Famous scientists, an skeptical look

[Anomalocaris]

In every human activity (whether artistic, sports or academic) there are individuals who excel above others. Some reach the level of excellence, and their contributions are so significant that they become symbols within their field. On the other hand, however, it happens that some characters are glorified by the media, critics and / or the public, despite its questionable merits. The charisma helps a lot as well as a good marketing campaign and is sometimes due to the fact that they were at the time and right place. This phenomenon is by no means unknown and is especially evident in the entertainment industry, where we often see the celebrities who enjoy a reputation that many times is not equivalent to their talents.

But is this phenomenon so evident in areas such as science? Many scientists are also public figures, their work activities are of public domain and they have a high degree of attention from the the media (even some of them have become memes). That being said, Is it possible that this phenomenon is also among science communicators? In other words...Can a scientist be recognized because of his fame rather than his academic achievements?

Well, some say the real skepticism starts when you criticize the things you like. Why? Because, first of all, an essential part when it comes to exercising your rational thought is to distinguish the facts from what the advertising says. And secondly, because in science there are no sacred cows or indisputable figures. Everything can be discussed under the light of the rational thought and evidence, even the scientists themselves.

So, how to evaluate the contribution of a scientist?

There are several ways to measure the contribution of a researcher to science, and a key question is: How often their publications appear in quotations from their scientific colleagues? Well, this is known as H- index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index

The H-index is a system proposed by physicist Jorge Hirsch for the qualitative evaluation of researchers in the field of physics. However it is perfectly applicable to other disciplines. Today is one of the most used methods to assess the impact of the researchers in an individual way.

https://en.wikipedia...Jorge_E._Hirsch

Many authors consider this method as the surest way to measure the scientific quality of the researcher, since such method combines productivity with impact.

http://www.pnas.org/.../49/19193.short

http://link.springer...0405-009-1009-5

In his original article Hirsch explains:

A scientist has index h if h of his or her N_p papers have at least h citations each and the other (N_p – h) papers have ≤h citations each.

http://www.pnas.org/...2/46/16569.full

To make it simple, if a scientist has N papers that have been quoted N or more times, then you have an H-index according to N.

Hirsch suggests that, for physicists, an H-index between 10 and 12 may be enough to get a position in a major research university in USA. A value of 18 would be appropriate to work as a Professor. 15-20 could mean being elected by the American Physical Society. An application to the National Academy of Sciences may require a H-index greater than 45. It also states that biologists tend to have higher H-indices than physicists. Specifically, it was found that among 36 new recruits in the "National Academy of Sciences in biological and biomedical sciences" in 2005, the average H-index was 57.

If you became curious and you want to know the H-index of a scientist, you have several alternatives. The most practical of these is through the ISI Web of Knowledge. Its database can automatically calculate the H-index of any researcher.

http://login.webofkn.../&Error=IPError

Another option is Publish or Perish, a program that collects data from Google Academic, which is available in harzing.com. There are also extensions for Google Chrome and Firefox that perform the same task.

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm

Another alternative is to calculate manually, but then you will have to organize publications by number of citations, which undoubtedly it is a cumbersome job. Now, keep in mind that the H-index can vary depending on the methods used to make the calculation.

Popularity vs Quality

Popular culture has created several heroes of cult around science. They are considered eminences who appear as leaders in their respective fields. Or at least that's what we assume. But what the data say about it? What are their concrete contributions to science? Let's take a look.

Here we have four of the most famous scientists in the world for a brief analysis of their academic performance. But don't get me wrong, because I don't intend to underestimate their works at all. Any contribution to scientific knowledge, even if it is minimal, is invaluable. The point is simple: it is to draw a line between the media career and academic career in order to appreciate the scientists for their work in research, and not only by the advertising halo around them.

Richard Dawkins: Zoologist, science popularizer and secular activist. His publications "Parental investment, matte desertion and a fallacy" (1976) and "Between Arms races and species Within" (1979) had a number of quotes from his colleagues.

http://www.nature.co...s/262131a0.html

http://rspb.royalsoc...nt/205/1161/489

He introduced the terms meme and memetics, and this is perhaps one of his most significant contributions to biology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

His last scientific publication, which consists of original research was in 1980: "Do digger wasps concorde commit the fallacy?".

http://www.sciencedi...003347280801497

All other publications during the last thirty years have been book chapters, book reviews on science magazines, comments on the research of others, philosophical articles and answers to the critics.

https://en.wikipedia...Academic_papers

According to the WOK its H-index is 17, well below the level of other scientists biological area, as Craig Venter (H-index 35) who do not have the same media popularity. Like it or not, it is undeniable that the Dr. Dawkins has attracted more attention for his militant atheism and his quarrels with religious people than for his real academic merit.

