Are Chemists Less Esteemed Than Physicists?

[chemisttree]

I look down on both Chemists and Physicists... of course I'm 6'4".

EAT IT small CHEMIST! Ha Ha Ha Ha! I TOWER OVER YOU!

Wow! Like, this forum is like sooo AWESOME! (dude)

 

[cpb11]

he ranked vocations in this order:

1) Philosopher

Hmmm... what did Aristotle do for a living again?

 

[Cyrus]

So far here's Cyrus' reply on this thread. We are still waiting for him to make a valid argument...

---------------------------
You just replaced something bad, with something just as bad. I don't think you understand what physicists or chemists do.

Mine turns to gold. My gold cannon, BOOM!

What...?

Guys, the level of comments here is comedic at best. Please, for your own sake just stop. The level of ignorance is astounding.

Hmmmm... you just disqualified yourself from commenting. Really, this is hog-wash.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say, IMO.

O-kay...

<chuckle> what a load of crap.

Actually, confinement, I know what I'm talking about and you don't.

Sigh, okay.

Let me put it to you this way, I'm not a chemist; however, even as a non-chemist I'm insulted by your comments for all chemists.

What you have posted is both ignorant, and insulting, and shows a general lack of appreciation or understanding of chemistry. Spare me your humility talk, and spend that time reading a book instead. What you've posted is crap and I'm not going to let that slide.

What is this nonsense? You're in a physicsforum try askings the actual physicists what it means to be one instead of using some 'philosophical' mumbo-jumbo definition pulled out of kierkegaards butt.

Hmmm, why is this relevant?
.
.
(There are few more, but I lost interest in cut pasting crap)

Do you have a point?

 

[Cyrus]

Beware these subversive tactics, which attempt to make you ashamed of your stength! Those who are weak would rather such matters not be discussed at all.

Wow, that's hilariously lame. I can't believe you just wrote that - honestly. Did you get this from a comic book?

 

[Cyrus]

Thank goodness that XKCD has arrived to defend my basic point!

The discussion of christian humility, and its oppressive force on society, is relevant because 'looking down on chemists' is not pathetic according to every measure, (indeed, XKCD has provided a measure by which it is valid) but it is not allowed according to christian humility.

Also, when you dimiss my comments as 'philosophical mumbo-jumbo' I guess that you are trying to appeal to the stupidity of the masses e.g. 'dis der guy talkin fancy, we oughta string em up, eh boys'. Otherwise, maybe you disrespect philosophy (or fear it) more deeply then my rather mild condescension towards chemistry.

I don't understand why you have some incessant need to talk about 'christian humility'. What does this thread have to do with christian values? Basically, you want to talk about philosophy because you think it makes you sound smart and knowledgeable. It's doing the opposite.

Im also glad you use a comic strip to defend your position.

Please restrict your posts to the philosophy section of PF. This pointless mumbo-jumbo you're posting is getting out of hand. You are using and abusing scientific disiplines and terms left and right while justifying it by saying its due to "my inability to conform and be indoctrinated".

The moment you stated you look down on chemists (with an ! mark none-the-less), invalidated anything you have to say on this subject.

Example of your ignorance:

But yes, I do find non-trivial necessary and universal truths (theorems) to be more valuable then all the comforts of modern life that chemistry affords. It is a close call, since without the latter life would be difficult and painful, but without the former it would not be worth living at all.

So chemistry is only trivial and unnecessary truths - right. Nice try.

Would you like to throw in some more plato mumbo jumbo to try and justify such an outrageous statement?

 

[NBAJam100]

Otherwise, maybe you disrespect philosophy (or fear it) more deeply then my rather mild condescension towards chemistry.

Your command of the English language amazes me almost as much as your knowledge of philosophy does.

Schoolyard insult, sure. Schoolyard thread, yes. This is going nowhere fast.

 

[confinement]

I don't understand why you have some incessant need to talk about 'christian humility'. What does this thread have to do with christian values?

Why is it pathetic for me to look down on chemists, on the grounds that they have low mathematical sophistication? I agree that it seems arrogant, but why is this a bad thing?

