8 ms·

> It's amazing -- well not at all amazing really! -- that the most successful people in any scientific field come from an engineering and physics background. T

by k3d 9y ago

> It's amazing -- well not at all amazing really! -- that the most successful people in any scientific field come from an engineering and physics background. This seems like a pretty wild claim to me- what is your basis for it?

posterboy 9y ago
I agree, this is pretty wild, but I also agree with the sentiment. Having studied physics I might be biased, so help me out here, please. Name one scientist from the 20th century more popular than Einstein, groups and abstract ideas are OK, too. PS: "most successful" is ambiguous. Success is not really comparable. You can have many small successes, revolutions in fields that today feel like common knowledge and not scientific at all, and many nameless contributors. Medicin, chemistry, and many interdisciplinary fields. Fixating on a single field only to argue in the end that all other fields are basically just subfields of ... metamatics, is funny, but missing the point. There is a large perceived disconnect between the natural sciences and "others". That's the real problem OP was pointing out, I guess.
- ChrisSD 9y ago
  Science is a popularity contest now?
- k3d 9y ago
  I do not generally measure the effective "success" of a scientist by their brand name recognition.
- ordu 9y ago
  It is certainly aviability heruistic[1]. You need no external help to see it, just try to remember 5 physicists and 5 psychologists and compare efforts it takes. Someone to compare with Einstein? Freud. This guy is no less known to public, and influenced society maybe even more, by breaking taboos around sexual desires. Moreover, he shaped all the modern psychology. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
  - leereeves 9y ago
    But what was Freud right about? Another measure of the success of a scientist is how well their theories stand the test of time, and by that standard, mathematical rigor probably contributes a lot.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      > mathematical rigor that's very stiff.
    - ordu 9y ago
      > But what was Freud right about? What was Freud wrong about? His theory is a model of human mind, which has its application even today and suits it well. It is like Newtonian mechanics and gravity: did Newton was wrong? No, he developed a model of reality that works even today. There are a lot of other theories which replicate psychoanalysis in many aspects. Even humanistic psychology highly influenced by psychoanalysis despite of (or in spite of) negativism of Carl Rogers who didn't liked idea of explaining all of the mind work by primitive impulses. Rogers just made new model of mind by changing words and turning psychoanalysis upside down: mind is driven not by primitive impulses but by the need of self-actualization. The same eggs in a side view. > how well their theories stand the test of time What it means to stand the test of time? It is social sciences, not the math or physics, the landscape here is constantly shifting, nothing is true and nothing is false. The only way I see to measure the success of scientist is to measure its influence on others. If so, then Freud is the total winner among psychologists. No one even come close to him. There are others -- Skinner, for example. But even Skinner's behavioral approach moves towards Freud ideas: now it is cognitive-behavioral approach, with hidden cognitive processes and conflicts between them. What the difference between coping strategies and defence mechanisms? I'm not trying to say, that psychoanalysis is the best, I do not like it really. As for me it oversimplifies things. But I acknowledge influence of psychoanalysis on modern views.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        You haven't answered what Freud was right about. I do not deny that Freud and psychoanalysis were influential - so was Star Wars - or even that psychoanalysis can help people in specific circumstances - so can yoga - I deny that he was a scientist. > What was Freud wrong about? To cite just a few examples: women (penis envy, hysteria, female orgasms); psychosexual stages, including the idea that homosexuality is anal fixation; the id, ego, and superego; the oedipus complex; schizophrenia. > nothing is true and nothing is false Then it's not science.
- qntty 9y ago
  Freud? Marxism?
emmelaich 9y ago
I probably overstated it. I meant that engineering and physics people are unexpectedly* successful in other scientific disciplines. * I know that's pretty subjective.
- k3d 9y ago
  Is it possible that you perhaps have an engineering or physics background (or one sympathetic to the same- say mathematics or computer science) and pay more attention to others who are like yourself? Would you make similar statements regarding people from, say art backgrounds who make great contributions in engineering, physics and other sciences-Morse, Hedy Lamarr, Santiago Cajal to name a few? I think it's pretty common for clever people who do well in one field and decide to switch to do well in another, no matter what the two fields are.