Stephen Hawking: Theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He had a productive research until the late 70's.

Although he is considered, by many a physicist, a genius of the level of Einstein or Newton, his most influential work was not a significant impact in physics. Actually in schools it is rarely mentioned Hawking's work, except for a few casual references to Hawking radiation and the Singularity theorem developed in collaboration with Roger Penrose.

https://en.wikipedia...wking_radiation

https://en.wikipedia...larity_theorems

Today is dedicated to the Science communication.

Professor Hawking's contributions to science are as good as those of many other little know physicists. This doesn't mean that he is a mediocre scientist, but at the same time, he is not one of the greatest geniuses of history, as many people believe. His H-index is 23, which is inferior to the H-index of other physicists like Steven Weinberg and Edward Witten, who are little known by the general public. In Fact, we must recognize that this idealized image of a genius whose mind travels through cosmos, while his body is confined to a wheelchair has been a key element of Hawking's popularity, much more than his contribution to science.

Michio Kaku: Theoretical Physicist, Futurist and specialist in the String field theory.

https://en.wikipedia...ng_field_theory

Although he is one of the pioneers in the model string, their most valued article "Properties of conformal supergravity" (1978) only managed 96 quotations.

http://journals.aps....hysRevD.17.3179

A low-profile publication, considering that the most cited paper in the same field "The Limit of Superconformal Large N Field Theories and Supergravity" (Juan Martin Maldacena) has achieved more than 7,500 references.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200

Today is dedicated to the Science communication, but has been criticized and ridiculed by his tendency to exaggerate some things about physics. In 2013 he was criticized after an interview on the CBS Morning Show about the importance of the Higgs Boson, where he showed very little knowledge of the subject, even claiming that the Higgs Boson was the cause of the Big Bang.

http://profmattstras...essor-kaku-why/

His H-index is 11.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Astrophysicist, writer and scientist. He made a very good job as director of the Hayden Planetarium, but the truth is he doesn't have a rich history of prolific publications.

https://en.wikipedia...Earth_and_Space

His latest research project "Optical light curves of the Type IA supernovae SN 1990N and 1991T" was published in 1998.

http://www.haydenpla...-AJ-115,234.pdf

His popularity increased when he was elected as successor to Carl Sagan in the new version of Cosmos; "Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey" which was very successful at the media, though there are some criticisms of the series for some scientific and historical inaccuracies.

https://en.wikipedia...acetime_Odyssey

His H-index of 6 is the lowest of the list and probably one of the lowest among all scientific who are dedicated to science communication. NdGT is one of the more popular scientific and is considered a rock star of astrophysics, but its contribution to scientific knowledge is virtually nil.

"Kim Kardashians" of science

The discrepancy between the popularity of some researchers and the quality of their publications is so notorious that even exists an index to measure it. It´s called Kardashian Index (referring to Kim Kardashian, "famous for being famous") proposed, half joking and half serious, by Neil Hall, a geneticist from the University of Liverpool.

Hall noted in Genome Biology:

I am concerned that phenomena similar to that of Kim Kardashian may also exist in the scientific community. I think it is possible that there are individuals who are famous for being famous (or, to put it in science jargon, renowned for being renowned). We are all aware that certain people are seemingly invited as keynote speakers, not because of their contributions to the published literature but because of who they are. In the age of social media there are people who have high-profile scientific blogs or twitter feeds but have not actually published many peer-reviewed papers of significance; in essence, scientists who are seen as leaders in their field simply because of their notoriety.

http://www.genomebio...m/2014/15/7/424

The formula compares the number of followers in social networks a researcher with the number of quotations from his scientific work. In the chart above, the blue X represent the male scientists present on Twitter and the red X represent the women scientists. If they have more followers and a just a few quotations of their publications, the greater the risk that they are entering into the "Kardashian territory".

In the first three places of notorious characters on a social level, but little recognized on a scientific level (according to Hall index) are Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins.

Now, let me know your thoughts about it

Edited July 3, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Lugal]

If this is your work then well done

That was an awesome to read

[Likely Guy]

Very interesting topic but, I can't read your wall of text until tomorrow, or the day after.

[Likely Guy]

In the meantime, since this was posted in the 'Spirituality vs. Skepticism' forum perhaps the O.P. can provide their spiritual beliefs so that we might follow that train of thought.

