Stumbled upon a very informative (and very true) article.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2008/...ts-so-dull.html
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 10:52 AM)
Stumbled upon a very informative (and very true) article.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2008/...ts-so-dull.html
What an idiotic article. Scientists aren't dull, they are just wary of making wild, unjustified claims. If you had it your way, science journals would look like the Weekly World News.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2008/...ts-so-dull.html
What an idiotic article. Scientists aren't dull, they are just wary of making wild, unjustified claims. If you had it your way, science journals would look like the Weekly World News.
It's not an article, it's an editorial.
In my office there are about 6 scientists, all of which are very interesting and knowledgeable people in their field and in their extra curricular activities.
The author makes several claims without ever showing a shred of evidence.
He's an idiot.
He's an idiot.
I don't really know a lot of scientists. The only one I ever met was quite a weird guy... not dull at all but not all there. Smoked pot and baby sat a Cray supercomputer as part of his job. The research company he worked for apparently had a satellite link for some bizarre reason (I only have his word on this mind you) and we kept trying to get him to hack in porn on the regular channels. I really don't know if that would have been possible mind you... it's just that we liked the idea.
However, I know a lot of academic researchers in history and archeology, of which I hope to become one. While some of them are insanely dull... we used to joke that some of them can kill with just one lecture (apparently I have some of that skill myself according to my family and friends), some of them have really cool stories to tell. One guy got to participate in one of the Drekar recreation, while one of my profs from a few years ago did his PHD thesis on HP Lovecraft. Now there's a very strange area of research I can tell you. Myself, I am a long time academic but I also teach martial arts as well as compete in full contact, I fence (epee mostly), sword fight, have a pilot's license and obviously I have science as a hobby nowadays.
Sometimes the "job" part of academic life is quite dull... I suspect every job, including journalism has that aspect to it. However, it's quite false that the people are either stupid or dull, because that has not been my experience at all. Quite frankly, having read a lot of scientific articles lately I am often awestruck by how damn smart some of those people are... take Rpenner's posts which sometimes leave me so far behind I have no idea what he's talking about... which contrasts nicely with how stupid the article linked above was.
However, I know a lot of academic researchers in history and archeology, of which I hope to become one. While some of them are insanely dull... we used to joke that some of them can kill with just one lecture (apparently I have some of that skill myself according to my family and friends), some of them have really cool stories to tell. One guy got to participate in one of the Drekar recreation, while one of my profs from a few years ago did his PHD thesis on HP Lovecraft. Now there's a very strange area of research I can tell you. Myself, I am a long time academic but I also teach martial arts as well as compete in full contact, I fence (epee mostly), sword fight, have a pilot's license and obviously I have science as a hobby nowadays.
Sometimes the "job" part of academic life is quite dull... I suspect every job, including journalism has that aspect to it. However, it's quite false that the people are either stupid or dull, because that has not been my experience at all. Quite frankly, having read a lot of scientific articles lately I am often awestruck by how damn smart some of those people are... take Rpenner's posts which sometimes leave me so far behind I have no idea what he's talking about... which contrasts nicely with how stupid the article linked above was.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 14 2009, 12:24 PM)
I fence (epee mostly), sword fight, ...
I didn't know that... Such a shame you live so far away... Sigh.
My friend, Oliver is a postgraduate student in a physics program. When we were teenagers we stole a garbage truck together. He has a reputation for mastery at fantasy football. He could drink a fish under the table, doesn't remember how many one-night-stands he's had, has helped me restore a 1971 Camaro and can recite every line of the Rocky Horror Picture Show and the latest Dungeons and Dragons manual. He has a green belt in TKD, and almost enlisted in the Army with me. He once got beat up by a transsexual hooker when he was so drunk he refused to fight back, because he thought he was a she. Me and Oliver have gotten kicked out of 3 different bars together, once for beating up a handful of marines. He's been kicked out of another 2 with different people, for similar offenses. He still smokes more pot in a day than I ever did in a week, advocates for NORML and once managed to flirt his way out of being arrested by a female cop (or so one of our mutual friends tells me).
