What's up with Sklansky and physicists?

[benkahuna]

The man sure seems to love physicists...

Why does Sklansky seem to view physicists as the smartest scientists and the only reasonable authorities for understanding the universe?

Why not mathematicians? Many of them understand things that no one else does and it is often a pure talent field. You can't succeed unless you're brilliant. Hard work isn't even close to enough. And Sklansky himself is a mathematician. These are his people!
Why not engineers? They take physics and apply it to solve daunting real world problems.
Why not chemists or biologists? They work in more complex systems with emergent properties dependent upon not just physics, but to the new rules present in their own fields as well. Their disoveries often have more real world application to benefit humanity than physisicists.
When concerning the nature of reality and the possible existence of G-d, does he mean astrophysicists?
Why not medical researchers and public health researchers that may benefit all mankind to have a happier healthier life?
Why not specifically nanotech researchers within physicists that could conceivably make humans immortal?
Why not philosophers, political activists, or political leaders that strive to solve problems of human interactions and social injustice?

Seems like he loves the problems they solve that have "a single answer," perhaps because that's the area in which he's skilled and how he may define intelligence? Does he reqret not going into physics? Did he fall in love with a physicist as a youth and like Humbert Humbert have his love taken from him creating an unhealthy obsession with physicists? All jokes aside, I'm curious.

It seems like a pretty strong bias and that it's unwarranted. Irrational even!

So Sklansky, what's the story? Where's the love for the rest of the scientific community, do gooders, and smart people outside of physics?

Because physics is the only true science. Everything else is stamp collecting. /images/graemlins/grin.gif (this was on the wall in my faculty at uni)

While mathematicians may be smart, they're little more than logicians. Physicists attempt to answer the broader questions of what actually exists and how and why it functions, whereas mathematicians focus on expressing the 'how' in logical terms. And developing methods for reducing the 'how' to something usable.

That's the pure side of it, in reality most mathematicians are smart logicians who crunch numbers and work on developing computer systems.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Because physics is the only true science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.

You physics types have it easy. You can come up with exact, clear equations to describe what happens in your world. In biology, it's all about protein x, combining with protein y, in the ER allows the the attachment of trace element Q, but only in the pH range s.t-s.w in the presence of magnesium...

Or, at least, it used to be like that until you figured everything out. Now you just make up weird particles with or without mass and give them funny names. :P

[xniNja]

I don't have degrees in either mathematics nor physics, but have studied both.. my father has a PhD in physics, and I may be somewhat biased, but it seems relatively simple to me. Physics describes the laws of existence, the rules we live and die by... a similar claim can be made about mathematics, but it wouldn't be accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
You physics types have it easy. You can come up with exact, clear equations to describe what happens in your world

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, and then get the mathematicians to solve them. So obviously, it's a smart choice of profession. Plus, it's a poorly kept secret that we get these equations out of the bible, so it's not like we have to derive them or anything.

----
[ QUOTE ]
Everything else is stamp collecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In biology, it's all about protein x, combining with protein y, in the ER allows the the attachment of trace element Q, but only in the pH range s.t-s.w in the presence of magnesium...

[/ QUOTE ]

QED?

[kidcolin]

I'm an engineer. We normally don't come close to physicists. Most brilliant engineers are either physicists or chemists in disguise. They straddle the line between theoretical research and practical application. The research oriented engineers usually are pretty cool people.

In the same vein, physicists are just more interesting than mathematicians. They're not all bores, but most of 'em are. Whereas a lot of physicists have this crazy zany interesting side to them.

[David Sklansky]

The best one are all brilliant and the average ones are usually smarter than all but the best in the other fields you cite. But I realize that a top Phd in Math, Chemistry, or even Economics, from Harvard, is smarter than any physicist who graduated from wherever Tom Weideman did.

[benkahuna]

So, it's just valuing brilliance?

[ QUOTE ]
While mathematicians may be smart, they're little more than logicians. Physicists attempt to answer the broader questions of what actually exists and how and why it functions, whereas mathematicians focus on expressing the 'how' in logical terms. And developing methods for reducing the 'how' to something usable.

That's the pure side of it, in reality most mathematicians are smart logicians who crunch numbers and work on developing computer systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

*lol*

Thank you for making my afternoon a little brighter.

