brain dead. They still had to take a lot of hard classes to get to where they are.

It's all about supply and demand. People get sick all the time, so they go to the doctor. Physics on the other hand, just keeps getting harder and harder and there hasn't been a breakthrough in a while.

Science has never been about the money. Rich people way back when didn't do science because they wanted to have more money, but because they liked it. Galileo didn't piss of the church because he wanted more money, but because he knew science was right.

I understand that it seems like a bleak future, to spend so much time and effort and have little to show for it. But it's not about doing to get something, but doing for the sake of doing.

 

[0rthodontist]

What is your point? That physicists should or should not get paid more?

I know that human society could get along without doctors. But it could never function without engineers and physicists. I guess you're agreeing that the average physicist has stronger credentials to do physics than the average doctor has to practice medicine, but I don't see where you stand.

 

[Plastic Photon]

I know a lawyer who has a PhD in chemistry and he is paid exceptionally low compared to a friend of mine who is a corporate attorney. Another friend of mine is also pursuing corporate law; his (future) internship alone is obligated to pay him easily $50k+. Most likely he will finish law school and find his first job's starting salary at $180k.

The point of this being: if you want to make money as a lawyer, do not practice family law!

The problem with science being 'unimportant' is the waiting...may have to wait decades before a lab discovery is turned into a consumer product, industrial application, etc. That is too long and sometimes uncomprehendable to the general public. We talk about this sort of topic in one of my classes at school, and the whining always begins 'Why is so much money spent on science.' or 'Why do we give so much money to NASA?' The last is a good question, too much job security there if you ask me, but the first question I think is relevant:

The general public is not interested with math or science. I cannot begin to describe the semester of College Algebra I took. I have never heard so much whinning and *****ing going on over something as simple as an introduction to synthetic division. "This doesn't make any sense", "why can't he (professor) explain it better", "He might as well be speaking French." Please! Take 30 minutes out of the day when you get off school to study!

If the last hundred years of discoveries and advances in physics isn't enough to encourage the general population to at least pursue introduction Uni Physics (not saying everyone needs to know physics), then nothing can! I think it is quite impossible.

Therefore, people do not have respect for physics other than that they found math hard in college.

 

[0rthodontist]

All in all though engineers and physicists are not paid poorly... compare them, for example, to sociologists. They are just paid poorly when compared to doctors and lawyers (and in my state, Massachusetts, I read a couple years ago that the average lawyer makes less than the average programmer, about $75k). Doctors do make too much, but it's not like $200k usually... it is rare that a doctor will make that much. It depends of course though. Engineers and computer science majors are the highest paid after college graduation, though perhaps they lag behind doctors who have had medical school.

I think physicists are paid much too less for the skills they have and the caliber of people they compete with. But they do well compared with the general population if they have a professorship.

 

[Poop-Loops]

What is your point? That physicists should or should not get paid more?

I know that human society could get along without doctors. But it could never function without engineers and physicists. I guess you're agreeing that the average physicist has stronger credentials to do physics than the average doctor has to practice medicine, but I don't see where you stand.

My point is that doctors aren't stupid as some people here tried to say.

Human society get along without doctors? Ever hear of this place called "Africa"? They don't have many doctors there and look how they're doing...

I'm also saying that in science you have to be GOOD to survive, in medicine you can survive anywhere because you are ALWAYS NEEDED. Which goes back to society surviving without doctors... if we didn't need them, there wouldn't be such a (here is the key word) need for them.

Are engineers and physicists not as important? Hell no. It's just not black and white as you like to see it. You need all of it, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for those people.

Doctors get payed more because a lot of them set their own salary by opening their own clinics. Engineers usually work for corporations who set them their salary. Want more money? Make an uprising. Make it so that physicists and engineers are NEEDED.

 

[0rthodontist]

Africa has few doctors but I don't think it has much of anything else either. You can't say Africa's problems are based on the lack of doctors. Aggravated, somewhat, but certainly not based.

Doctors just help people live longer. Without doctors, people would die sooner and in more pain. Life would otherwise go on exactly as normal. First-world countries would still be first-world countries, with cars, cellphones, computers, bridges, the works. Without engineers and scientists we would all be third world Africa.

