Scientific Elitism

[Ian]

I was watching a Dvd and the name of it was "The Expanding Universe" it was from World Almanic Video and when it discussed cosmology when it was trying to explain it to the public, it said that the cosmologists were an elite group. I don't like it when other people think that they are better then everyone else just because they are smart. We depend on science in our daily lives and scientists can't just go around and say that they are better than other people. It can ruin some people's dreams if those people want to become scientists, if they feel that they are not, "Elite" , then they might not choose to consider science for a career or more people might think that they are better then everyone else and it will create this view that scientists are better than the public and how can science be more open to new ideas if some people think that they have "What Carl Sagan Calls" a monopoly on the truth. Anyone can do science. Not just a few people who think that they are better then everyone else just because they are scientists or cosmologists.

[scribble]

oh forget it.

[Ian]

So you think that it has to do with mixing the class system which is set up in society with people who want to Study or Resarch or do Experiments in science. That's why the producers thought that those cosmologists were Elite. Right?

[Rolfe]

No, you have a problem mixing up the concept of intellectual superiority with class.

Rolfe.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Ian
I was watching a Dvd and the name of it was "The Expanding Universe" it was from World Almanic Video and when it discussed cosmology when it was trying to explain it to the public, it said that the cosmologists were an elite group. I don't like it when other people think that they are better then everyone else just because they are smart. We depend on science in our daily lives and scientists can't just go around and say that they are better than other people. It can ruin some people's dreams if those people want to become scientists, if they feel that they are not, "Elite" , then they might not choose to consider science for a career or more people might think that they are better then everyone else and it will create this view that scientists are better than the public and how can science be more open to new ideas if some people think that they have "What Carl Sagan Calls" a monopoly on the truth. Anyone can do science. Not just a few people who think that they are better then everyone else just because they are scientists or cosmologists.

A lot depends on the exact context of the saying. Were they saying that anyone who is a cosmologist is automatically "elite", or were they referring to a particular group of cosmologists who are more proficient than other cosmologists?

I see nothing wrong with identifying a group of particularly competent professionals as an "elite" in their field.

Plus, anyone who would be put off from a career in science by the preconceived idea that they would have to be somehow "elite" (even before they joined the profession - how can anyone become "elite" in a field before they've tried it?) probably doesn't belong in science anyway. Such an attitude shows a woeful lack of critical thinking skills - which are an essential pre-requisite for science.

[bPer]

Originally posted by Ian
I was watching a Dvd and the name of it was "The Expanding Universe" it was from World Almanic Video and when it discussed cosmology when it was trying to explain it to the public, it said that the cosmologists were an elite group. I don't like it when other people think that they are better then everyone else just because they are smart.

I suspect that you're way off-base on this.

I haven't seen this video, but based on the online descriptions of it (including suggestions that it is appropriate for school children from Grade 6 up), I suspect that the producers were using the word 'elite' as a synonym for 'top in the field'. If that is the case, they are by no means saying that cosmologists are smarter than everyone, simply that they know more about their field than most people.

Another example - the word 'elite' is commonly used in athletics to refer to the best in the sport. Nobody in their right minds would say that a top shot-putter (to arbitrarily pick on one sport) is also the smartest person in the world!

I consider myself to be a member of an elite group too - I know more about a particular mainframe operating system than most people in the whole world, including a lot of people who work for that mainframe company. That doesn't lead me to conclude that I am better than everyone.

Originally posted by Ian
Anyone can do science
This is true, just as anyone can do sports. But unfortunately, to do most cutting-edge science requires a lot of innate ability as well as education. It is probably true that scientists as a group are 'smarter' than the general population, but that would also be the case for many other groups (e.g. doctors). I think it is a leap to accuse these 'elites' of thinking themselves better than everyone else, simply because they excel at something.

Gotta run. Time to do a little science myself, being a member of that elite group, the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. :D

βPer

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ian
Anyone can do science.

In an ideal world, in theory, sure.

I'd like to explore the efficacy of medicine X. I need a lot of $ to do that, and time, and staff, and training, and equipment, and etc. I also have to know how to know the subject, medical terms and procedures, how to properly do research, how to write a report, how to explain it, etc.

In theory I could do it, yes. Can I just go out and "do" this now? Nope, sorry, not possible.

Everyone has the possiblity and potential however.

[John Bentley]

Ian,

Some people are better than other people at certain skills, both physical and intellectual. It's a fact of life, whether you like it or not. But remember, the cosmologists weren't calling themselves elite, the narrator was. The cosmologists would probably be embarrassed to be called elite.

Don't confuse pride in accomplishment with arrogance.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by John Bentley

The cosmologists would probably be embarrassed to be called elite.


They would be too, being cosmologists.

[Ian]

Are you generalizing about how cosmologists would be embarrassed about being called elite? Have you heard any cosmologist say that? My opinion is that some scientists might be embarrassed and some might not be embarrassed.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by LucyR
They would be too, being cosmologists.

LucyR,

I'm tired, so I may be a bit dense at the moment. But, huh? Are you saying that cosmologists are self-deprecating as a rule, or just taking a jab at my poor sentence structure?:)

Ian,

I hang out with scientists in the biological fields quite a bit, and as a general rule, most of them are pretty humble. But scientists are people, too, so some of them are pretty darn arrogant. I remember one major instructor in particular who thought he was God's gift...but I digress.