by k3d 9y ago

posterboy 9y ago

I agree, this is pretty wild, but I also agree with the sentiment. Having studied physics I might be biased, so help me out here, please. Name one scientist from the 20th century more popular than Einstein, groups and abstract ideas are OK, too. PS: "most successful" is ambiguous. Success is not really comparable. You can have many small successes, revolutions in fields that today feel like common knowledge and not scientific at all, and many nameless contributors. Medicin, chemistry, and many interdisciplinary fields. Fixating on a single field only to argue in the end that all other fields are basically just subfields of ... metamatics, is funny, but missing the point. There is a large perceived disconnect between the natural sciences and "others". That's the real problem OP was pointing out, I guess.

ChrisSD 9y ago
Science is a popularity contest now?
k3d 9y ago
I do not generally measure the effective "success" of a scientist by their brand name recognition.
ordu 9y ago
It is certainly aviability heruistic[1]. You need no external help to see it, just try to remember 5 physicists and 5 psychologists and compare efforts it takes. Someone to compare with Einstein? Freud. This guy is no less known to public, and influenced society maybe even more, by breaking taboos around sexual desires. Moreover, he shaped all the modern psychology. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
- leereeves 9y ago
  But what was Freud right about? Another measure of the success of a scientist is how well their theories stand the test of time, and by that standard, mathematical rigor probably contributes a lot.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    > mathematical rigor that's very stiff.
  - ordu 9y ago
    > But what was Freud right about? What was Freud wrong about? His theory is a model of human mind, which has its application even today and suits it well. It is like Newtonian mechanics and gravity: did Newton was wrong? No, he developed a model of reality that works even today. There are a lot of other theories which replicate psychoanalysis in many aspects. Even humanistic psychology highly influenced by psychoanalysis despite of (or in spite of) negativism of Carl Rogers who didn't liked idea of explaining all of the mind work by primitive impulses. Rogers just made new model of mind by changing words and turning psychoanalysis upside down: mind is driven not by primitive impulses but by the need of self-actualization. The same eggs in a side view. > how well their theories stand the test of time What it means to stand the test of time? It is social sciences, not the math or physics, the landscape here is constantly shifting, nothing is true and nothing is false. The only way I see to measure the success of scientist is to measure its influence on others. If so, then Freud is the total winner among psychologists. No one even come close to him. There are others -- Skinner, for example. But even Skinner's behavioral approach moves towards Freud ideas: now it is cognitive-behavioral approach, with hidden cognitive processes and conflicts between them. What the difference between coping strategies and defence mechanisms? I'm not trying to say, that psychoanalysis is the best, I do not like it really. As for me it oversimplifies things. But I acknowledge influence of psychoanalysis on modern views.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      You haven't answered what Freud was right about. I do not deny that Freud and psychoanalysis were influential - so was Star Wars - or even that psychoanalysis can help people in specific circumstances - so can yoga - I deny that he was a scientist. > What was Freud wrong about? To cite just a few examples: women (penis envy, hysteria, female orgasms); psychosexual stages, including the idea that homosexuality is anal fixation; the id, ego, and superego; the oedipus complex; schizophrenia. > nothing is true and nothing is false Then it's not science.
qntty 9y ago
Freud? Marxism?

emmelaich 9y ago

I probably overstated it. I meant that engineering and physics people are unexpectedly* successful in other scientific disciplines. * I know that's pretty subjective.

k3d 9y ago
Is it possible that you perhaps have an engineering or physics background (or one sympathetic to the same- say mathematics or computer science) and pay more attention to others who are like yourself? Would you make similar statements regarding people from, say art backgrounds who make great contributions in engineering, physics and other sciences-Morse, Hedy Lamarr, Santiago Cajal to name a few? I think it's pretty common for clever people who do well in one field and decide to switch to do well in another, no matter what the two fields are.