"Doctors are smarter than you think" doesn't follow from what you said. Let me summarize some of your points:
1. Your doctor was unable to help your knee despite established rehab procedures that would do just that.
2. Your dentist fudged 3 or 4 of your teeth.
3. It would be nice if we had more good doctors, but there is no real incentive to be a good doctor.
4. There are significant numbers of practicing doctors who graduated at the bottom of their class.

These are the things YOU said. I know you tempered them by saying doctors have to take a lot of hard courses, but still.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Yeah, the doctors screwed me over. Does that mean they are stupid? Or that doctors in general are stupid? I've been to more doctors in my life that have helped me than to those that have hurt me.

Without doctors, our life expectancy would still be around 30 years. What can you accomplish in 30 years? Not much.

 

[0rthodontist]

Without doctors, our life expectancy would still be around 30 years. What can you accomplish in 30 years? Not much.

No it wouldn't. Most of the increased lifespan is due to better nutrition and sanitation. In the past those at the top of the social ladder who had access to those things but not to reputable doctors, always lived lives that were comparable in length to modern lives, by which I mean fifty or sixty years.

 

[Poop-Loops]

And who do you think figured out that sanitation and nutrition is important?

 

[0rthodontist]

Biologists, statisticians, medical scientists. Doctors aren't researchers.

 

[Poop-Loops]

You can't be serious...

 

[0rthodontist]

Doctors sometimes do research on the side, but their main business--what makes them doctors--is practicing medicine. Neurosurgeons are not neurobiologists. Doctors use science, they don't create it. In the absence of doctors we would have a well developed medical theory; research does not require practice. Epidemiology would be hindered for lack of data, but there are other ways of gathering data than from doctors, for example from surveys and inspectors.

In any case, all it takes to live a full lifetime for most people is a good diet and reasonable sanitation. Additional people would die from curable diseases, like appendicitis. But society would continue as it does now.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Why would we study medicine if we weren't going to practice it in the first place?

 

[0rthodontist]

Well, this appears to be heading in circles. We would study human biology for the purpose of prevention, i.e. nutrition, exercise, sanitation.

If you're trying to say that we would not study human biology in general--with applications to biotech, for example--as deeply if there were not doctors, this argument seems rather inessential to the work value of doctors. That doctors indirectly provide incentive for biologists is not part of what the job of being a doctor is, so it doesn't change their work value. In any case if biologists weren't studying human biology as much then they might be scientists in other disciplines, which might then be more advanced, so it's a double edged sword.

My point is that doctors are not essential to human progress, while engineers and scientists are. Doctors make life a lot nicer but they do not advance the state of civilization.

 

[pivoxa15]

I haven't followed all the discussion but one way a pure scientist could make big money is by writing books or movies for the general public. But offcourse you would have to be very good to do that. I think more scientists are doing this than ever (espeically physicists). This is (pretty much) the only way pure scientists can become multi-millionares.

So they have the advantage that what they do is genuinely interesting (and profit from it by telling others about it). It is harder for the practical doctors or lawyers to do this.

 

[Poop-Loops]

My point is that doctors are not essential to human progress, while engineers and scientists are. Doctors make life a lot nicer but they do not advance the state of civilization.

Living longer and without pain IS an advance in civilization.

So, pivoxa15, you're saying that in order for physicists to make more money is to do something other than physics? Super.

 

[0rthodontist]

Yes, the medical system is an advance in civilization, but it does not itself advance civilization. If scientists are potters, doctors are vases.

 

[pivoxa15]

So, pivoxa15, you're saying that in order for physicists to make more money is to do something other than physics? Super.

Well not necessarily, look at Penrose with his philosophy of mind books and 'road to reality' which contains some science. But you do have some point.

Normally an academic physicist would need to do research and teach. I guess a really good one might have the option of doing research and write. So instead of teaching, they write popular science books that are related to their field of research. The scientists themselves might learn something as well especially if they are branching to something new. For example, Hawking surely would have learned something new in math as a result of his book 'God created the Integers'. This new information might help him with his physics research in the future.

