it also has to do with the fact that the title of the degree predates the differentiation of many of the sciences. Newton, for example, would not have described himself as a physicist because that word didn't yet exist. (it was first coined, per the OED, in 1840.) He was a natural philosopher, which meant he thought Aristotle could be wrong and you could prove that.
Right. A bit like an artist. You don't need an advanced degree in art to be an accomplished artist. Plus the idea of formalized education with narrowly focused advanced degrees is fairly recent, and for most of the history of the discipline Physicists have not been so qualified.
> Philosophy is not different from other areas of study in that respect. Post-grad physics is very different from undergrad physics too.
> A general way to consider the difference between undergrad and post-grad flavors of an academic discipline is that undergrad is primarily about learning how to apply what is known, while post-grad is primarily about exploring the unknown to create new knowledge.
The practice of researching physics is very different from the practice of teaching physics, sure. But it's the same "physics"; graduate physicists would be happy for their discipline to be judged by undergraduate physics (and undergraduate philosophy does include Aristotle, Aquinas and all that).
Given Veritasiums most recent video, the degree doesn't matter, even physics professors can be wrong. The degree is just there for you to be wrong less, you will still be wrong, just less.
Same for most science - physics, chemistry, etc… I have a Physics PhD and I still wouldn’t consider myself a physicist as applying the physics skills is not what I do day to day.
That comes from a broad liberal arts education and attending "Physics for non-physics people" lectures.
He's seen the Foucalt's Pendulum and heavy pendulum swinging at the head demonstrations but never had to get into the weeds with tensor calculations or most of the material B.Sc Physics grads would consider essential.
It's more physics than a History graduate would typically see, but less physics than, say, an Engineering graduate would be required to do.
It's technically a Physics degree, sure, but it's easy to see how many STEM people wouldn't regard that as an actual Physics degree.
I'd say this characterization is questionable at best. He worked as an engineer for 4 years and then got a Ph.D. in Physics, as well as working the majority of his life as a physics researcher and teacher. It's like calling a surgeon with an undergraduate degree in Biology a "biologist'.
Many engineers have degrees in physics. It's a perfectly legitimate degree to have for an engineering position. There is no stretch of the definition whatsoever.
Calling someone who got a PhD in Mathematical Physics from Princeton an "engineer" is a bit rich. Yes, his undergrad degree was in engineering, but we don't call Ed Witten a "historian" because his undergrad degree was in history, most people would focus on the PhD and years spent as a tenured professor in Physics at various universities and research institutes.
Used to be but not anymore. The difference is, natural philosophers, like Henry Cavendish, were amateurs, physicists are professionals. They are "Doctors of Philosophy", the professional offsprings of Scholastic Doctors of Philosophy. The switch from amateur to professional occurred with the advance of the science of electricity. Physicists were seen as the experts and they built the foundation of electrical industrial applications. But there is academic physics, which is like fine arts with no rules and restrictions and there is applied physics with strict rules.
However, when I've graduated I don't think I would ever call myself a physicist like yourself unless I actually went on to do research in physics as a career, which likely means following the traditional academic path of doing a PhD (since I'm not Freeman Dyson).
Sorry for the nitpick but such titles should be earned don't you think?
Scientist isn't a job title or a qualification, it's a word for someone doing science. Some philosophers working in quantum foundations deserve to be called scientists, as much as any theorist from the physics department in the field. Price may not be in this category, you certainly would know better.
reply