Quote:
|
pride in one's accomplishments, as I say, is not arrogance unless it's taken to extremes.
|
I agree. That is not the type of arrogance or pride I was talking about.
Quote:
|
Like successful people in most fields, a certain amount of arrogance is necessary for any good scientist.
|
I disagree. There is a difference betweem
self-confidence and arrogance. Self-confidence is certainly necessary for success in ANY field, scientific or otherwise. Arrogance may actually impede success, as it closes one's mind off to consideration of others' ideas. Also, some of the best scientists I've ever met gave also been some of the most self-effacing, so arrogance is not essential for success.
I also noted when I was in grad school that at least
some people in particle physics seemed to think that being in particle physics implied that they were smarter than a given scientists in any other field. I will certainly cop to having that view while I was studying that field!
I got that arrogance knocked out of me when I switched fields to tox instead.
There are brilliant people in every field, and there are plodders in every field. The distribution of IQ scores over a given range is probably the same for
all fields of science. 'AngryPhysics' talks about this in his/her latest blog entry.
Quote:
|
I think one reason for this (in this case at least) is that most particle physicists feel they know more about other fields than people in other fields know about physics.
|
That's the type of attitude I'm talking about. No offence, Eta C, but your expertise in particle physics does not translate to expertise in other fields such as, say, toxicology, medicine, physical chemistry, public health, neuroscience, etc. unless you have advanced, formal training in any of these areas.
I wouldn't claim expertise in particle physics even though I
studied field theory in grad school and was in the high energy group! Do I have some knowledge of the field? Yes. Expertise?
Nope.
I'm sure you are very accomplished in your field. So am I in mine. I'm sure you possess a wide array of surface knowledge about other scientific disciplines. So do I.
But, there is a difference between saying that one
has knowledge of a field outside of one's zone of expertise and
claiming to be or acting like an expert in a field outside of one's true zone of expertise. It is a fine line that is very easy to step over sometimes; I have stepped over it myself on occasion
. I am not claiming that you have stepped over it, Eta C, but I have seen it done by others on more than one occasion.
It is great to be a Renaissance person. It is
not okay to claim universal expertise. To do so is not only arrogant and
fallacious, it is also
misleading, particularly for the layperson.
That is the point of my thread.
Quote:
|
If the scientist in question can demonstrate knowledge, or even expertise, in a field outside their specialty, then to some extent the arrogance is justified.
|
Arrogance is never justifiable.
Quote:
've never knwn him to offer an opinion on a subject he has not studied - at least to some extent.
He's certainly willing to admit being wrong - but he will also demand you prove your assertions. I suppose that might be seen as arrogant..
|
Nope, that's not arrogant..scientific rigor is not arrogance.