Another thing is that science is empirical in nature so it will benefit the theorists to write books for the general public because not only will their experimental collegues be able to learn (I guess it is difficult for them to read every article in theoretical journals) but scientists in other fields will also benefit from reading it and potentially write back to the theorists with new ideas. Hence increasing awareness in science (especially the fundalmental topics) is always good. However, this route might not be so good for a first class pure mathematican where pure uninterrupted research is often first priority - anything else is pure distraction.

 

[Poop-Loops]

You're a pothead. :P

Doctors let scientists live longer. You think Einstein would have developed all of his theories if he had died at the age of 20 due to the flue or some other trivial disease we scoff at these days?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Well not necessarily, look at Penrose with his philosophy of mind books and 'road to reality' which contains some science. But you do have some point.

Normally an academic physicist would need to do research and teach. I guess a really good one might have the option of doing research and write. So instead of teaching, they write popular science books that are related to their field of research.

Another thing is that science is empirical in nature so it will benefit the theorists to write books for the general public because not only will their experimental collegues be able to learn (I guess it is difficult for them to read articles in theoretical journals) but scientists in other fields will also benefit from reading it and potentially write back to the theorists with new ideas. Hence increasing awareness in science (especially the fundalmental topics) is always good. However, this route might not be so good for a first class pure mathematican where pure uninterrupted research is often first priority - anything else is pure distraction.

The only way I see a scientist every becoming rich is if he or she starts their own business (like my current chem instructor did, before deciding he likes teaching more than money) or invent something on their own.

 

[pivoxa15]

The only way I see a scientist every becoming rich is if he or she starts their own business (like my current chem instructor did, before deciding he likes teaching more than money) or invent something on their own.

The business better be science related but what you're suggesting is for practical scientists.

I was suggesting how theorists is able to make big money. Although only the famous theorists is able to take this route hence only a few by definition. Incidently they are also the people who do not need money due to their already high salary which is similar to a good doctor or lawyer.

 

[Plastic Photon]

All in all though engineers and physicists are not paid poorly... compare them, for example, to sociologists.

Sociologist is someone who never left kindregarten. The other day (in sociology class) people were allowed to do their stand up comedy and tell other joke, discuss their family and talk about celebrities! Who pays someone to talk about Oprah! I can do that for free: I hate Oprah. In fact, I do it some more: Oprah is conceited. Wooo!

Sociologist study groups, so I guess they should start studying why all the groups of people around them make considerably more.

 

[Plastic Photon]

You're a pothead. :P

Doctors let scientists live longer. You think Einstein would have developed all of his theories if he had died at the age of 20 due to the flue or some other trivial disease we scoff at these days?

I guess the debate will never end...where would current medical technology and medicine be without scientist? Did medical doctors discovery x-rays, radiation, doublehelix bond of DNA, hyperdermic needles, stethoscopes...?

 

[Manchot]

I guess the debate will never end...where would current medical technology and medicine be without scientist? Did medical doctors discovery x-rays, radiation, doublehelix bond of DNA, hyperdermic needles, stethoscopes...?

No. And they also didn't discover most of the medicines they use: researchers did.

Doctors let scientists live longer. You think Einstein would have developed all of his theories if he had died at the age of 20 due to the flue or some other trivial disease we scoff at these days?

Most of our increased life expectancy is due to increased sanitation and the vaccines you are given as a child (again, which are developed by researchers, not practicing medical doctors). The reason that life expectancy used to be so low was because of a high child mortality rate. Once you reached the age of 5 or so, your chances of living to 50 or 60 was fairly great. (There is a reason that you don't see many 20 year olds dying from the flu, but you do see more children and the elderly doing so.)

 

[Poop-Loops]

So you people are saying doctors don't contribute anything to society?

 

[gyroverse]

Everybody can't be the master of all trades and that's probably why we live in society .Its not about who contributes or not because doctors and scientists both contribute to society in their own specific ways but I think we are wandering off the topic of this discussion .People don't go into research for money but that should definitely be a part of the package...because I've always felt that scientist contribute the most to society i guess other people just don't realize it now.

 

[phun]

So you people are saying doctors don't contribute anything to society?

Yes they do. Just like plumbers contribute to society by fixing toilets, doctors (those who do not contribute to scientific research) contribute to society by fixing whatever is wrong with your body. Otherwise we wouldn't be paying them all that money.

