Evaluate these statements:

[Sisyphus]

Every good doctor is also a biologist.

Every good biologist is also a chemist.

Every good chemist is also a physicist.

Every good physicist is also a mathematician.

 

Every revolutionary scientist is also a revolutionary philosopher.

 

(These are fairly tongue-in-cheek, so don't jump down my throat. Thanks.)

[insane_alien]

well, if good doctors are also biologist it doesn't mean they have to be good biologists. they just know a small field of biology. the same works up the rest of that chain.

[timo]

Spontaneously, I´d say they are all false:

- Assuming with "doctor" you meant "physician", then I´d say a physician working in emergency medicine must know little about biology but rather have a good intuition for the current state of their patient.

- I know neither biology nor chemistry, but I doubt you need much chemistry knowledge to investigate the eco system of the amazonas.

- I´m sure there´s branches of chemistry that need neither QM not Thermodynamics, which is the only overlap between physics and chemistry that I can spontaneously think of.

- Of course you need to be able to do some calculations in physics. But real mathematics is something slightly different. Having had too many discussions with professors about mathematical proofs or the lack thereof that ended in the statement "you just know it from physical intuition" (a statement that I don´t even necessarily reject) I´d say that "real" mathematics is usually not needed in physics.

 

- I can remember having read revolutionary/famous texts/articles about physics that were so bone-dry that you´d throw them away after one paragraph if you didn´t know the content really is important/groundbreaking.

 

Bottom line: All the fields you listed are adjecent, so someone working in an area of their field that leans towards the other there´s certainly some knowledge of that field that´s required for efficient working (e.g. a physician working in research might need some knowledge in chemistry and biology). But there´s also areas that have less overlap with the other field (like the physician working in emergency medicine).

[YT2095]

the way I see it is this, each statement has an Element of truth to it, I`de estimate about 10-20% factual, so lets work on Best possible.

 

20% of 20% of 20% of 20% doesn`t leave a whole hell of a lot does it!?

so from the 1`st to the last you can see how it`s almost non-applicable.

 

as for the Last statement, it`s a little non sequitur in it`s relevance to any of the above 4.

[Genecks]

Each statement can be true if independent, but cannot be true if dependent on the other sentences.

[Sisyphus]

Spontaneously, I´d say they are all false:

 

You're on, sir! I love a silly argument.

 

- Assuming with "doctor" you meant "physician", then I´d say a physician working in emergency medicine must know little about biology but rather have a good intuition for the current state of their patient.

 

"Intuition?" Like, street smarts? Surely a doctor's instincts are derived from knowledge and experience of what is essentially a specialized (only humans), practical (keep 'em runnin') biology. That it becomes automatic doesn't make it less so.

 

- I know neither biology nor chemistry, but I doubt you need much chemistry knowledge to investigate the eco system of the amazonas.

 

Perhaps you're right. Not every branch of biology is intimately connected with chemisty. But fundamental biology, I think, could fairly be described as a highly specialized branch of chemisty.

 

- I´m sure there´s branches of chemistry that need neither QM not Thermodynamics, which is the only overlap between physics and chemistry that I can spontaneously think of.

 

What else is chemistry but atomic physics? It seems like if you want to get very far in chemistry or have any idea what you're actually doing, you're going to have to talk about how molecules interact.

 

- Of course you need to be able to do some calculations in physics. But real mathematics is something slightly different. Having had too many discussions with professors about mathematical proofs or the lack thereof that ended in the statement "you just know it from physical intuition" (a statement that I don´t even necessarily reject) I´d say that "real" mathematics is usually not needed in physics.

 

It's not just "some" calculations. All the "big" stuff in physics, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, required using advanced mathematics in ways that hadn't previously been applied to material existence, in ways that go beyond and even contradict physical intuitions. The critics of String Theory say this even goes too far, that it's all mathematics, no experiment or "reasonable" intuition.

 

- I can remember having read revolutionary/famous texts/articles about physics that were so bone-dry that you´d throw them away after one paragraph if you didn´t know the content really is important/groundbreaking.

 

Bone dry does not mean philosophically unimportant. Believe me. I did probably state it too strongly, though. Some revolutionaries seem unaware of the philosophical significance of their work. Many do seem aware.

 

Bottom line: All the fields you listed are adjecent, so someone working in an area of their field that leans towards the other there´s certainly some knowledge of that field that´s required for efficient working (e.g. a physician working in research might need some knowledge in chemistry and biology). But there´s also areas that have less overlap with the other field (like the physician working in emergency medicine).

 

Agreed!

[timo]

Well, a key point in your statements that you might have overlooked/underestimated is the term "every". Starting a statement with "every" means that if there is at least one counter-example, then the statement is wrong.

If you´re altering the statements to "some x must know quite some y", then I´d probably say the statements are all right (medical research, cell biology, quantum chemistry, mathematical physics, not sure about the last one). But that´d be completely different statements.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The problem is that you're defining "good doctor" etc. in your own terms, which may not reflect what most others believe. ("I don't care if my doctor knows biology, I care if he knows what's wrong with me!")

[PhDP]

Perhaps you're right. Not every branch of biology is intimately connected with chemisty. But fundamental biology, I think, could fairly be described as a highly specialized branch of chemisty.

 

This is, to a certain degree, true for all sciences. Chemistry can be seen as a specialized branch of physics and biology as a specialized branch of physics and chemistry. I see it as a pyramid starting from the most fundamental science (physics) to the sciences of highly complex systems (ecosystems). Because each new "step" in the pyramid implies new emergent properties, many features of the most fundamental sciences are often lost.

 

It's certainly not necessary for a biologist to be a good chemist, or for a chemist to be a good physicist, but it does help, especially in theoretical studies. "Atheist" said you don't need chemistry to study ecosystems, it's true that the two domains don't overlap, there's such a huge difference in terms of scale and complexity that no serious scientist would think of using chemistry to understand the relationships between species. Still, the equation of the most elementary (read; fundamental) predator-prey model is based on a principle of chemistry (mass action). And this is a very important equation, every biology students have heard of the Lotka-Volterra model, even though most of them are not math enthusiasts like me. Many inspirations in theoretical biology originated from physics, chemistry or even economics. I bet the same thing could be said of all sciences.

 

I think you can be a good scientist even if you're very specialized and don't know much about the other sciences, but having a good general knowledge of science can be quite handy. Most, if not all, of the prominent scientists of recent history working in my area were also very knowledgeable at least in one other scientific discipline.

[Genecks]

Look people, it's logic--not a bunch of speculation about the sciences... gah...