[jk5430]

Before I begin, I'll admit my bias; I have a physics masters and I am currently pursiung a PhD and I know that quite often I personally can get a little over-enthusiastic about my subject .

The main point I wanted to get across is that I think that at times when explaining about physics and what they do, physicists/people interested are physics, can allow their enthusiasm for the subject to be mistaken for personal arrogance.

For example, I personally believe (and I honestly think this is very hard to logically refute) that certain sciences, such as biology and chemistry are a subset of physics; that is that fundamentally they follow the basic laws that have been set down by phyics (standard model, GR, etc). However, as was mentioned previously in this thread, trying to apply these laws to even a simple scenario such as a cell is a mathematical and computational impossibility! So clearly there is a massive need in science and society in general for biologist and chemists - think of all the massive contributions they have made to our daily lives.

Indeed, these sciences feed back into physics (and other types) research. If you think about something like astronomy, just as an example, work done by chemists on materials such as silicon could influence the design of a photo diode required for a telescope. Or perhaps how the study of birds has influenced the design of areonautic vechicals.

Yet despite all of this, I would still argue that physics is still a more fundamental subject. Not a better subject, but a more fundamental one.

And perhaps that comes across as arrogant.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by XiaoXiao1)
What do you mean by maths "explaining" physics, the equations are just the most convenient way of representing physical relations.

Having said that, I don't deny that maths is the language for physics

A lot of physics is easier to explain when maths is involved.

[EnigmaticSpirit]

(Original post by jk5430)
Before I begin, I'll admit my bias; I have a physics masters and I am currently pursiung a PhD and I know that quite often I personally can get a little over-enthusiastic about my subject .

The main point I wanted to get across is that I think that at times when explaining about physics and what they do, physicists/people interested are physics, can allow their enthusiasm for the subject to be mistaken for personal arrogance.

For example, I personally believe (and I honestly think this is very hard to logically refute) that certain sciences, such as biology and chemistry are a subset of physics; that is that fundamentally they follow the basic laws that have been set down by phyics (standard model, GR, etc). However, as was mentioned previously in this thread, trying to apply these laws to even a simple scenario such as a cell is a mathematical and computational impossibility! So clearly there is a massive need in science and society in general for biologist and chemists - think of all the massive contributions they have made to our daily lives.

Indeed, these sciences feed back into physics (and other types) research. If you think about something like astronomy, just as an example, work done by chemists on materials such as silicon could influence the design of a photo diode required for a telescope. Or perhaps how the study of birds has influenced the design of areonautic vechicals.

Yet despite all of this, I would still argue that physics is still a more fundamental subject. Not a better subject, but a more fundamental one.

And perhaps that comes across as arrogant.

Nope that seems perfectly reasonable. At least you don't pretend to be better than anyone else. Maybe the other sciences are part of physics, but as you say they are necessary as independent subjects. Thank you for your input.

[CallumTM]

(Original post by EnigmaticSpirit)
Are you making that accusation based on my reputation? What an infantile reply...

I'm making an accusation based on the fact you insulted me even though you can clearly see in my first post that i said scientists piss me off when they brag which implies i don't like people who brag

[Dmon1Unlimited]

Academia in general makes you arrogant, not just physics

Think this gives a (albeit small) hint towards this
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2068715

[bistonut]

The reason I chose Durham over Manchester for physics basically boiled down to the college system at Durham, which makes it easier to make friends outside of your course/immediate flat mates. It was a close call though (before I get any hate from manc students, I live here!)

Though I met cool people on my course at all the open days, it wasn't hard to notice I wouldn't want to become good mates with quite a few of them. And the male:female ratio wasn't in my favour...

[dknt]

(Original post by boromir9111)
That's the way it goes, sadly. FWIW, the ones i know who study physics at uni level are not arrogant at all, very down to Earth, actually

Really?

[Fallen]

I don't understand the obsession with being "fundamental" or not. Even people who say that being more or less fundamental doesn't make a difference, it shouldn't be brought up at all. Making discoveriers closer or further from the metal doesn't make ones achievements any more or less impressive.

An analogy from my own field would for a hardware designer to be snobby about programmers because he builds chips and they use them. Writing an effective indexing algorithm is just as difficult and worthwhile is writing a good compiler, which is no easier than designing circuitry.

Until we have solved all the great mysteries in a particular field (good luck with that) it is pointless to say one is harder or easier than another.

[boromir9111]

(Original post by dknt)
Really?

Welcome back, BRUDAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[blueray]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
What occupation are you?

I sell premium musical instruments worth over £500k+ and get loads of commission. Yet I don't brag, but I'm sure you're not clamming I do

(Original post by EnigmaticSpirit)
Why does that matter? All he is saying is that some physics students are snotty and pompous when, in reality, people achieve more in their lives than simply studying an academic subject.

It's fine.

[Moiraclaire]

(Original post by EnigmaticSpirit)
There is no objective way to define or measure intelligence. IQ testing is flawed, academica is flawed. There is no proof of this, thus it is arrogance. If if it were true, being more intelligent than other people doesn't make you 'better' or 'worth more' as a person, surely?

if you can't measure intelligence then it is a flawed adjective.

[ben-smith]

(Original post by Moiraclaire)
if you can't measure intelligence then it is a flawed adjective.

he said there was no objective way to measure it.

[Stonebridge]

This thread died a natural death some time ago and it's probable about time it was closed.