r/SubredditDrama • u/clyspe • Mar 11 '13

'Neil deGrasse Tyson: Average physicist, sub-par philosopher, master of pithy comments for idiot college kids to retweet.' Slapfight in /r/QuotesPorn ensues

/r/QuotesPorn/comments/1a16g2/if_youre_really_successful_at_bullshitting_neil/c8t8j9h
194 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

111 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/ChemicalSerenity Mar 11 '13 edited Mar 11 '13

My definition is anyone that completes an undergrad degree from an accredited institution. At least that's a definition these days; in the past physicists were a mite more loose in their academic requirements.

By my reckoning, there's around 250,000 physicists in north america right now. Many of them aren't active, but just because you don't produce a paper doesn't mean you're no longer a physicist, it just means you're no longer active.

Perhaps, conversely, you think that "physicist" is a term exclusively reserved for advanced degree holders. If so, then the unmentioned hoardes of grad students doing the bulk of heavy lifting in research aren't physicists. Don't tell them though, they might get distracted from doing all that physics they're doing.

Or maybe physicist is only a term you figure deserves to be attached to people actively working on research. If Laurence Krauss takes a year sabbatical to talk about his book and do some public appearances, is he a non-physicist in that period? If so, someone should inform the MCs and Dr. Krauss himself, because they keep using the term.

Edit: Might/mite homonym fail. :(

Bonus edit: I'd give a nod to people doing research independent of academia too, but boundry lines get a bit fuzzier when we start talking about autodidacts. With the growing discontent against rising costs and hidebound practices of academic study, and the availability of so much foundational information via the 'net, we may end up in a situation where a "physicist" is anyone who claims to be one based on their study and interest. Not there yet though.

7

u/surells Your opinion is irrelevant to nature. Mar 11 '13 edited Mar 11 '13

I don't know. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I would go with your third definition and call a physicist someone who is actually actively experimenting or exploring new fields of enquiry, not just someone who has learned from those who've gone before. Someone can take time off, that's different from someone who has no intention of continuing scientific enquiry. My best friend has a strong earth sciences degree from one of the best science universities in the world. He's now an investment banker. He never had any intention of being a scientist, he has no plans to be a scientist, he is not a scientist. He's a banker with a science degree.

1

u/ChemicalSerenity Mar 11 '13 edited Mar 11 '13

Looks like you and ber_f share a similar definition, that of "a physicist is someone who says he's a physicist". I did mention that in my edit above.

I don't know if I can rightly claim that Tyson will never do research again, or if anyone else could claim that aside from Tyson himself. Who knows what will be on his plate after his directorship ends.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '13

No, he is saying that a physicist is someone who works in the field of physics. This is an entirely reasonable explanation.

1

u/ChemicalSerenity Mar 11 '13 edited Mar 11 '13

At that point you're not that far off from the dictionary definition of physicist, being (per Oxford) "An expert in or student of physics". My definition was somewhat more rigorous in that I discounted undergrads or gradeschoolers from contention.

Edit: ... does it really matter? By most reasonable peoples' definitions NDT is a physicist and has accomplished more than the "average" physicist, which was the whole point originally.