HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » So, who are the smartest ...

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 07:40 PM

 

So, who are the smartest scientists? (since we're on the topic...)

My question is, where do mathematicians fit in here?



So, who are the smartest scientists?


COLLEEN FLAHERTY |
Inside Higher Ed |
February 14, 2014 12:00PM

snip------------------

In an interview, Dutton said social scientists aren’t stupid, or necessarily extreme in their politics or overly religious. But, statistically speaking, they have lower IQs than their colleagues in biological and physical sciences and are likelier to be extremely conservative or liberal or religious, or both.

Dutton said that there are many similarities between political extremism and religious fundamentalism; in other research, he uses the term “replacement religions” to describe the phenomenon.

“[Physical] scientists are overwhelmingly atheist,” Dutton said. “This is predicted by their high IQ, which allows you to rise above emotion and see through the fallacious, emotional arguments.” Arguments about God are all emotional arguments, he added.

The paper is a meta-analysis of existing data showing several things: that natural scientists have higher IQs than social scientists; that low intelligence “predicts” political extremism and religiosity; and that physical scientists at elite institutions are less likely to believe in God or be politically extreme than their counterparts in the social sciences.

snip-----------------------

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/so-who-are-the-smartest-scientists/story-e6frgcjx-1226826041147




8 replies, 1057 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply So, who are the smartest scientists? (since we're on the topic...) (Original post)
stone space Oct 2016 OP
struggle4progress Oct 2016 #1
stone space Oct 2016 #3
struggle4progress Oct 2016 #6
Foggyhill Oct 2016 #2
tymorial Oct 2016 #4
stone space Oct 2016 #7
central scrutinizer Oct 2016 #5
shadowmayor Oct 2016 #8

Response to stone space (Original post)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 08:02 PM

1. Mathematics may not be a science

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 08:11 PM

3. I'd be inclined to group us with artists, musicians, and poets.

 

When I was at Hopkins, there was a Mathematical Sciences department, quite separate from the Math department.

I never ventured over there, though, so I'm not sure what kinds of things they did.

No doubt they were much smarter than we were.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 09:15 PM

6. “I started studying law, but this I could stand just for one semester. I couldn't stand more. Then

I studied languages and literature for two years. After two years I passed an examination with the result I have a teaching certificate for Latin and Hungarian for the lower classes of the gymnasium, for kids from 10 to 14. I never made use of this teaching certificate. And then I came to philosophy, physics, and mathematics. In fact, I came to mathematics indirectly. I was really more interested in physics and philosophy and thought about those. It is a little shortened but not quite wrong to say: I thought I am not good enough for physics and I am too good for philosophy. Mathematics is in between.”

-- George Pólya

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 08:07 PM

2. Irony in that this is social science...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foggyhill (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 08:30 PM

4. Social science...

The area of academia where one can produce a small study, present the results as wide spread evidence that the hypothesis is proven and have everyone in the same field accept it as fact without any peer review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foggyhill (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 10:44 PM

7. I won't speculate as to where the authors of this study fall on any intelligence scale, but...

 

...I will note that one of the authors does have his very own SPLC page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218166305#post34



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Thu Oct 27, 2016, 09:03 PM

5. If you understand it and can prove it,

You publish in a mathematics journal.
If you understand it, but can't prove it, you publish in a physics journal.
If you don't understand it, but can prove it, you publish in an economics journal.
If you don't understand it, and can't prove it, you publish in a psychology journal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:21 AM

8. Wander on down

To your nearest Physics department. Great minds with very high math skills. And they dream about the "what ifs" and "why nots" and are willing to question the most sacred ideas or fundamental laws without hesitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread