What's up with Sklansky and physicists?

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]