To call him dull would be like calling water dry.
I've seen sentiments like the one in the linked blog entry expressed before. Oddly enough, the people who express them tend to be stereotypes. Not the stereotypes of conspiracy theorists and mad scientists that you see in the movies, but nonetheless. They root for their local pro sports teams, go out drinking for an hour or two after works once or twice a week, have one holiday on which they throw their "world famous" barbeque's, in which they cook their "world famous" ribs or burgers which taste just like any other ribs or burgers. Their dumber friends think they're really smart, while their smarter friends think they're not half as smart as they think they are. Consequently, they tend to hang out with their dumber friends more.
There's just a million people like them. Which, to me, makes them dull. I'd take a nerd, a raging jock, or a burnt out wannabe rockstar as friends over someone like that, anyday.
I didn't know that... Such a shame you live so far away... Sigh.
My friend, Oliver is a postgraduate student in a physics program. When we were teenagers we stole a garbage truck together. He has a reputation for mastery at fantasy football. He could drink a fish under the table, doesn't remember how many one-night-stands he's had, has helped me restore a 1971 Camaro and can recite every line of the Rocky Horror Picture Show and the latest Dungeons and Dragons manual. He has a green belt in TKD, and almost enlisted in the Army with me. He once got beat up by a transsexual hooker when he was so drunk he refused to fight back, because he thought he was a she. Me and Oliver have gotten kicked out of 3 different bars together, once for beating up a handful of marines. He's been kicked out of another 2 with different people, for similar offenses. He still smokes more pot in a day than I ever did in a week, advocates for NORML and once managed to flirt his way out of being arrested by a female cop (or so one of our mutual friends tells me).
To call him dull would be like calling water dry.
I've seen sentiments like the one in the linked blog entry expressed before. Oddly enough, the people who express them tend to be stereotypes. Not the stereotypes of conspiracy theorists and mad scientists that you see in the movies, but nonetheless. They root for their local pro sports teams, go out drinking for an hour or two after works once or twice a week, have one holiday on which they throw their "world famous" barbeque's, in which they cook their "world famous" ribs or burgers which taste just like any other ribs or burgers. Their dumber friends think they're really smart, while their smarter friends think they're not half as smart as they think they are. Consequently, they tend to hang out with their dumber friends more.
There's just a million people like them. Which, to me, makes them dull. I'd take a nerd, a raging jock, or a burnt out wannabe rockstar as friends over someone like that, anyday.
Sometimes a thing can be true even if no evidence is presented. Occasionally the issue is not whether the writer is capable of intelligent thought - is the reader?
Looking at (say) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion .. is there likely to be any correlation between :-
[Introversion is] "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life".
and 'achievement' in science?
Compare
[Extroversion is] "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"
In fairness the definitions can be read either way - I leave it to subsequent readers to comment.
Locally:-
I would say this forum has changed from being a 'place' where many introvert(ish) people discussed physics to (now) a place where extraverts congregate to take the piss out of anyone wishing to discuss physics - that is my guess as to the real cause of the decline in numbers (and quality of discussion) since the 'early days' of the forum.
-C2.
(Edited (unsuccessfully) to tidy up line breaks)
Looking at (say) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion .. is there likely to be any correlation between :-
[Introversion is] "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life".
and 'achievement' in science?
Compare
[Extroversion is] "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"
In fairness the definitions can be read either way - I leave it to subsequent readers to comment.
Locally:-
I would say this forum has changed from being a 'place' where many introvert(ish) people discussed physics to (now) a place where extraverts congregate to take the piss out of anyone wishing to discuss physics - that is my guess as to the real cause of the decline in numbers (and quality of discussion) since the 'early days' of the forum.
-C2.
(Edited (unsuccessfully) to tidy up line breaks)
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 14 2009, 12:42 PM)
Sometimes a thing can be true even if no evidence is presented. Occasionally the issue is not whether the writer is capable of intelligent thought - is the reader?