[ChrLzs]

OK, it's interesting... but given that you seem to be having a bit of a not-quite-subtle swipe at the scientists that the media most love to follow (for reasons which are not exactly rocket science, ie wherever there may be some controversy..), may I ask what is the point of this?

I'm afraid I don't see why referential statistics should necessarily be a good measure of contribution to our knowledge (or quality of life..?) - as it also reflects such things as the complexity of a topic, and also does not in any way take into account intangible benefits. Often the best way to make science have an impact has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of published papers, or even how good you are/were as a scientist, but is simply about how effective a communicator you are, hence the 'success' of folks like Sagan and DeGrasse-Tyson.

[Kenemet]

The popular scientists are more populizers (ala Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan) and explainers of science. The ones doing the cutting edge research don't have time to do the public thing.

[Anomalocaris]

In the meantime, since this was posted in the 'Spirituality vs. Skepticism' forum perhaps the O.P. can provide their spiritual beliefs so that we might follow that train of thought.

Critical thinking is not limited to charlatans. And actually, if you read the thread, you will notice that the reason for my post is to foster critical thinking starting from it's own base.

The Problem is that the claims of the famous scientists can be interpreted as absolute truth by average people. The fame and the degree of authority could be-triggering factors (not in all cases, of course).

In other words, we should avoid the use of this kind of arguments:

https://en.wikipedia..._from_authority

If you put all your trust in the famous scientists only by their degree of authority, then you are not very different from a dogmatic religious.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Anomalocaris]

The popular scientists are more populizers (ala Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan) and explainers of science. The ones doing the cutting edge research don't have time to do the public thing.

You made a valid point. They have the charisma to talk about science. But the purpose of this thread is still standing: How reliable are the statements of the famous scientists?

it is even possible that some of them are overrated by the mainstream. But I must insist, my goal is not to attack those scientists. It's just an exercise of critical thinking, to implement our skepticism.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[ChrLzs]

Well, to make this worthwhile, why not give some tangible examples of the incorrect information being promoted as 'absolute truth'? This seems a strange claim, given that science by definition is NOT about absolute truth - in that every theory, no matter how 'accepted' it may be, is always up for improvement IF:

- new observations are made that are not properly/accurately explained by the current theory

- a simpler (or otherwise 'better') theory is presented

Without examples, then I'm afraid it is just a handwaving exercise.. And 'critical thinking' by people who are not VERY, VERY thoroughly knowledgeable on the current theory and why it exists, is generally not critical thinking at all. To perhaps ironically 'quote' Carl Sagan (and in then disputing it, show an example of how good thinking works..):

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.."

That's how he is often quoted, but in fact here's what Carl actually said (in his book - Demon Haunted World):

"Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but, as the space engineer James Oberg once said, 'not so open that your brains fall out'."

However (and you can ask Jim himself about this as he currently posts here!), Jim Oberg has stated that he simply heard it somewhere else, and is not the originator either... A bit of intense research doesn't give a definitive answer on who first said this, but it might have been either Walter Kotschnig or Max Radin way back in the 1930's.. Better information is most welcome..

.. and that is an example of how science works, or at least should.

It's all up for grabs...

[eight bits]

I've reread the OP, and am still at sea about what point is being made, especially any point that would relate to spirituality or skepticism.

Scientists vary in productivity. An individual scientist may have more or less productive times during their working life. A great teacher may or may not be even a passably good researcher.

Clearly, not everybody can be a Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate, accomplished physicist, media star, and respected visual artist specializing in naked women, many of them recruited in bars. He was a world class drummer, too, and had some reputation as a safe cracker.

He described himself as an atheist, for whatever that's worth. OK, now we have anecdotes marshalled on both "sides,"... so what are we trying to do with them?

[+Liquid Gardens]

I would guess that the tie-in is that we should be skeptical of popular scientists, and that they may be 'glorified' despite their 'questionable merits'. I'm not sure the relevance of the latter, I don't think they're being 'glorified', and we should be just as skeptical of professional scientists. I disagree with the implication that cutting edge scientists are 'too busy' to do the public thing, because I'd argue the vast majority of those 'professional' scientists couldn't hold a candle to Sagan, Tyson, and Feynman as far as being skilled science communicators. There is no shortage of professional scientists who blurt out some misleading or overstated statement concerning their research as a result of them trying to explain it simply enough so the public would understand, that scientists in the OP then have to un-explain and then clarify for them as to the true status of the related science.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Liquid Gardens

[Podo]