One explanation (put forth not by me, but by great thinkers in modern times) for why arrogance carries a strong negative connotation is that we live in a culture that has long prized the christian virtue of humility. Even if you are not a christian, and you were not raised as a christian, as a member of western society you are still under the unconscious influence of christian values.

In other words, the reason I am questioning christian values in this thread is because otherwise anyone who chooses to hold the elitist (by definition) position of 'looking down on chemists' is going to be accused of being arrogant e.g. the sarcastic 'size of mathematical penis' remark a few posts ago and then the conlclusion of the argument depends on the audience association 'arrogant = bad', a deeply ingrained connotation which I claim is an obstacle to human progress.

Basically, you want to talk about philosophy because you think it makes you sound smart and knowledgeable. It's doing the opposite.

No, I am talking about philosophy because it is relevant (I forgive that your lack of education in this area prevents you from seeing that). As for what opinion you will form of me on this basis, I can honestly say that no thoughts of that kind ever crossed my mind.

Im also glad you use a comic strip to defend your position.

First of all, it is better than nothing, which you have presented.

Second, the fact that XKCD enjoys reasonable popularity is evidence that this joke makes sense to many of us, and my original point in this thread was that there is a common base notion of the elitist rankings of these professions, which agrees exactly with the aristotelian one (aside from philosophy which lately has fallen into a disreputable public perception, which you have tried to exploit several times in this thread against me; at least some forum members are too bright for these tactics).

Please restrict your posts to the philosophy section of PF. This pointless mumbo-jumbo you're posting is getting out of hand. You are using and abusing scientific disiplines and terms left and right while justifiying it by saying its due to "my inability to conform and be indoctrinated".

The real problem is that my posts are best read by an educated person who is willing to suspend judgement and read between the lines (i.e. think) to see that what I am posting is not nonsense.

When you accuse me of abusing 'scientific disciplines and terms' you are attempting to construe me as violating the rules of this forum, but I have only discussed matters of opinion and you will not se me contradicting any accepted scientific facts.

When I say that I was not indoctriated, I mean that I learned the facts without absorbing the thoughtless opinions of the drones who taught them to me.

The moment you stated you look down on chemists (with an ! mark none-the-less), invalidated anything you have to say on this subject.

Within the framework of a polite christian discussion I agree with you, but if you are willing to entertain that arrogance may be valid and even healthy, then I do not see why my opinion is automatically invalidated. What rule of coversation have I broken, if arrogance is fair game?

So chemistry is only trivial and unnecessary truths - right. Nice try.

This is rich --- you have either constructed a straw man, or you have demonstrated how low your perception is by your blatant error in attempting to negate a proposition.

By claiming that chemistry does not contain "non-trivial necessary and universal truths" I am claiming that all the truths of chemistry are either trivial, not necessary (in the sense of logic, as in "the conclusion necessarily follows", since I know you had the ordinary meaning in mind), or not universal. By the way, the trivial truths are things like "Liquids boil at their boiling point" i.e. this is necessary (follows necesssaily by definition) and universal but it is also trivial.

Your mistake is that the negation of a conjunction should be a disjunction, whereas you arrived at a conjunction (I concede it may have been a straw man attempt to waste my time).

Would you like to throw in some more plato mumbo jumbo to try and justify such an outrageous statement?

If that is how name-calling is played, then I have had enough of your Cyrus mumbo-jumbo.

 

[turbo]

Somebody please lock this ignorant thread!

 

[confinement]

Your command of the English language amazes me almost as much as your knowledge of philosophy does.

I'm sure that it does, but the typo that you have found is not a very good illustration of the glorious splendor of knowledge that I have bestowed upon you.

Wow, that's hilariously lame. I can't believe you just wrote that - honestly. Did you get this from a comic book?

Well you had better believe it, there are no limits to how lame I am willing to sound in order to deconstruct the post-modern hyper-fear of arrogance.

I also support locking this thread, before witch-doctor Cyrus gets to spout any more of his mumbo-jumbo-gumbo. That way everyone can return to their ordinary, mundane existence without questioning the moral value to which they hold dear!

 

[Proton Soup]

The ancient greek philosopher Aristotle noticed that our capability for abstract, rational thought was the primary quality which differentiated us from the lower animals. This formed a cornerstone of his thought, and so he ranked vocations in this order:

1) Philosopher
2) Mathematician
3) Physicist
4) Applied Scientist
5) Soldier
6) Artisan

that is, the work becomes less desirable with decreasing abstraction and increasing pragmatism. I apologize for launching into a long historical story, but Aristotle's influence is such that his thought is basically the source of the elitist ranking (from most to least elite) "math > physics > chemistry > biology > ...".

I feel that chemists work more hours then physicists in school (lots of long laboratory work), and their research work has more direct practical consequence for society.

<philosopher hat on> philosophy is for people who can't do any of those other things, but feel compelled to comment on all of it </pho>

 

[confinement]

<philosopher hat on> philosophy is for people who can't do any of those other things, but feel compelled to comment on all of it </pho>

I disagree, you should read the last book of Plato's republic where he describes the career path of a philosopher. At age 18 he/she joins the military, then they spend 8 years studing math and physics, etc.

Also, when I took upper division chemistry I found that the students were mathematically crippled in comparison to students from my departments and I had no problem beating them on all of the tests. Therefore, at least in my case, it is not true that I "couldn't" do chemistry but only that I "wouldn't" choose to. On the otherhand, these chemist-to-be could not have succeeded in mathematics if theirlives depended on it.

 

[NBAJam100]

I'm sure that it does, but the typo that you have found is not a very good illustration of the glorious splendor of knowledge that I have bestowed upon you.

Hail to Lord Confinement! My weak mind has been enlightened! Thank you oh great one!

Good thing that the majority of philosophy isn't pure BS or anything... oh wait...

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it pathetic for me to look down on chemists, on the grounds that they have low mathematical sophistication? I agree that it seems arrogant, but why is this a bad thing?

One explanation (put forth not by me, but by great thinkers in modern times) for why arrogance carries a strong negative connotation is that we live in a culture that has long prized the christian virtue of humility. Even if you are not a christian, and you were not raised as a christian, as a member of western society you are still under the unconscious influence of christian values.

In other words, the reason I am questioning christian values in this thread is because otherwise anyone who chooses to hold the elitist (by definition) position of 'looking down on chemists' is going to be accused of being arrogant e.g. the sarcastic 'size of mathematical penis' remark a few posts ago and then the conlclusion of the argument depends on the audience association 'arrogant = bad', a deeply ingrained connotation which I claim is an obstacle to human progress.



No, I am talking about philosophy because it is relevant (I forgive that your lack of education in this area prevents you from seeing that). As for what opinion you will form of me on this basis, I can honestly say that no thoughts of that kind ever crossed my mind.



First of all, it is better than nothing, which you have presented.

Second, the fact that XKCD enjoys reasonable popularity is evidence that this joke makes sense to many of us, and my original point in this thread was that there is a common base notion of the elitist rankings of these professions, which agrees exactly with the aristotelian one (aside from philosophy which lately has fallen into a disreputable public perception, which you have tried to exploit several times in this thread against me; at least some forum members are too bright for these tactics).




The real problem is that my posts are best read by an educated person who is willing to suspend judgement and read between the lines (i.e. think) to see that what I am posting is not nonsense.

When you accuse me of abusing 'scientific disciplines and terms' you are attempting to construe me as violating the rules of this forum, but I have only discussed matters of opinion and you will not se me contradicting any accepted scientific facts.

When I say that I was not indoctriated, I mean that I learned the facts without absorbing the thoughtless opinions of the drones who taught them to me.



Within the framework of a polite christian discussion I agree with you, but if you are willing to entertain that arrogance may be valid and even healthy, then I do not see why my opinion is automatically invalidated. What rule of coversation have I broken, if arrogance is fair game?



This is rich --- you have either constructed a straw man, or you have demonstrated how low your perception is by your blatant error in attempting to negate a proposition.

