Pretty much sums up a certain HA, doesn't it?Good point.

What I had in mind when I wrote it was astronomy of things well beyond the solar system.

But then wrt one the most fascinating things in modern astronomy - dark matter - two landmarks illustrate a more complex story - Zwicky (talk about arrogant!) and Vera Rubin (how, except with the word 'arrogant', could you describe the response of the astronomy establishment to her findings?).

And earlier, what about Eddington and Chandrasekhar?But back to the OP ...

It seems that particle physicists live and work in places other than US (as do astronomers); I wonder if BAUT members who have the relevant personal interactions could comment on Italian, Japanese, Indian, Chinese, or German particle physicists?

No, it doesn't.

Let's get some working definitions, here, shall we? Because there's a very big difference between arrogance as it's defined by dictionaries and arrogance as some people here seem to be defining it.

According to Merriam-Webster online:

So. Saying, "I know better than you because I've studied the subject longer than you've been alive" is not necessarily arrogance; a lot depends on attitude. Are you overbearing at it, or do you say it as a statement of fact? When you are giving advice in other fields, are you saying that you have to know better than other people because you're smarter than they? (I'm looking at you, Dr. Laura!) Or are you saying, "I have a load of experience, and you might benefit from it"?

Confidence in one's work without bragging is about as far from arrogance as you get without getting into low self-esteem. If you've done the work, and you know you've done the work, and you have seen the work successful, that isn't arrogance. It's confidence.

Most of the people I've known in professional fields have had confidence. Few of them have been arrogant.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I agree. The person in question that sparked this entire discussion has done NO work that qualifies him/her to hand out health advice to the layperson. He/she is not a health care professional, has not done research in a biomedical field, nor does he/she work in the arena of public health (i.e.: as a regulator or educator). Had this person done any of the above, he/she would be amply qualified to speak in public on the subject as an 'expert' and/or hand out advice. As it stands, he/she is NOT qualified to do so. Plain and simple.

Yet, he/she continues to do so, and presumably takes a paycheck to do it!

I am not attacking this person's manner (which is said to be quite charming) or work in his/her legitimate field (which is said to be notable). I am attacking the mislabelling of an unqualified person as an 'expert' in a field outside of that person's true field of expertise simply because their primary field of expertise must somehow imply they have expertise in EVERY branch of science. Moose called it right.

Tell me something, Gillian: Would YOU take healthcare advice from a person who has no true expertise in medicine or a related field but is instead an expert in a completely unrelated field?

I know I wouldn't!

__________________
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)

Let me clarify something here: I'm not attacking the person cited above as a human being (this person appears to be a decent human being and is genuinely interested in public outreach); attacking his/her credentials in his/her field of expertise (which are, as I said, considerable); attacking his/her field of expertise in general (which I find fascinating and study avidly); or attacking scientists in general (I am a scientist!).

What I am railing against in this post is the presumption (which is not shared by everybody in a given field. I realize that) that because someone has expertise in a field such a particle physics (generally assumed by the layman to be a field where one has to be a genius to even have a Ph.D) that same person must be an expert in all scientific disciplines, regardless of the person's actual credentials in the other disciplines!

I realize a lot of this is due to how laypeople treat scientists in a given discipline due to:
1) their own misconceptions about the field (i.e.: laypeople think every physicist is akin to Einstein, as in: "Hey, he's a genius! Look at all of that math he can do! He's an expert; he must know EVERYTHING!!!!" Hey, I thought the same way in high school!);
2) their misconceptions about what a Ph.D is ("Well, he's/she's a doctor, after all!!" No, Ph.D does not equal MD. And a PhD in physics does not have the same expertise as a PhD in, say, chemistry, physiology, pharmacology, etc); and
3) their inability to grasp how HUGE the collective body of scientific knowledge is ("Science is science, right?" No, it isn't. Knowledge of one branch of science does not necessarily confer expertise in another branch, even if that branch is closely related. Do true double experts exist? Of course they do? But they are not the norm.).

These misconceptions are not the scientist's fault. I find fault, however, when a scientist in a given field fosters this misconception, wittingly or unwittingly. That's where the accusation of arrogance comes in.

I realize that this kind of ego-stroking is very hard to resist if one works with laypeople a lot, but scientific rigor, integrity, and common sense demand that one does resist this temptation. To give in to it risks one's scientific reputation at the very least; at worst, and particularly in the situation I'm referring to, someone could get very sick or die from this well-intentioned 'expert' advice. Now, the above could also happen with an MD dispensing general health advice too--stuff happens. But the odds of it happening are considerably less, as he knows what to watch out for when giving advice of that kind. The person of whom I speak is operating in the dark.

The whole situation is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

__________________
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)

Individually, or collectively?

Individually, I find that medical professionals can be quite arrogant.