You're right. That's why I don't link to your posting history whenever I critique your intelligence or integrity.
But when someone makes claims which run contrary to available evidence, or flies in the face of common sense, some evidence is to be expected. The lack of it almost inevitably indicates a false claim.
You have such an incredibly strong bias that it's a wonder you can even sit down in front of the computer to type up posts without smashing your head into a bloody pulp against the monitor in rage.
I don't know where to begin pointing out the error and stupidity of this claim.
You're right. That's why I don't link to your posting history whenever I critique your intelligence or integrity.
But when someone makes claims which run contrary to available evidence, or flies in the face of common sense, some evidence is to be expected. The lack of it almost inevitably indicates a false claim.
QUOTE
I would say this forum has changed from being a 'place' where many introvert(ish) people discussed physics to (now) a place where extraverts congregate to take the piss out of anyone wishing to discuss physics - that is my guess as to the real cause in the decline in numbers (and quality of discussion) since the 'early days' of the forum.
You have such an incredibly strong bias that it's a wonder you can even sit down in front of the computer to type up posts without smashing your head into a bloody pulp against the monitor in rage.
I don't know where to begin pointing out the error and stupidity of this claim.
QUOTE
But when someone makes claims which run contrary to available evidence, or flies in the face of common sense, some evidence is to be expected. The lack of it almost inevitably indicates a false claim.
Oh the hypocrisy.
Maybe if you make it any thicker you will suffocate. Give it a try (fingers crossed).
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 01:33 PM)
Oh the hypocrisy.
Maybe if you make it any thicker you will suffocate. Give it a try (fingers crossed).
Do you even know what the word "hypocrisy" means? It's so totally inapplicable here that I'm wondering if English is a second (or more likely, third) language to you...
Keep posting though. Your gargantuan reserves of stupidity amuse some of us.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 14 2009, 05:42 PM)
I would say this forum has changed from being a 'place' where many introvert(ish) people discussed physics to (now) a place where extraverts congregate to take the piss out of anyone wishing to discuss physics - that is my guess as to the real cause of the decline in numbers (and quality of discussion) since the 'early days' of the forum.
-C2.
(Edited (unsuccessfully) to tidy up line breaks)
I've always been extremely introverted.
But there is dsicussing physics, and there is saying "light travels intantly", or "light isn't the fastest speed, electricity is.".
If you go to a sports or automotive forum they don't usually tolerate ignorance coupled with unwillingness to learn. Why should it be different with physics?
Go to a pro ball site and start arguing that baseball would be better played bare foot, see how long you last. Why should the same level of ignorance and stupity be tolerated here? We shoud tolerate ignorance because the poster doesn't know better? Is that what you would like?
-C2.
(Edited (unsuccessfully) to tidy up line breaks)
I've always been extremely introverted.
But there is dsicussing physics, and there is saying "light travels intantly", or "light isn't the fastest speed, electricity is.".
If you go to a sports or automotive forum they don't usually tolerate ignorance coupled with unwillingness to learn. Why should it be different with physics?
Go to a pro ball site and start arguing that baseball would be better played bare foot, see how long you last. Why should the same level of ignorance and stupity be tolerated here? We shoud tolerate ignorance because the poster doesn't know better? Is that what you would like?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 14 2009, 03:10 PM)
I've always been extremely introverted.
As have I. I still am, to a great degree.
What C2's suggesting is akin to suggesting that talk about the goa'uld from Stargate is a discussion of ancient Egyptian mythology.
As have I. I still am, to a great degree.
QUOTE
But there is discussing physics, and there is saying "light travels intantly", or "light isn't the fastest speed, electricity is.".
(hope you don't mind the typo correction)What C2's suggesting is akin to suggesting that talk about the goa'uld from Stargate is a discussion of ancient Egyptian mythology.
Bwahaha. The "Editor in Chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses" wrote an opinion piece. He would prefer that scientists be more "abrasive" and that medical experiments have less "logistical organization." No doubt this editor finds scientists dull because he considers reliable estimation of facts as dull. Well, boo hoo for him. 