I think it is not an accurate metric to judge someone's contributions to science solely by their quotations and papers. To bring science to the population, to get children excited to learn, to communicate advanced principles to the masses, all of these are very valuable things, and things that most scientists do not do. Neil DeGrasse Tyson may have the lowest index, but he fills a very valuable role in conveying and explaining cutting-edge science to the population. In this way, he makes science popular, which is important. His index may be low, but he's contributed in other ways, even if it is as simple as inspiring the next Sagan to pursue a life of intellectualism. The same goes for any of the listed scientists; by expanding the minds of the population, they further the common folks' access to science and knowledge.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, to make this worthwhile, why not give some tangible examples of the incorrect information being promoted as 'absolute truth'? This seems a strange claim, given that science by definition is NOT about absolute truth - in that every theory, no matter how 'accepted' it may be, is always up for improvement IF:

- new observations are made that are not properly/accurately explained by the current theory

- a simpler (or otherwise 'better') theory is presented

First of all thanks for the feedback. But you're missing the point here (again). I'm not saying that science has the absolute truth of all things, and that's obviously not true. It is impossible to know everything, and yet , the scientific method is the most reliable tool to create knowledge, and at the same time is very useful to generate answers to important questions .

So, again, I think that people should be able to apply the skepticism with anyone. No matter the degree of authority or fame. The most common tendency is to simply apply the skepticism in the charlatans and those who are promoters of pseudoscience, which is good. But at the same time I believe that a genuine skeptic should make use of critical thinking in different fields , including science itself. It is this ability what really makes the difference between a skeptic and a believer: avoid credulity, the skeptic doesn't have to raise idols on a pedestal, because the most valuable is the knowledge. But that doesn't mean that this knowledge is free from criticism, since it is important to know how this knowledge is generated and validated.

When a phenomenon or situation occurs and there is evidence and that evidence can be verified, then a skeptic must accept that this statement is true, without major problems.

But if the evidence does not exist, is invalid, contradicts the statement, or there is clear evidence to the contrary, a skeptic will reject the validity of such declaration.

People should not assume that something is true, just because who said it is a famous scientist.It is that the sense of this thread, is aimed at people, not scientists. That's why I call it "critical exercie".

A couple of examples:

a) Objects with mass attract each other by the law of universal gravitation. It is true, because who said it was Isaac Newton.

There is a relationship between energy (E), mass (m) and the speed of light © wich is E = mc ^ 2. It is true, because who said it was Albert Einstein.

The two statements are considered true today, but with one important detail: these claims are not true "because" were said by a renowned scientist but because the arguments, evidence and subsequent experiments have shown us that these claims effectively are true.

We can break down more thoughts on the following points:

1) If an expert says something seriously, it must be supported by evidence and studies, and therefore should be possible to find these studies to be reviewed by the people, or less explicit references to these studies; His claims can not be on the air.

2) If an expert says something seriously, he could be the person most qualified to give a reasonable explanation of why his assertion is true, because he knows the evidence; if the expert does not explain the basis for their claims, such claims are invalid anyway.

3) If an expert says something in a field that is not their expertise, it can be considered only as an opinion, but it is not certain a priori just because he said so. The exception occurs when the scientist makes his claims in the way that is explained in point 1.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Anomalocaris]

I think it is not an accurate metric to judge someone's contributions to science solely by their quotations and papers. To bring science to the population, to get children excited to learn, to communicate advanced principles to the masses, all of these are very valuable things, and things that most scientists do not do. Neil DeGrasse Tyson may have the lowest index, but he fills a very valuable role in conveying and explaining cutting-edge science to the population. In this way, he makes science popular, which is important. His index may be low, but he's contributed in other ways, even if it is as simple as inspiring the next Sagan to pursue a life of intellectualism. The same goes for any of the listed scientists; by expanding the minds of the population, they further the common folks' access to science and knowledge.

As I said, it's one of many ways to measure the contribution of a researcher to science. There are other meters, as the indices: K, G, R or E (if memory serves). You may disagree with the method. However, that does not invalidate the aim of this thread: encourage critical thinking in various areas in order to avoid credulity, and judgments based on the authority.

[Anomalocaris]

I would guess that the tie-in is that we should be skeptical of popular scientists, and that they may be 'glorified' despite their 'questionable merits'.

You pretty much hit the spot

[Anomalocaris]

I'm not sure the relevance of the latter, I don't think they're being 'glorified', and we should be just as skeptical of professional scientists. I disagree with the implication that cutting edge scientists are 'too busy' to do the public thing, because I'd argue the vast majority of those 'professional' scientists couldn't hold a candle to Sagan, Tyson, and Feynman as far as being skilled science communicators. There is no shortage of professional scientists who blurt out some misleading or overstated statement concerning their research as a result of them trying to explain it simply enough so the public would understand, that scientists in the OP then have to un-explain and then clarify for them as to the true status of the related science.

