The arrogance of physicists
Arthur Smith has a long and smart post on how the native arrogance of physicists leads them astray when they wander into the climate thicket. He starts with our old friends Gerlich and what's his name before settling on Robert Austin and the rest of the crew at Princeton.
Some time ago, Eli pointed to a paper by Myanna Lahsen which makes much the same point
This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of themselves as a physicist elite - understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about human-induced climate change.Go read both.
Comments?
Posts
10 comments:
Well, as an elitist (but far from elite) physicist, let me just claim that physicists are probably no more wacko on the subject of AGW than other scientists. I like Smith's article better than the other one. Of the trio of the second paper, only Seitz is clearly in the scientific elite, but famous old physicists are famous for going nuts too.
Dyson's arguments are not entirely crazy, even if he does seem to underestimate the severity of the threat - but he is ninety or so.
Nierenberg was not chopped liver (Nick should be by shortly to explain) and Jastrow was such an important astrophysicist that when he would not leave NYC, NASA established GISS at Columbia rather than moving him down to Goddard in Greenbelt MD.
I'm not sure that physicists are any more arrogant than other scientists.
In particular, there is something about winning the Nobel prize that encourages otherwise intelligent scientists to go off on bizarre unscientific tangents (Kary Mullis and Francis Crick immediately come to mind)
I guess they figure they no longer have to worry about their reputation.
What bothers me most is not arrogance itself, but unjustified arrogance.
Some of these scientists have done nothing significant in their own field but somehow nonetheless feel justified in telling climate scientists they are wrong.
Meteorologists make up the largest portion of climate denialists I am aware of. Then maybe geologists. I have always found engineers were way more into crankdom and denial than physicists. Interestingly, in addition to engineers, the other group I've found the most science cranks/denialiasts of the same market-philosophy-driven stripe is software people, some of whom are computer scientists of a sort.
Physicists certainly aren't immune to denialism though. Off the top of my head, I think of Motl, Akasofu and Kramm, Dyson (to a degree), Lindzen and I am sure many other well-known ones are out there.
I'm looking at a list of 157 physicists who signed this Petition to the APS. Almost all have PhDs in Physics, an most have had careers there.
Myanna Lahsen's "modernity in the greenhouse" article is worth reading.
I would council that making generalizations about huge groups without supplying backup is not very productive.
John Mashey says "I'm looking at a list of 157 physicists who signed this Petition to the APS.."
followed by
'I would council that making generalizations about huge groups without supplying backup is not very productive."
According to wikipedia
"The American Physical Society (APS Physics) has over 47,000 members."
I don't know just what percentage of those are physicists, but if even 10% are (probably VERY conservative), that would mean that 4700 members are physicists.
So, 157 (some of whom may not even currently be members) have a problem with the APS statement on climate change vs 4700 who apparently do not? (or if they do, are silent, at least)
I would council that making generalizations about huge groups without supplying (convincing) backup is not very productive.
Hmm, this set of comments seems broken, but maybe I was ambiguous. I objected to Marion's anecdotal comments on engineers and software people. Those assertions may or may not be correct [I've known a lot of both, and manage a bunch, an indeed there is some serious flakiness here and there], but the assertions are not well-formed, and there was zero backup.
Almost all APS members are physicists. It's just that the name does not say that clearly....
Yes, physicists are arrogant, if you read Smith's post, they are even arrogant about their arrogance. At other jobs, one would be fired for this sort of lack of teamwork and bad attitude. Smith is lucky to work with other physicists. Trust those of us who have worked with physicists and who are not in the "elite" clique of them. They are definitely more arrogant and less self-reflective than others.
However, the public regularly laughs at physicists and sees them as loons, and no one really cares what they think as a group, so on the "playground," we win. (Sorry but that's the truth.) You wonder why women stay away from physics like its a plague.
"the public regularly laughs at physicists and sees them as loons, and no one really cares what they think as a group, so on the "playground," we win.
Not sure who "we" are and what "we win" means, but that sounds like a combination of sour grapes and more than a little wishful thinking.
The facts actually belie the claim.
Some of the most beloved scientists among the public were physicists. The best examples are Albert Einstein and richard feynman,
And quite contrary to the claim, they were widely respected and sought after for their advice on important scientific matters.
(Sorry but that's the real truth.)
In other words, people DID care a great deal about what they thought.
Post a Comment