The scientific ego

.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy,
visit the Junk Science Home Page.

What is Junk Science?

Special rules for this forum.

Debunkers

Philosophy

The scientific ego

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: The scientific ego
KGB Moderator	posted 11-09-2005 01:02 PM Philosophy seems like as good a forum for this as anywhere. Why are a good number of scientists such pompous asses? What prompts the question is this hilarious encyclope dia article I ran across online: quote: In 1994, Apple Computer began developing the Power Macintosh 7100. They chose the internal code name "Carl Sagan," in honor of the astronomer. Though the project name was strictly internal and never used in public marketing, when Sagan learned of this internal usage, he sued Apple Computer to use a different project name — other projects had names like "Cold fusion" and "Piltdown Man", and he was displeased at being associated with what he considered pseudoscience. Though Sagan lost the suit, Apple engineers complied with his demands anyway, renaming the project "BHA" (Butthead Astronomer). Sagan sued Apple for libel over the new name, claiming that it subjected him to contempt and ridicule. Sagan lost this lawsuit as well; still, the 7100 saw another name change: it was now called "LAW" (Lawyers Are Wimps). Some comments on the relevant case law can be found here. IP: Logged
jessho Member	posted 11-09-2005 06:05 PM quote: Why are a good number of scientists such pompous asses? They mistake intelligence for importance. IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 11-09-2005 06:36 PM I just noticed another amusing aspect of this: quote: In response, the project manager changed the computer's code-name to "Butt-Head Astronomer." Sagan filed suit in federal court for libel, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, unfair competition, and violation of the Lanham Act and California law on the use of likenesses. So Sagan asserted in court that "Butt-Head Astronomer" was a likeness? IP: Logged
mal-3 Member	posted 12-08-2005 03:39 PM quote: Why are a good number of scientists such pompous asses? Perhaps it is for the same reason that every time I suggest to a scientist that science has done an abjectly poor job in marketing the enlightenment paradigm, I’m told that marketing is tantamount to hucksterism. Yeah, science is too important to debase itself by actually trying to make itself compelling in a visceral way. mal-3 IP: Logged
Steve_V Member	posted 12-08-2005 04:13 PM KGB, Good question KGB. I think it is the confusion thing jessho mentioned. I'm intelligent, therefore I'm important. mal-3, Why am I not surprised? Why is it that some many smart people see marketing as a bad thing? Getting your idea out there and accepted is important. For example, Intelligent Design has a good marketing campaign. They have people writing stuff for the common man and go around to chruches spouting off nonsense that sounds good to those who aren't trained to spot the BS. By comparision evolutionary theory is playing a game of catch up, and sometimes I think they are doing it badly. They give face time to pompous asses like PZ Meyers, and others who can't seem to resist the temptation to fulminate about "right wing religious nuts". Take for example the recent headlines about Paul Mirecki. Great point about the fulminating pompous asinine behavior. Now, his latest bit of silliness is this rather suspicious looking beating. Many of the evolutionary theory supporters have swallowed his story and I have a hunch that it could turn out bad for them (i.e., Mirecki fabricated the whole thing, or worse) and then they'll look like idiots. ------------------ Steve "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a "Satan", but this man is as close to "the real McCoy" as they come." --Jamey Lee West steve_v@steveverdon.com Deinonychus antirrhopus [This message has been edited by Steve_V (edited 12-08-2005).] IP: Logged
setnahkt Member	posted 12-08-2005 07:21 PM Suggestion for research: Scientists are just as likely to be pompous asses as anybody else. However, scientists are much more likely to have access to media than car mechanics, housewives, etc. Journalism majors all hated science. Journalism majors are now reporters. Reports delight in making scientists look bad. With the caveat that some scientists don't need any help to look bad. IP: Logged
SamTheCat Member	posted 01-05-2006 12:19 AM quote: Journalism majors all hated science. Journalism majors are now reporters. Reports delight in making scientists look bad. Parts 1 and 2 are right on. But reports by science-illiterate journalists only make politically-incorrect scientists look bad. (Enstrom and Lomberg quickly come to mind.) They're known to slaver over the others, who then begin to actually believe what they read. IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy, visit the Junk Science Home Page.	What is Junk Science?
	Special rules for this forum.