[Ian]

i'm not trying to take a jab at anyone's poor sentance structure.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by John Bentley
I'm tired, so I may be a bit dense at the moment. But, huh? Are you saying that cosmologists are self-deprecating as a rule, or just taking a jab at my poor sentence structure?:)

No. I'm saying being cosmologists they ought to feel embarrassed when referred to as elite. The true elite are people like me: real physicists who can actually test their theories in a laboratory.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by LucyR
No. I'm saying being cosmologists they ought to feel embarrassed when referred to as elite. The true elite are people like me: real physicists who can actually test their theories in a laboratory.

Yeah, I've always leaned a bit toward experimental physics rather than theoretical. But of course, they would call you simply an... ugh!...engineer! :D

[Ian]

People make up theorys about how the world works and people do experiments to try to confirm or disprove the theory.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by John Bentley
Yeah, I've always leaned a bit toward experimental physics rather than theoretical. But of course, they would call you simply an... ugh!...engineer! :D

Not if they wished to see another dawn.

My point was not that I lean necessarily towards experiment but rather that, to quote Feynman, "the only test of theory is experiment". What experiments can cosmologists and their ilk do? My theories can be tested in a controlled environment.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by LucyR
What experiments can cosmologists and their ilk do?

I don't know, maybe confirm the "background temperature" of the universe, thereby showing evidence for the Big Bang theory?

Alternatively, they could find a Higgs boson, I suppose. Now that would be something!

[LucyR]

Originally posted by John Bentley
I don't know, maybe confirm the "background temperature" of the universe, thereby showing evidence for the Big Bang theory?

Alternatively, they could find a Higgs boson, I suppose. Now that would be something!

Sure, not being entirely serious anyway. But you must admit their theories are typically poorly constrained by reality.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by Ian
People make up theorys about how the world works and people do experiments to try to confirm or disprove the theory.

Yes, Ian, but what LucyR is referring to (I assume with tongue planted firmly in cheek) is the old rivalry between experimental physicists and theorists who can't test their theories under controlled laboratory conditions. Theoretical physicists (TP's) tend to view experimental physicists (EP's) as people who can only make a living with their hands, i.e. engineers. Whereas EP's tend to view TP's as dreamers who have lost touch with the real world, sort of like the "how many angels on a head of a pin" crowd.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by LucyR
Sure, not being entirely serious anyway. But you must admit their theories are typically poorly constrained by reality.

Too right! Sort of remind me of those college philosophy discussions at the local coffee house.

Yeah, and they get paid for it...Hey, maybe they aren't as poorly constrained as we think.:D

[LucyR]

Originally posted by John Bentley
Theoretical physicists (TP's) tend to view experimental physicists (EP's) as people who can only make a living with their hands, i.e. engineers. Whereas EP's tend to view TP's as dreamers who have lost touch with the real world, sort of like the "how many angels on a head of a pin" crowd.

Everyone believes the EP except the EP, no one believes the TP except the TP.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by LucyR
Everyone believes the EP except the EP, no one believes the TP except the TP.

I like that one. Is it original?

[LucyR]

Originally posted by John Bentley
I like that one. Is it original?

Unfortunately not. Don't know who said it first. Some elitist wanker I suppose.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by LucyR
Everyone believes the EP except the EP, no one believes the TP except the TP.I don't get it. Can you explain?

[hgc]

Originally posted by 69dodge
I don't get it. Can you explain? EP's are falsifiers. TP's are dreamers.

[wollery]

Lucy, I assume you know the old joke about the astronomer, the physicist and the mathematician?

[Tez]

Originally posted by LucyR
Sure, not being entirely serious anyway. But you must admit their theories are typically poorly constrained by reality.

Let me attempt some defense of those stuck up cosmologists, though I know you're only semi-serious.

I see cosmological theories as roughly equivalent to evolutionary theories in terms of how they are tested. For both, one is often looking at predictions about things that one has no direct control over - and very often doing so "backwards in time". An example of such a prediction - one that rules out swathes of cosmological models - are the locations and sizes of the higher harmonics in the power spectrum of the background microwave radiation. This was certainly measured "in a lab".

Small scale evolution can be controllobly tested by growing fruit flies, small scale cosmology can be controllobly tested by building plasma experiments, particle accelerators etc. But the "big picture" will never be tested in the same way that we test many other scientific theories. This doesnt really bother me.

I'm as confident in a big bang as I am in evolution. I am about as confident in an inflationary period after the big bang as I am in a "Dawkinsian" picture of gradual evolution. And so on.

[epepke]

Originally posted by bPer
I haven't seen this video, but based on the online descriptions of it (including suggestions that it is appropriate for school children from Grade 6 up), I suspect that the producers were using the word 'elite' as a synonym for 'top in the field'.

In any event, it was the producers' decision to do that. If one thinks that's a bad thing, then one should probably blame or take it up with the producers.

[TillEulenspiegel]

There's two ways of looking at this label. Some, like creationists and people who are driven by religious politics, use the label as a condemnation against science in general. The obvious reason is that it calls into question the validity of their belief system. The response is generally " How do YOU know, You think you have a patent on knowledge? Defensive at best.

The other is a kinder genteeler ignorance . Instead of a person with an in depth of knowledge of a science struggling to explain the complexities of a profound scientific idea, there is a sort of "readers digest" filter ( writers, producers, hawkers of pop science) that is composed of layers, with mis-understanding that snowballs into a completely false picture of the study at hand.

The scary part is that the Luddites in the former example seem to be growing rather then shrinking. At least the subscribers of The Scientific American are making an effort tu understand. Bleh Humans.
I.D. anyone?