Your conception of what mathematicians do is... interesting. You should read A Mathematician's Apology. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(my background: I was a grad student in mathematics... currently taking some time off due to illness)

[Ezcheeze]

That's what the man said...

[benkahuna]

It wasn't a direct response so I wanted it pinned down.

[Ezcheeze]

I guess you've missed some of his posts where hes talked about this before. In alot of his arguments he uses the opinions or behaviour of "smart poeple" to suggest certian courses of action or belief. Physicists are just a concrete example for him to use to say "hey look theres a group of smart poeple".

Actually, now that I think more about it I think there is probably more to picking physicists than them just being smart. On the surface I would expect him to have used mathematicians as the group. The best of the best in that field should be about as smart as the best from physics, but I think the average mathematician should be smarter than the average physicist. He very likley chose physicists as his "representative" because current physical theories suggest alot of what is written in the bible and other religious texts is false. And most of Sklansky's arguments on this forumn are with religious poeple.

[benkahuna]

I've seen some, but obviously based on your response, you've seen more. Thanks.

[David Sklansky]

Plus a knowledge of the subject. I'm sure I could throw in world class molecular biologists.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]
Because physics is the only true science. Everything else is stamp collecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty funny, because I've seen the quote "Mathematics is the only true science, everything else is just applied mathematics" around the math department. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Instead of just being logicians and solving the problems you guys make up, I prefer to think that mathematicians develop the language with which physicists, scientists, and engineers speak and illustrate the framework necessary for scientific ideas to make sense.

[benkahuna]

They make people happy. Pun intended.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of just being logicians and solving the problems you guys make up, I prefer to think that mathematicians develop the language with which physicists, scientists, and engineers speak and illustrate the framework necessary for scientific ideas to make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd clarify that mathematicians frequently don't give a fig one way or another whether or not what they do is useful or describes reality in some way. That it does in fact frequently prove to be useful to physicists and other scientists has been considered something of a mystery (see e.g. Eugene Wigner's famous essay "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences").

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You physics types have it easy. You can come up with exact, clear equations to describe what happens in your world

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, and then get the mathematicians to solve them. So obviously, it's a smart choice of profession. Plus, it's a poorly kept secret that we get these equations out of the bible, so it's not like we have to derive them or anything.

----
[ QUOTE ]
Everything else is stamp collecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In biology, it's all about protein x, combining with protein y, in the ER allows the the attachment of trace element Q, but only in the pH range s.t-s.w in the presence of magnesium...

[/ QUOTE ]

QED?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get it right.

In science there is only physics. All the rest is stamp collecting.

[bjarne]

Physicists are smart when it comes to physics. In other areas I'm not so sure we are any better or worse than enyone else.

You'd be surprised to see how many fail with elementary tasks such as operating a coffee machine (the damned thing is flooded again!)

[Jingleheimer]

[ QUOTE ]
Physicists are smart when it comes to physics. In other areas I'm not so sure we are any better or worse than enyone else.

You'd be surprised to see how many fail with elementary tasks such as operating a coffee machine (the damned thing is flooded again!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well now we need to subdivide into theorists and experimentalists... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bjarne]

True.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because physics is the only true science. Everything else is stamp collecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty funny, because I've seen the quote "Mathematics is the only true science, everything else is just applied mathematics" around the math department. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Instead of just being logicians and solving the problems you guys make up, I prefer to think that mathematicians develop the language with which physicists, scientists, and engineers speak and illustrate the framework necessary for scientific ideas to make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematics is nothing but a model that Physicists choose to use when talking about what they're figuring out about the universe.

~D

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematics is nothing but a model that Physicists choose to use when talking about what they're figuring out about the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Other way round. Physics is just a model used by mathematicians when they want to talk about the universe.

Also, many pure mathematicians thinks its just bad luck when their work can be useful in talking about the universe.

chez

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd clarify that mathematicians frequently don't give a fig one way or another whether or not what they do is useful or describes reality in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever tried to get funding for research?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd clarify that mathematicians frequently don't give a fig one way or another whether or not what they do is useful or describes reality in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever tried to get funding for research?

[/ QUOTE ]

So they care about funding enough to pretend they care whether or not their work has useful applications.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ever tried to get funding for research?