I would prefer that my doctor have actual facts on hand when prescribing a course of treatment.
In the meantime, if abrasive one-man bands are what you want, there's Stargate Universe or Girl Genius. Fiction, and entirely useless for adding to human knowledge of the universe, but ripe for the pages of Medical Hypotheses.
I would prefer that my doctor have actual facts on hand when prescribing a course of treatment.In the meantime, if abrasive one-man bands are what you want, there's Stargate Universe or Girl Genius. Fiction, and entirely useless for adding to human knowledge of the universe, but ripe for the pages of Medical Hypotheses.
QUOTE
I would prefer that my doctor have actual facts on hand when prescribing a course of treatment.
Indeed...If I'm going to see a doctor, I am fine with dull, or abrasive or even downright insulting. As long as I come out healthy, I don't care.
Actually, Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) had a great bit about engineers which I think applies to scientists as well. I will have to paraphrase since I don't have the book at hand.
Basically, though exciting works great for an entertainer or journalist, it's actually bad for engineers and scientists. Imagine designing and building a bridge or an accelerator for example... the risk vs reward situation looks a bit like this....
Risk... The potential deaths of thousands, public humiliation and possible criminal charges.
Reward... A nice certificate in a plastic frame.
It's understandable if scientists and engineers don't much care for excitement in their work. A bridge that goes up by the numbers is rather a dull event. A bridge that collapses then explodes is much more exciting. I am not sure it's better though.
"Close to the fire" - mean anything to anyone?
QUOTE
Do you even know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
I know full well what I means. I applies because you are guilty of the at very thing. As for the so called "evidence" you link to...talk about ludicrous.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 08:51 AM)
I know full well what I means. I applies because you are guilty of the at very thing. As for the so called "evidence" you link to...talk about ludicrous.
Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid? Seriously, it's like you're trying to be an idiot. Trying to prove Poe's Law isn't going to score you any brownie points here...
I mean, first you accuse me of hypocrisy for providing a source in my criticism of someone who made claims without providing a source, which is stupid in the extreme.
But then, you have to put the cherry on top by calling my source "ludicrous" without bothering to even explain why, let alone provide a counter source....
Seriously, I ask you. Are you trying to look like an idiot?
As far as my source's credibility goes...
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring04/Artigas/facts.htm
You might note that the graph came from the first link... It's far far more reputable information than anything you've given in this thread.
Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid? Seriously, it's like you're trying to be an idiot. Trying to prove Poe's Law isn't going to score you any brownie points here...
I mean, first you accuse me of hypocrisy for providing a source in my criticism of someone who made claims without providing a source, which is stupid in the extreme.
But then, you have to put the cherry on top by calling my source "ludicrous" without bothering to even explain why, let alone provide a counter source....
Seriously, I ask you. Are you trying to look like an idiot?
As far as my source's credibility goes...
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring04/Artigas/facts.htm
You might note that the graph came from the first link... It's far far more reputable information than anything you've given in this thread.
QUOTE
Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid?
Kinda like you did with that sig of yours?
"I've got a hammer in my pants,
It shoots lightning.
"
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 19 2009, 01:10 PM)
Kinda like you did with that sig of yours?
"I've got a hammer in my pants,
It shoots lightning.
"
Very reasoned and rational response. Instead of disputing anything, you simply hurl an insult and hope no-one will notice your utter stupidity.
Good luck with that, dumbass.
The relevance of IQ by trade/profession has not been established.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 19 2009, 06:34 PM)
The relevance of IQ by trade/profession has not been established.
How does it feel to be wrong?
Next time, actually read the thread and any links posited as relevant to the thread before saying something so stupid.
How does it feel to be wrong?
QUOTE
Scientists are, as a group, dull and getting-duller.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2008/...ts-so-dull.htmlNext time, actually read the thread and any links posited as relevant to the thread before saying something so stupid.
QUOTE
The relevance of IQ by trade/profession has not been established.
So... do you know any people with a reported IQ of 60 who are particle physicists.
Just curious.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.