But what if it's unjustified? One need look no further than some ATM-types to see great arrogance that should not be followed, nor respected.

Even if great leaders are all arrogant, not all arrogance denotes great leadership. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. (All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan)
_{(TAOTSOTTOTFOMPATHG)}

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

I'll tell you what arrogance is. Arrogance is reading a little Kuhn and Popper and thinking you understand how science is and/or should be done. Now that's arrogance!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Do I detect a faint whiff of sour grapes?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Your thoughts may be very good ones, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. It's not clear (to me at least) when you're trying to be ironic or funny, or what your metaphors are supposed to represent.

On a discussion forum, without tone of voice or body language, clear communication is a worthy goal in its own right. Say what you think, think what you say, and keep in mind that emoticons rarely aid clarity.

It's not arrogance when you know what you're talking about. My observation is that the vast majority of humans are emotive creatures that happen to plug in their brain occasionally. To them, those of us that think seriously most of the time are very thereatening. One of their defenses is to label us as arrogant.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm bothered by the use of anecdote instead of evidence to reach a conclusion.

I could just as easily ask, "in what scientific discipline is arrogance the least prevalent?", and arrive at the same answer (particle physicists) based only on personal experiences I've had with particle physicists.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Note to all other BAUTers.

Anything R.A.F. posts for the next 30 days will be, by default, true.

Why?

Becuase all his opinions will be grandfathered in.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Absolutely snarkophilus, very well said. Sure, there are arrogant scientists, but I suspect that science may be one of the less arrogant human endeavors. As a working scientist, I actually find the OP hurtful, it is a given that scientists are arrogant, it is only a question as which discipline is the worst.

As a scientist in an industrial environment, and one who works with non-scientists all the time (production workers, plant managers, marketing people, etc.) I strive very hard not to be arrogant. I always work very hard to explain what I am doing, why R&D is important, what are the results of the experiment we just did that made all that extra labor for the production guys, etc. Some of the best information I get about the processes I work with come from the guys on the floor who work with the stuff all the time. At first pass, many of them will assume that big PhD doesn't give a hoot about their opinion - I find PhDs that do that (and there are some) make many more mistakes, miss out on important things, and have a harder time getting their "brilliant" ideas actually executed in the production environment. Arrogance is completely counter-productive.

I also think BAUT is a shining example of the non-arrogance of science. Many of the regulars here are scientists, who are more than happy to answer the questions of the newbies and the non-scientists if they are truely curious.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Reminds me of the old, "do you still beat your wife"?, question. There is no "right" answer when assumptions are present in the question.

I better start posting faster.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

ROFL!! I would not be considering re-entry into physics if I had 'sour grapes' as you put it. I left the field of my own accord. I was in the HEP group from the summer of 1992 through the spring of 1993. I had passed my grad school coursework and my Quals; I was cleared as a Ph.D candidate, had an advisor, and was on-track to take my Comps. Everything was groovy...then Congress, in its infinite wisdom, peed in my Cheerios (so to speak): they cancelled the construction of the SSC, the great white hope of the particle physics community at the time.

The entire field went busto overnight. I recall listening in on a convo between two newly-minted HEP Ph.Ds. One was talking about driving a cab until he could find a post-doc!!

Not wanting to be an over-educated cab-driver, I took a Masters and switched fields.

Little did I know that the LHC would be constructed 14 years later. Jokes on me, ha ha.

So no, I don't have sour grapes towards the field. Regrets maybe, but not sour grapes.

Quote:

I could just as easily ask, "in what scientific discipline is arrogance the least prevalent?", and arrive at the same answer (particle physicists) based only on personal experiences I've had with particle physicists.

I see your point RAF, which is why I was polling people. I have only had experience with particle physicists, other toxicologists, neuroscientists, immunologists, physical chemists, and statisticians so far. Oh yes, let me add medical doctor to that list in two categories: under 'disciplines I've had experience with' and under 'prone to arrogance'. Of course my evidence is anecdotal!

I was asking for other peoples' opinions and experiences, not making a definitive statement or trying to tar and feather an entire field. My apologies to all of the sweet-natured particle physicists on the board!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

I presume from the context that that was sarcasm.