[/ QUOTE ]

So they care about funding enough to pretend they care whether or not their work has useful applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are applied mathematicians, they care very much about applications. If they are pure mathematicians, usefulness outside of mathematics itself is usually not an issue.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ever tried to get funding for research?

[/ QUOTE ]

So they care about funding enough to pretend they care whether or not their work has useful applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are applied mathematicians, they care very much about applications. If they are pure mathematicians, usefulness outside of mathematics itself is usually not an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its based on a small sample but I believe that's not as true as it used to be (or should be).

chez

Hey! It's the guy that invented C++, which I use every in my physics research.

[bjarne]

Incidentally, Stroustrup's book happened to be lying on my desk when I when I created my account here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd clarify that mathematicians frequently don't give a fig one way or another whether or not what they do is useful or describes reality in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So they care about funding enough to pretend they care whether or not their work has useful applications.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are really common and incorrect generalizations of most mathematicians. I don't think any mathematician relishes the idea that the work they're spending their life working on and thinking about constantly is completely irrelevant to practical applications. Sure, there might be a few who are aloof enough to actually want to work on useless stuff, but they are few and far between.

For the majority of mathematicians who do work on stuff that's way out there, they suck it up, delay the gratification (perhaps forever) and do it to advance the science. There weren't exactly a lot of uses for finite fields two hundred years ago...do you think Galois had any idea that finite fields would become critical in the late 20th century in cryptographic and communication applications? No way. The motivation for a mathematician is, when you uncover something and research it and publish it, that somewhere down the road it will be a small part of an even bigger idea.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd clarify that mathematicians frequently don't give a fig one way or another whether or not what they do is useful or describes reality in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So they care about funding enough to pretend they care whether or not their work has useful applications.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are really common and incorrect generalizations of most mathematicians. I don't think any mathematician relishes the idea that the work they're spending their life working on and thinking about constantly is completely irrelevant to practical applications. Sure, there might be a few who are aloof enough to actually want to work on useless stuff, but they are few and far between.

For the majority of mathematicians who do work on stuff that's way out there, they suck it up, delay the gratification (perhaps forever) and do it to advance the science. There weren't exactly a lot of uses for finite fields two hundred years ago...do you think Galois had any idea that finite fields would become critical in the late 20th century in cryptographic and communication applications? No way. The motivation for a mathematician is, when you uncover something and research it and publish it, that somewhere down the road it will be a small part of an even bigger idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its all a bit tongue in cheek but I doubt Galois cared about his wotk being useful. Part of a bigger idea yes, but a useless bigger idea /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The only serious point I make is that it shouldn't matter whether or not they or anyone else thinks its useful.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
These are really common and incorrect generalizations of most mathematicians. I don't think any mathematician relishes the idea that the work they're spending their life working on and thinking about constantly is completely irrelevant to practical applications. Sure, there might be a few who are aloof enough to actually want to work on useless stuff, but they are few and far between.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a straw man to me. I never claimed that mathematicians actually dislike applications. Even, G. H. Hardy, purest of the pure, distanced himself from that attitude. My claim is that mathematicians frequently do not care whether their work has applications to anything outside of mathematics (applied mathematicians excepted, of course).

[ QUOTE ]
For the majority of mathematicians who do work on stuff that's way out there, they suck it up, delay the gratification (perhaps forever) and do it to advance the science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe that mathematicians are not gratified by their work unless it has physical application or may have physical application down the road? This is absolutely false. Do you believe Andrew Wiles was interested in proving the modularity conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem because Fermat's Last Theorem has any important application? To the extent that physicists are interested in number theory, that's great (see the book From Number Theory to Physics) and mathematicians are happy to contribute, but that is not the primary motive for doing number theory by any means.


[ QUOTE ]
There weren't exactly a lot of uses for finite fields two hundred years ago...do you think Galois had any idea that finite fields would become critical in the late 20th century in cryptographic and communication applications? No way. The motivation for a mathematician is, when you uncover something and research it and publish it, that somewhere down the road it will be a small part of an even bigger idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Galois' motivation had nothing to do with hoped for applications down the road. Galois was interested in proving that polynomial equations of degree higher than 4 have no solution in radicals. Which he did.

I think at this point it would be appropriate to quote Mallory on why one would want to climb Everest: "Because it is there." This is a little flippant, but gets the point across.