Collectively, I find that economics can be an outrageously arrogant discipline, even though economists are often personally unremarkable.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

YUP! I agree with that one!

__________________
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)

That's a sign of an intelligent person in general. As mentioned before, a really good scientist can exclaim gleefully, "everything I know is wrong!"

It occurs to me that parapsychologists can quite often be arrogant. Same with UFOlogists. People who study homeopathy and naturopathy, too. If, you know, you count all of those people as scientists.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

Okey dokey ...

To what extent do you feel you are extrapolating (unreasonably?) from a small sample?

To what extent do you feel this is even relevant in some other part(s) of the world?

Since BAUT is about astronomy and space science, maybe we'd get more (direct, personal) informed opinions if we asked if astronomers are (especially) arrogant? Or those who work on (NASA, ESA, JSA, ...) missions to the Moon, Mars, Venus, etc?

Just wondering here, about (manifestations of which are not allowed on the Forum), but why is a certain area of study referred to as 'political science'?

To make its practitioners sound smarter than they are.

__________________
"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

Perhaps I am. But I put this OP to 'John', an engineer who works with quite a few physicists on a daily basis. His answer: "Physicists, of course!". He works with about 20 or 30 Ph.D physicists at his job, and his opinions of them individually and as a group, formed from several unpleasant personal experiences, are not high. Is this negativity towards everyone in a given field justified??

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

But it does raise questions in my mind that I'm trying to answer in this thread. 'John' is generally a very friendly, easy-going guy. Where would such a prejudice come from, if not from experience? He didn't feel this way BEFORE he met these people.

I am also judging from other examples (personal experience with fellow grad students; personal reputations of famous physicists as opposed to notable figures in other areas of science).

The above is not occurring in the States.

Possibly. I have not noticed a tendency towards arrogance in those disciplines or working environments (limited though my experience/knowledge is), however.

Granted, this is a difficult subject to bring up, and my initial post was badly-worded.

__________________
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)

Because it studies politics? Makes perfect sense to me.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Feelings of inferiority/being intimidated, due to his not having an equivalent area of expertise or level of training; science envy?

Could be, but unlikely. He was around physicists/science experts before this job--not as many as he is now, but he had met them before.

__________________
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)

People expect me to all the time. Everyone who's ignorant in mental health has some piece of advice which, if I follow it, I'll magically get better. I also get lots of remarkably stupid advice about my physical health problems. Every layperson has an opinion, and the less-educated in the field you are, the more certain you seem to be that you'll solve all my problems.

However.

I do actually take advice from non-professionals sometimes, yes. My best friend does a lot of research every time I go on a new medication. She's not a medical professional; she's getting an MFA, as it happens, which is, while not the farthest you can be from being a medical professional, pretty bloody far. However, she has done a lot of research, and she knows a fair amount, even though she has no degree.

In fact, I have a lot of friends with similar mental health problems, and we're constantly sharing advice about therapists, about medications, about ways to work in a system that's not set up to handle our problems. So, yeah, I take a fair amount of medical advice from non-medical experts. Is it arrogant of them to offer the advice? No, not at all. They have studied the field, even if none of them have degrees in it. In fact, in a lot of ways, I trust them more than a lot of medical professionals with whom I've had dealings, because they have greater first-hand experience.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I think there is more arrogance by the support staff.

I am an electrician.

"The 'machine that goes beep' is powered up again. Try not to take out half the grid the next time you try one of your silly theories. The plumber has fixed that mess you made of the toilet, and I imagine he will be speaking to you as well."

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

If I were you, I'd be tempted to fix the 'machine that goes beep' such that it beeps loudly, continually, and perpetually.

Quote:

In fact, in a lot of ways, I trust them more than a lot of medical professionals with whom I've had dealings,

Well, I have to agree with you on THAT one! For all my beefing about particle physicists on this thread, no one disputes that they are, to a man, extremely bright and competent at what they do.

I have met a lot of medical doctors who could not make the same claim. For example, I recently got a checkup and lab work done. Found out my cholesterol was 245 mg/dl. My doc said 'Oh, it's ok, because your HDL is high too."

Never mind that my LDL value was ALSO high!

ARGGHH!

__________________
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)

Funny word Arrogant. People are just people,
insular, outgoing, middle of the road,
knowledgable, learned, thick, active, passive,
alive just! Arrogant seems to mean "they will
not jump when I say something!" Ever heard of
Dumb insolence? If that exists then so does
Dumb arrogance. Most folks will not accept a
new idea unless it is acclaimed by some
authority. Or it could be "I am not going to
recognise that pushy upstart!".....

I wonder if he's following the latest suggestion that it's not so much the level, but the ratio between the two that's important.