By claiming that chemistry does not contain "non-trivial necessary and universal truths" I am claiming that all the truths of chemistry are either trivial, not necessary (in the sense of logic, as in "the conclusion necessarily follows", since I know you had the ordinary meaning in mind), or not universal. By the way, the trivial truths are things like "Liquids boil at their boiling point" i.e. this is necessary (follows necesssaily by definition) and universal but it is also trivial.

Your mistake is that the negation of a conjunction should be a disjunction, whereas you arrived at a conjunction (I concede it may have been a straw man attempt to waste my time).



If that is how name-calling is played, then I have had enough of your Cyrus mumbo-jumbo.

You really enjoy hearing yourself talk. Don't be afraid of the light I shine on you! \sarcasm

 

[confinement]

Ernest Rutherford was the one who said "All science is physics and stamp collection." Ironically Rutherford is remembered as a chemist!

 

[Pythagorean]

Haha, I agree with confinement's semi-trolling. Accusing someone of arrogance is not the same as invalidating what they're saying. In some cases, people will refuse to listen to a logical argument because of the arrogance of its presenter.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ernest Rutherford was the one who said "All science is physics and stamp collection." Ironically Rutherford is remembered as a stamp collector!

fixed!

 

[Pythagorean]

You really enjoy seeing yourself post.

fixed!

I enjoyed his post as well!

 

[confinement]

Hail to Lord Confinement! My weak mind has been enlightened! Thank you oh great one!

Say it again, but this time say it like you mean it!

Good thing that the majority of philosophy isn't pure BS or anything... oh wait...

Does this mean that you look down on philosophers? Because then I think Cyrus would find you 'pathetic' and would invalidate all your contributions to this thread.

You really enjoy hearing yourself talk.

You too would enjoy the ability to participate in a discussion beyond the level of shallow quips, if ever you were to reach such an achievement.

 

[Cyrus]

Say it again, but this time say it like you mean it!



Does this mean that you look down on philosophers? Because then I think Cyrus would find you 'pathetic' and would invalidate all your contributions to this thread.



You too would enjoy the ability to participate in a discussion beyond the level of shallow quips, if ever you were to reach such an achievement.

Tell me the ways oh wise one, bestow knowledge on me!

 

[NBAJam100]

Does this mean that you look down on philosophers? Because then I think Cyrus would find you 'pathetic' and would invalidate all your contributions to this thread.

Well, I wouldn't say I look down on them. Do I find what they do meaningful? No. I have no problems though if someone enjoys philosophy. I do however have a problem with people who look down on other people based on what they do. Its arrogant...

I must say however that your arrogance is amusing. I'm chuckling my way through this thread pretty hard.

 

[confinement]

Tell me the ways oh wise one, bestow knowledge on me!

The first step is to completely discard sarcasm from your discourse , it is a jaded, negative form of humor with no lasting value. Try being silly instead, like when I retorted your accusation of my mumbo jumbo by accusing you of spouting mumbo-jumbo-gumbo, which is presumable a tasty cajun variation on the former.

 

[Danger]

This is starting to get entirely too personal. I'm not taking sides, but some folks have to step back and re-establish a rational discussion. Otherwise, I foresee this thread being locked in the near future.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is starting to get entirely too personal. I'm not taking sides, but some folks have to step back and re-establish a rational discussion. Otherwise, I foresee this thread being locked in the near future.

even in OT, we can't play?

 

[NBAJam100]

GUMBO IS SERVED BOYS

• 1 cup oil
• 1 cup flour
• 2 large onions, chopped
• 2 bell peppers, chopped
• 4 ribs celery, chopped
• 4 - 6 cloves garlic, minced
• 4 quarts chicken stock
• 2 bay leaves
• 2 teaspoons Creole seasoning, or to taste
• 1 teaspoon dried thyme leaves
• Salt and freshly ground black pepper to taste
• 2 pounds of pealed shrimp
• 2 pounds andouille or smoked sausage, cut into 1/2" pieces
• 1 bunch scallions (green onions), tops only, chopped
• 2/3 cup fresh chopped parsley
• File powder to taste

Philosophical gumbo of course...

