Pharyngula: Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences?
There seem to be a lot of physicists, however, who believe they know everything there is to know about biology (it’s a minor subdivision of physics, don’t you know), and will blithely say the most awesomely stupid things about it. Here, for instance, is Michio Kaku simply babbling in reply to a question about evolution, and getting everything wrong. It’s painful to watch.
Kaku’s tendency to bather via an orifice other than his mouth has been noted more than once in the blogohedron, and he doesn’t even need to leave the field of physics to do it. The question here is why PZ thinks that he is representative of physicists? How does he get from one to a lot of physicists?
The question is why does Michio Kaku, who happens to be a physicist, think he is a master of all science. Leave the rest of us out of it.
Unfortunately, it is not that uncommon. See: http://xkcd.com/793/
I have been in more than a few talks of physicists (usually senior ones) about biological effects in which, at least in passing, it was mentioned that biologists are not able to understand biology since they do not understand the underlying physics.
This is also reflected in the NIH efforts to create physical sciences centers to combat cancer that basically excludes biologists.
Clearly, it is an over generalization, but it is more than one (though far less than all).
But is the physicist in the cartoon obnoxious because he’s wrong, or because he’s right?
I can’t speak to your observations, but is that a situation where they purported to be masters of biology? I made a physics observation of a biology problem not too long ago http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/7770 It wasn’t a case of thinking I was a master of biology, it was a matter of biologists (if the story was accurate) not accounting for some basic physics and experimentation facts, i.e. that noise exists in all processes.
If physicists point out a missing element of, say, a biological model, and thus expand the biological knowledge, it is a great thing. However, what the cartoon depicts (as I understand it) is that *some* physicists try to disperse with existing well-established biological knowledge and methodology altogether in favor of a clean-cut modeling approach, for instance. While that is worthwhile exploring it usually leaves out too many necessary parameters. In other words, it is at times when ad hoc physical methods (not carefully implemented and optimized for biological questions) try to supersede established biological methodologies when it is becoming obnoxious.
Note that it goes the other way round, too, but there are far fewer examples.
Regarding the above link, I am genuinely surprised that a biologist would think of that as a mystery (note that I only gather it basically from the post, I have not followed up the whole story).
As a matter of fact in discussions with physical sciences collaborators I often find myself in the opposite position. I have to point out that a number of their fascinating observations are not only expected, but are based on well-known biological mechanisms that are no way diagnostic for disease development. At which point the biologists are spoilsport cards get played.
I have to admit that I am secretly a fan of modeling sub-processes whenever possible, though. In the end I sympathize. I really hope that we will understand biology to such an extent that we can employ approaches with the same success as currently done in theoretical physics. It is easy to overlook that biology is currently so bloody messy that we have to help ourselves with somewhat messy methodologies to get any meaningful answers.
Being in Chemistry, I work in the borderlands between physics and biology. Chemists are often accused of being the worst physicists or the worst biologist. I take that to be somewhat true at face value. I believe that many scientist are guilty of overstepping their intellectual [or egotistical] bounds, especially when the discovery channel camera is turned on. To me it’s all about employing the method that is most apt at taking measurements at that scale. Physical systems, chemical systems, and biological systems all have near equal levels of complexity. Though physics is more fundamental than biology, biology is no less complex or deep. Biology suffers from a “complexity of synergy” that inevitably arises in any macro system with unique and differentiable micro-components. In a similar way physics suffers from “complexity of unfamiliar scale” be it the femto/atto world or the huge structures that constitute cosmology.
From what I have seen recently, this generalization is becoming less applicable.
When I started my biochemistry undergrad degree I was told that people who bridge the gap between chemistry, biology and physics are few and far between. This surprised me, but it’s turned out to be true – in fact what I saw was very much like the opposite of what Kaku was saying (Biologists lacking a knowledge of physics).
Luckily for me, there seems to be an increase in chemists and physicists looking to employ people with a background in biology. I’ve seen an increase in cross-discipline research teams recently. As our knowledge in each field increases, the more the three broad disciplines overlap.
Michio Kaku is a streetwalker. He shows a little leg, get paid up front, returns as little as possible, and is not held accountable for taxes. It’s a good life until dissatisfied customers discover each other.