Again, though, I must agree with Gillianren...this is the basis for 'second opinion'. If I have a medical question, I consult my doctor - AND my wife - AND the various medical books we have lying about the house. I'm particularly paranoid about medications. More than once I've had contraindicated meds prescribed (by the same doc). My mother, sister, mother in law, [i]and[/] one of my best friends have all had this happen - to varying affect. (one nearly ended up in a mental institution)

For other fields.. it's a matter of comparing what I know to what is being proposed. Generally, if I'm completely ignorant of the subject, I'll defer to mainstream science. (and no, I do not consider psychology, economics, or any other of the 'soft sciences' to be science - at best, they are exercises using statistics)

__________________
"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

A few years ago I'd have agreed with this. That was before I actually learned about economics and psychology.

Economics is not great as science goes. It's a lot of guesswork, and theories aren't always discarded when shown to be incorrect. However, the models that economists build are continually under refinement, and continually getting better. Ideas are replaced, but very slowly. It's not just statistics any more: it's a very complicated field (which is why investment banks often hire physicists to do their modelling). There's a vast difference between that 100-level course I took as an elective and the actual work that is done. Most importantly, they apply the scientific method to a problem, which in my books makes it science. Test, hypothesize, and test again. It's not all like that, which is why it isn't great, but much of the process is still scientific.

Psychology is a science in its infancy, but it's rapidly growing up. Take, for instance, the Erickson Handshake Induction. If you don't know what that is, look it up. You will be very pleased, and might forget about this thread entirely in your zeal to investigate it further. I suggest going to YouTube to see some videos, first. Amazing stuff.

*pause for research*

Okay, so Erickson invented/discovered this method of hypnosis. And it's completely brilliant. It really works, and people use it all the time without even knowing it. And for many years, that was what psychology was. It was purely an observational thing: people respond to this stimulus in this way. That's why many people don't see psychology as a science.

But now, hypnotic techniques and statistical analyses of responses to stimuli and all that stuff are becoming to psychology what zoology is to biology. They're a way of classifying things, of investigating effects. It's the observational part of psychology. The field is at the point where you can actually predict responses based on stimuli. It's the foundation of modern advertising. It's how someone like Derren Brown can make a living. Combining classical hypotheses with neurobiology (the two fields are merging, mostly leading to the destruction of old ideas), it's leaving the purely observational stage and becoming something quite scientific.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

I agree that a lot of people who look down on psychology don't know much about it. No, it's not terribly precise, but neither are people. It is, to me, a branch of medicine. Is medicine a science? If so, what makes psychology different than nutrition? There are plenty of exceptions to rules in both, because, again, humans are imprecise.

I know a lot of people who owe their lives to proper application of psychological principles--not to mention psychtropic drugs, of course. It's hard for me to think it isn't a science, because I know it's more than guesswork. (The meds are still a crapshoot, but they're working on that.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I have to agree there. The thing with psychology and economics is that because the subjects under study are so complex; and because experimental results are relatively difficult to control and quantify, there's a lot of room for junk science.

One thing psychology does very well is detect and demonstrate the many upon many ways we humans deceive ourselves. The "how" is relatively easy. The "why", much harder.

No science has an easy time understanding motivation. Most sciences have the luxury of ignoring 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.

Yup. Same thing for toxicology, and particularly for the 'science' of health risk assessment.

Ugh, I miss physics....

__________________
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 kinda skimmed the thread so I'm not sure if anyone said this (though it's unlikely that anyone did, since the only other person I know who would is not a frequent poster). I also might be a bit arrogant myself in writing this, too.

Any scientist that looks down on Meteorology is an arrogant one, and they don't understand that this stuff is hard. You try to integrate seven long, ugly, and annoying multivariate equations for tens or hundreds of thousands of points around the world and then interpolate the results for areas in between weather stations and we'll see how accurate you are.

Just had to get that off my chest, cause it seems like a lot of the other science departments kinda look down on meteorology (despite the fact that we're on the top floor of the science building, haha!).

__________________
"The usefullness of a glass is in its emptiness."
- Bruce Lee

Well, I'm not one of them Swordfish!

I have to say again, as I much as I was beefing about arrogance in particle physicists earlier in this thread (and I've calmed down considerably from the start of the thread vs. now! ), I feel nothing but the utmost awe and admiration for the field and the work that is done in it.

And there are egomaniacs in every scientific discipline.

__________________
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)

And a lot of other disciplines as well. Ye Gods, you should see some of the people you get in lit circles!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

...and outside of them.

__________________
"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

Gillian, Snark...

I am not quibbling - I don't think. Psychology/Economics, etc are very definitely in their infancy. They have the *potential* to be come science - particularly now that we have insane computing power at our fingertips. But they aren't there yet. They are still more art than science, and there are darn few good artists in the crowd

But psychology (and doubtless economics as well, but it's not a field in which I feel terribly comfortable) follows the scientific method, when it's done properly. Yes, there are some lousy practitioners--I've been in therapy with a couple of 'em--but I think it's not that it may become science, but that the science is slowly advancing.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"