 

[confinement]

Well, I wouldn't say I look down on them. Do I find what they do meaningful? No. I have no problems though if someone enjoys philosophy. I do however have a problem with people who look down on other people based on what they do. Its arrogant...

If I really thought that philosophers did not say anything meaningful then I would put them in the same category as raving lunatics. Do you look down on raving lunatics? Let's leave mental illness out of this, let's say that they choose to be lunatics (actually I guess that is the popular definition of a philosopher).

Maybe it is just a language problem; do you look up to some professions more than others ? Then, if later in life you belonged to one of the professions that you held in higher esteem but your rankings had stayed the same, wouldn't you then be looking down on the careers that you previously had looked up to less?

For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing. When I was young I could say "I look down at criminals and aristocrats, I look up to chemists and engineers, and I look up to to physicists to an even greater degree." Now that I am a physicist I am required to 'look down' at chemists in order to maintain self-consistency, but that doesn't mean that I think chemist are bad, just less good, while criminals are bad and aristocrats are worse.

 

[Cyrus]

If I really thought that philosophers did not say anything meaningful then I would put them in the same category as raving lunatics. Do you look down on raving lunatics? Let's leave mental illness out of this, let's say that they choose to be lunatics (actually I guess that is the popular definition of a philosopher).

Maybe it is just a language problem; do you look up to some professions more than others ? Then, if later in life you belonged to one of the professions that you held in higher esteem but your rankings had stayed the same, wouldn't you then be looking down on the careers that you previously had looked up to less?

For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing. When I was young I could say "I look down at criminals and capitalists, I look up to chemists and engineers, and I look up to to physicists to an even greater degree." Now that I am a physicist I am required to 'look down' at chemists in order to maintain self-consistency, but that doesn't mean that I think chemist are bad, just less good.

Wow, you're rationalizing your own arrogance.

I'd like to know how you reconsile:

"For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing."

with:

"I look down on chemists"


Mumbo-Jumbo-Gumbo!

 

[confinement]

And ? Did you find the rationalization to be rational ?

 

[NBAJam100]

If I really thought that philosophers did not say anything meaningful then I would put them in the same category as raving lunatics. Do you look down on raving lunatics? Let's leave mental illness out of this, let's say that they choose to be lunatics (actually I guess that is the popular definition of a philosopher).

Maybe it is just a language problem; do you look up to some professions more than others ? Then, if later in life you belonged to one of the professions that you held in higher esteem but your rankings had stayed the same, wouldn't you then be looking down on the careers that you previously had looked up to less?

For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing. When I was young I could say "I look down at criminals and capitalists, I look up to chemists and engineers, and I look up to to physicists to an even greater degree." Now that I am a physicist I am required to 'look down' at chemists in order to maintain self-consistency, but that doesn't mean that I think chemist are bad, just less good.

Well if you are talking about it in terms of you respecting one more than another, I understand. I interpreted your looking down on comments in a more disrespectful way than you intended I guess. Maybe you could have used a less harsh term to get your point across... If you feel superior to chemists (in a non disrespectful way), that's fine, its your opinion. No beef... errr gumbo... here

 

[Proton Soup]

everybody is a philosopher, it seems. there's a reason philosophy is a lounge subforum.

 

[Cyrus]

And ? Did you find the rationalization to be rational ?

Nope.

"Chemists are not bad, just less good".

That's a pretty ambiguous statement. Actually, its a statement of disrespect towards chemists.

 

[NBAJam100]

everybody is a philosopher, it seems. there's a reason philosophy is a lounge subforum.

I only see one "philosopher" here. Everyone else is trying to fend his trickery off!

 

[confinement]

Cyrus and NBAJam, I say without sarcasm that you really have gotten through to me. I never meant that chemists were bad or unworthy of respect and admiration. As I said, I am only maintaining self consistency.

I'd like to know how you reconsile:

"For example, I certainly don't think being a chemist is a bad thing."

with:

"I look down on chemists"

The reconcilliation occurs as purely logical technicality. I have always considered physicists to be greater than chemists, and I am physicist, therefore I look down on chemists.