Even if there was no context, I'd be sure that no member-in-good-standing of this erudite board would quote Luddite and Libeller Michael I-know-better-than-you Crichton seriously.

Although, if one uses the "takes-one-to-know-one" line of thought, then Crichton is surely an expert on arrogance in others...

You are now returned to your regularly scheduled topic... /off_topic

I am also a working scientist, Swift. If OP equals 'Opinion Poll', then I must say that my intent was not to hurt you or anyone else.

No, it is not a given that scientists are arrogant!! Knowledge, confidence, and competence do not equal arrogance. Please see my response to Eta C to understand the type of attitude I'm talking about.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Please enlighten me, RAF: which assumptions are you talking about?

Congrats BTW!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Clarification is needed here in case I have caused offence I have great admiration for science and scientists and respect their justifiable pride in the value of their work. It is this duality of a term "arrogance" that is harder to explain. For some it means negative connotation but there is a righteous pride that is the extremely positive side of the term.

It is all about perception and two people looking at the same coin between them see only the side facing them. For those on the outside just the sheer daunting act of looking in at the halls of science and the tradition that goes with it could lead to confusion.

My greatest scientific hero is of course Albert Einstein. From his logic and insight into the universe and also into people (I have never properly understood people) there was always a greatness, a gentle side so well portrayed by Walter Matthau and inspiration. What better role model to start with?

Then from there a documentary on Professor Steven Hawkins well over a year ago that had me thinking circles, curves, connections and beginnings. I rarely draw anything and to be inspired just to start drawing concentric circles meant he started a change in me just through his portrayal in a documentary.

From there it became an avalanche from staunch ATMers to mathematically brilliant main-streamers that fascinate me and pop out equations with ease that just zing past me to historical characters like Sir Issac Newton who started it with the sheer perception of what is to became the starting point of science in so many ways.

Arrogance in its lesser more negative connotation I attribute only to myself and the positive to the brilliance of those in science and carrying it forward I say only in the most positive terms they are worthy of pride and respect. It is the non-people institutions that I take a tilt at not the people. If the powerhouses of science were not such worthy windmills then I would not charge at them so. They have my respect which they so rightly deserve. This and only this is why I have not stopped crusading, changing jobs to pursue my hobby of thinking.

If I could get written what I think so that it is readable that would be my first achievement.

Nobody is arguing that scientists should not feel pride in their achievements; pride in accomplishment is not arrogance. Again, everybody please see my earlier post replying to Eta C for my definition of what constitutes arrogance.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

You asked: "in what scientific discipline is arrogance the most prevalent?" The assumption is that arrogance is part of scientific discipline. You have not shown this to be the case.

To remove that assumption, you should have asked: "Is arrogance a function/feature of scientific discipline, and if so, in which discipline is it most prevalent."

To answer your question, no. I don't think arrogance is especially prevalent in science. No more than in any other field. Politics. Teaching. Business management. Law. Acting. Conspiracy Peddling. (Legitimate) Medicine. Aviation. For every arrogant scientist you can cite, I believe I can cite an example from each of these other professions.

My surgeon (from five or so years ago) was the sort of person some might consider arrogant. He's a surgeon's surgeon, nice enough but not much of a people person. Very confident in his abilities (and from his rep, rightly so.) He did organ transplants, among other surgeries, and a very difficult corrective surgery which allows me to live a normal life today. There are only two surgeons in the Maritimes who do colonectomy reversals.

But is he arrogant? The question, in my view, is irrelevant. I don't know. I never cared. He knew what he was doing, and I believed it. He proved it, too.

See, the personality card really doesn't matter to science. There's no currency or use to be found there. It's an unworthy question in my view. The only question that should matter is "Is he right and can he prove it?"

I've heard a saying that is reputed to have currency in test-pilot circles: "It's not bragging if you can do it."

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Moose is correct...that is exactly the point I wished to make.

I also agree with the "solution".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

True.