In fact, we think they contribute so much to our society that we'd have to pay them hundreds of dollors for showing their pretty faces and saying "you are going to be fine" when 4th year medical school students do the actual work.

That said, I think well-established physicists are getting paid enough to live comfortably. Most physicists I've seen are so dedicated to their research that they wouldn't have enough time to spend the extra money even if they got paid better. What's more important to them is how much research money they get -- which can be way more than what most doctors get paid.

One last point. I wonder how popular pre-med track would be if doctors' salleries were capped at 100k by law -- 100k is enough to live comfortably by any measure.

 

[Manchot]

So you people are saying doctors don't contribute anything to society?

I'm saying that they don't contribute nearly as much as the medical researchers do. (And yet, they get paid more.)

 

[TMFKAN64]

I think the number one idea that many of you need to drop is the idea that pay in any way reflects the value of work. Perhaps it should, in an ideal world... but in the real world that we all have to live in, pay reflects supply and demand, nothing more.

If you really want to raise the pay of physicists, form a union.

 

[Line]

My simple point is that scientests are just as important than doctors. However 1 scientest take Einstein was far more important that your general doctor.

My pint is even if the have to study exactly as much physicist have to study harder. I mean we both study calculas but will they ever use it?

ANd as for scientests not innventing fire or the wheel while it's not modern technology it is technology. True you may or may not call stoneage inventors scientests but they were the stoneage equivelants.

Doctors mostly repair things,scientests discover and invent things which is far more contributions.

Oh and on the bad rep scientests get,we still do. All throughout Modern Western Civilization scientests have been seen as geeks,loosers,and psycopaths. All you have to do as look at the early 20th movies liek Frankenstein to see just what I'm talking about. Dr.Frankenstein is potrayed as this weird wide-eyed MAD SCIENTEST whom like to cut people up and use their parts with wild hair screaming "It's Alive!". They even have twisted plots to take over the world. Even in the 90s we get the dork Steve Urkell. The maniac scientests still existed in the 90s with The Doc in Back To The Future.Doctors on the other hand are potrayed nicely and even get seen has handsome guys with great social lives. And if you don't know what I'm talking about by ruling the world just watch Pinky And The Brain.

 

[Poop-Loops]

The whole "scientists are geeks and beyond normal humans" probably really started around the time of the Manhattan Project, where everything was kept hush-hush. You're right, though. Every time I tell someone I'm a physics major (and I don't boast about it, I just answer their question), they tell me "Oh... you're one of those smart people..." but in a way that makes me feel bad, as if I'm doing something wrong.

 

[franznietzsche]

The whole "scientists are geeks and beyond normal humans" probably really started around the time of the Manhattan Project, where everything was kept hush-hush. You're right, though. Every time I tell someone I'm a physics major (and I don't boast about it, I just answer their question), they tell me "Oh... you're one of those smart people..." but in a way that makes me feel bad, as if I'm doing something wrong.

You're not supposed to tell them about the awful man-ape chimera hybrids you're genetically engineering using equipment built from tossed out 1980s boomboxes in your basement La-bor-a-tor-y (dexter's lab accent emphasized) silly. No wonder they look at you funny.

 

[Line]

Umm western society looking down us didn't begin in the 20th century. It was going on atleast to the 1400s.

Scienc eas always at a complete disagreeal with religion. The Church in Europe was totally into the idea that there was a God that created the Earth in 7 days, made man in Eden only 5,000 years ago and the Earth was flat. Any one one who didn't believe this was just adeplorable person.

Although around but few the scientests and freethinkers believed that we came from apes,the Earth was round,it's 5 billion years old,we're not the center of the universe, and other ideas that sounded absurdly crazy at the time but we now know are true. At the forefront of tis movement were the scientests that got their names in the historybook and were tourted, imprisoned,over even executed for their radical thoughts.
Sir Issaac Newton,Galelieo,Capernicus,Darwin,Columbus,and even Nostradamus.

 

[ZapperZ]

I HATE THIS THREAD!

I dislike the tone that it takes, and I dislike the self-centeredness that it assumes.

