No Big Bang

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lorizael


The other question is... is it intelligible? Can a layman read Science or Nature and actually come away with an understanding of the material that KH won't laught at?

No question the physics articles in Science give me more trouble than any others. Although admitedly, I rarely read any papers in Science that aren't either bioscience, astronomy or physics.

I would maintain that a layman can come away with understanding of the non physics papers however.

[Ramo]

The other question is... is it intelligible? Can a layman read Science or Nature and actually come away with an understanding of the material that KH won't laught at?

No.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo


No.

Are you interpreting "layman" to mean anybody or simply to mean everybody who is neither a professional nor student in training to become a professional in the topic under consideration?

By the second definition I'd say most of the papers in Science are intelligible to laymen. Just not all laymen. but then almost nothing is intelligible to all layman!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I would maintain that a layman can come away with understanding of the non physics papers however.

Which goes back to the nature of the Odin comment and his pretension that Biologists are in the same league as physicists when it comes to matters of pure intellect.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Which goes back to the nature of the Odin comment and his pretension that Biologists are in the same league as physicists when it comes to matters of pure intellect.

how does it go back to that?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


My guess is yes, but will leave it to the researchers on the board to validate.

Mostly yes. But not always.

Science and Nature are dangerous. They aren't really considered scholarly journals in the physics world. They're respected as a means of getting important announcements out to the general educated public, but if you're publishing in Nature you'd better also be publishing a real article in Physical Review.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So Physicists publishing in general topic peer reviewed journals aren't removing essential information to render those papers meaningless?

They are, but they also tell you where to look to find the information they removed.

It's much closer to imparting true knowledge, but doesn't quite meet that standard on its own.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Geronimo


how does it go back to that?

Articles dealing with matters other than physics are more easily grasped. Physics requires a whole new set of training (particularly in the maths) in order to comprehend. Not so with the other sciences nearly as much.

My Dad is a retired PhD biologist and my uncle a retired PhD physicist. My Dad was smart. My Uncle was frikkin brilliant.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Articles dealing with matters other than physics are more easily grasped. Physics requires a whole new set of training (particularly in the maths) in order to comprehend. Not so with the other sciences nearly as much.

My Dad is a retired PhD biologist and my uncle a retired PhD physicist. My Dad was smart. My Uncle was frikkin brilliant.

Do you remember any anecdotes to help illustrate this or was this just something you heard repeated on different occasions as you grew up?

However, in the larger picture I'll accept the possibility that physicists may have higher intelligence than other groups of scientists but I won't accept it as fact without some reputable source to document it. And for that I'd need more than anecdotes or the word of joe polytubby in our forums.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

More along lines of anything my Dad said my uncle understood and could follow. Not the other way around. Dad would often comment that he succeeded largelyinpart due to his perserverence and hard work while everything came more naturally to his brother. (Both Dad and Mom said I reminded them of Uncle and were dissappinted that I 'sold out' to make money after only a BS)

The implication was clear Uncle was and is brilliant. Dad while no ignoramus wasn't cut out for a life of physics. He fiddled with the idea of it but opted instead to go the medicine route. Life conspired to give him a unexpected daughter so his med school was permanently postponed in favor of PhD and teaching.

[Lorizael]

Studies have shown, actually, that statisticians are 50% smarter than physicists.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Studies have shown, actually, that statisticians are 50% smarter than physicists.

[KrazyHorse]

[Ned]

Studies have shown that physicists are the most arrogant of all professions.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Studies have shown that physicists are the most arrogant of all professions.

Is this original research?