Then what would call it when a particle physicist goes on television and starts handing out health and lifestyle advice from a position of 'scientific expertise' when he/she has no formal training or practical experience in medicine or a biomedical science??

I ran across a website where it looked like that was exactly what that particular scientist was doing. The scientist in question is undoubtably accomplished in the field of particle physics and is also undoubtably very intelligent. Do these factors then mean that he/she is qualified to dispense medical advice to the general public??

Nope.

THAT is what I was talking about when I posted that poll--that assumption of general expertise based on expertise in one specific area.

Whoever wants the link can PM me for it. I won't post it here.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Good point. Consider the question/OP re-phrased!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

I would call it an example of the "misplaced authority" fallacy. I would also call it typical fare for TV these days, considering we routinely get distorted medical advice from ad executives, journalists, talk show hosts, spiritualists, Ron Jeremy (Ron Jeremy, for freaking sake). Physiotherapists ("Dr." Laura), Non-practicing psychologists (Dr. Phil). Etc.

This isn't a feature of particle physics. This is a feature of why we rely on science to filter out the rubbish our own fragile egos continually drag up.

I'll ask this again: "Is he right and can he prove it?" I'd suggest (barring additional information) the answer to the second part of that question may be no (which, barring evidence, should be the default response in any case.)

Would you like me to cite some links of non-particle physicists who dispense dodgy medical advice on bogus qualifications? You can save me some time and just hop over to Quackwatch and/or JREF. You'll quickly find enough datum to see this really has nothing at all to do with scientific arrogance.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

The phenomenon is not just limited to the highly educated. I've met plenty of people who know nothing yet think they can tell everyone how to do everything.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Moose, the offending party of which I post was not on JREF.

Arrogance is not scientific. A scientist MAY be arrogant, however. Or he/she may NOT be, depending on his/her personality.

Let me re-phrase the poll again: Do certain scientific disciplines tend to attract more arrogant people than other disciplines?

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Never suggested he was, nor did you provide any information that made me believe he might be.

But as I said, bunk is bunk. It's not about what profession attracts the most bunk, and I would suggest that your particle physicist may not be suffering from an excess of arrogance but rather a cynical ethical failure.

As I suggested, you'll see plenty of examples of delusion, hubris, and ethical failings at either of those sites. Your particle physicist isn't special in that regard.

To the best of my observational data, no.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

My "favorite" example of that kind of arrogance is Marilyn von Savant who writes a Q&A column for Parade magazine. She crows about the fact that she has the "Highest IQ". I don't recall what her actual expertise is, but answer all kinds of questions (including ones that I would call more philosophy or metaphysics) with absolute certainty. To me, a sign of a good scientist, is the ability to say "I don't know".

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I don't think it's 'ethical failure', as the person in question appears to be a very moral, if arrogant, human being. I actually have quite a bit of admiration for this person (this person could be the new Carl Sagan!), which is why the behavior described above dismays me so much! And this person has quite a GOOD reputation in his/her scientific field, which he/she would NOT have if he/she were just a 'quack'.

It isn't delusion or immorality; it is arrogance. It HAS to be arrogance.

He/she isn't the only one in his/her field which has put his/her foot in it in public recently, BTW. Stephen Hawking (one of my personal deities) did it recently when talking about climate change (anthropogenic global warming could Earth into Venus!!).

No, it couldn't. Even at 2000+ ppm CO2 during the Thermal Maximum 45 MY ago, Earth came nowhere near turning into Venus. Humanity would be long extinct before anthropogenic CO2 emissions reached that level.

Stick to particle physics, Dr. Hawking!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

She has no expertise. Her hubby is Dr. Jarvik (inventer of the artificial heart).

That plus her 'high IQ' makes her an expert in EVERYTHING!! Didn't you get the memo??

ROFL!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Hmmm. World's highest IQ, and that's how she uses it? Answering Dear-Abby questions for a second-rate magazine?

I guess it is just a number, after all.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Jarvik had said that she helped him a lot with his work, that they're partners.

Good to know she has a day job, then.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Oh man, does that statement inspire a really lovely comeback. Can't post it on a G-rated forum though.

ROFLMAO!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)