If the ONLY way that one can justify one's importance is by degrading and belittling other profession, then one DESERVES to be ostricized and dismissed by the public. I can't believe that we have to resort to such tactics. Why can't you just show the vital contribution a profession makes and why it is so important, rather than trying to show why such and such a profession is less important and less "difficult", whatever that means.

This thread is embarrassing, and an embarrassment to PF in my opinon.

Zz.

 

[Line]

IYO right? Nowhere was I belittling them. If anyone get's itit's scientests. In a nutshell they can work really hard and not get paid nearly as much.

Amd FYI doctors are study lots but don't apply it. FOr years I sat in the doctors office and they couldn't figure out what was wrong with me when I had the idea all the time. I tried to tell my psychologist idea that I was having a certain problem but she just looked at me like I was one. They just set you down,ask you dumb questions, try to change you around and take your money...all while not solving the problem! I mean how would I know hwhat's wrong with me, I'm only the person sitting inside of my body!

Now if we want to belittle somebody I'd go with businessmen and politicians.

 

[Laura1013]

Scienc eas always at a complete disagreeal with religion. The Church in Europe was totally into the idea that there was a God that created the Earth in 7 days, made man in Eden only 5,000 years ago and the Earth was flat. Any one one who didn't believe this was just adeplorable person.

I wasn't going to post on this thread, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about at all, because what you said above is completely false. You should try reading some history before you make blanket statements like that.

And that ends my involvement on this post, because I too dislike it very much.

 

[G01]

IYO right? Nowhere was I belittling them. If anyone get's itit's scientests. In a nutshell they can work really hard and not get paid nearly as much.

Amd FYI doctors are study lots but don't apply it. FOr years I sat in the doctors office and they couldn't figure out what was wrong with me when I had the idea all the time. I tried to tell my psychologist idea that I was having a certain problem but she just looked at me like I was one. They just set you down,ask you dumb questions, try to change you around and take your money...all while not solving the problem! I mean how would I know hwhat's wrong with me, I'm only the person sitting inside of my body!

Now if we want to belittle somebody I'd go with businessmen and politicians.

You would be dead without doctors, you know that right? Sure, scientists develop medicines, but its the doctors who are responsible for learning when to use it effectively and how it will affect you. Sure, scientists developed penicilin, but if your allergic to penicillin, its you doctors, job to find another antibiotic that will work effectively against that pathogen.

This whole debate is like saying which is more important in a computer, software or hardware. Both are important, the computer wouldn't exist and function without both. Without hardware, it wouldn't physically be there, and without software it would just be a useless circuit. So let this thread die.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I HATE THIS THREAD!

I dislike the tone that it takes, and I dislike the self-centeredness that it assumes.

If the ONLY way that one can justify one's importance is by degrading and belittling other profession, then one DESERVES to be ostricized and dismissed by the public. I can't believe that we have to resort to such tactics. Why can't you just show the vital contribution a profession makes and why it is so important, rather than trying to show why such and such a profession is less important and less "difficult", whatever that means.

This thread is embarrassing, and an embarrassment to PF in my opinon.

Zz.

You have to agree, though, lawyers are pretty useless.

 

[TMFKAN64]

You have to agree, though, lawyers are pretty useless.

If I were a lawyer, I'd sue you for saying that. Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

 

[Plastic Photon]

This whole debate is like saying which is more important in a computer, software or hardware. Both are important, the computer wouldn't exist and function without both. Without hardware, it wouldn't physically be there, and without software it would just be a useless circuit. So let this thread die.

But what if physics is the computer and the medical doctor is the software? Wouldn't it seem odd thatthe software is valued more than the whole of the system?

 

[Line]

Precisley. You guys are scientests but haven't learned how to read.
Nowhere in this topic have I said doctors weren't important. With some
fundemental understanding you'd see that I was only saying that scientests are just as important as doctors but get often are paid far less. Besides I think Science is waaay harder.

And as for Religion, there's now way at all that you could know about History or Science without knowing that tons and tons of people were executed for believing views that were unorthadox. I could even get into the genocidesinquisitions,and senslavement all do to religious bigotry but that's an entirly different argument. Don't you know how many people were burned at the stake for believing that the world is round?

 

[TMFKAN64]

I would guess none, actually. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth for more information on the topic.