We agree. Scientists who are not famous can be subject to criticism as well.

Also, I appreciated very much the communication of science, and it is indeed a very important task. And certainly, many scientists do not possess the charisma nor the time to talk about science. And it is through this work that children can also acquire an early notion of science.

However, just as there are benefits, there are some risks. Now, these risks do not occur in all cases. But when a scientist made exaggerated or extraordinary claims (such as Michio Kaku) then, some people may believe in these words, just because who communicates these claims is a famous scientist.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Podo]

As I said, it's one of many ways to measure the contribution of a researcher to science. There are other meters, as the indices: K, G, R or E (if memory serves). You may disagree with the method. However, that does not invalidate the aim of this thread: encourage critical thinking in various areas in order to avoid credulity, and judgments based on the authority.

I wasn't trying to invalidate the thread, I was stating that I think this method is silly. I agree that one should not blindly accept statements from anyone, for any reason, but this metric doesn't prove this any better than any other method. The thread topic is just common sense. I don't, however, see what this has to do with spirituality vs skepticism.

[Anomalocaris]

I wasn't trying to invalidate the thread, I was stating that I think this method is silly. I agree that one should not blindly accept statements from anyone, for any reason, but this metric doesn't prove this any better than any other method. The thread topic is just common sense. I don't, however, see what this has to do with spirituality vs skepticism.

Well, what you call common sense it is actually critical thinking, and it is something that not many people do. Just because you're skeptical, doesn't mean that everyone is doing this right now.

Plus, I Never said that the method is perfect. As I said, there are others. In addition, an important point is the justification of such methods. It is not just common sense. Such methods are justified by the need for an answer to a question: How big is the contribution of a scientist?

This answer is important because the results can help us to understand how reliable is the judgment of a scientist. The quotations and the papers have a degree of importance. Especially when the fame of a scientist is bigger than his real contributions to the field. You should not confuse the work of communicator of science (which is very valuable, as I said earlier) to work dedicated to scientific research. These are two different things.

AND...about the location of this thread ...well, I must admit that was my mistake the reason? I can't find any section about skepticism.

Now, If you think this method is silly, you could share a better one. The feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Podo]

Well, what you call common sense it is actually critical thinking, and it is something that not many people do. Just because you're skeptical, doesn't mean that everyone is doing this right now.

Plus, I Never said that the method is perfect. As I said, there are others. In addition, an important point is the justification of such methods. It is not just common sense. Such methods are justified by the need for an answer to a question: How big is the contribution of a scientist?

This answer is important because the results can help us to understand how reliable is the judgment of a scientist. The quotations and the papers have a degree of importance. Especially when the fame of a scientist is bigger than his real contributions to the field. You should not confuse the work of communicator of science (which is very valuable, as I said earlier) to work dedicated to scientific research. These are two different things.

AND...about the location of this thread ...well, I must admit that was my mistake the reason? I can't find any section about skepticism.

Now, If you think this method is silly, you could share a better one. The feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I guess it is less that I find this method silly, conceptually, and more that I don't think it effectively rams home that one should think about what one hears, as opposed to accepting it at face value. I think this method would do fine as a judge of a scientist's direct contribution to the human scientific knowledge base, but I don't really think it can be directly correlated to how believable they are. Moreover, I don't know that the sentiment of "don't believe everything you hear" really needs qualifying data, since to me it seems very common sense not to blindly accept what one hears. I guess most people don't to that, though? I don't know, I can only speak from my own experience, and not accepting what one hears is such a no-brainer that I don't understand how someone would do otherwise.

[eight bits]

LG

Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure it is appropriate to be "skeptical of a person." It seems to me that ideally what I form opinions about are statements, things that somebody puts forward as true, beautiful or useful - not the persons themselves.

Sure, if somebody talks b******s all the time, then I might simply tune out, or maybe tune out when they opine on some subjects. But that's secondary to having assessed what they say, and estimating that they haven't said much worth bothering about. I don;t see that that really applies to anybody famopus who's been mentioned in the thread.

Most educated people, including scientists, give reasons for what they say when they speak in public. This doesn;t seem dangerous to me. Meh.

ETA Hmm. I didn't realize that that was an especially bad word, and yet it must be nasty somewhere in the vast English speaking world. Computers never make mistakes. Baloney, then.

Edited July 4, 2015 by eight bits

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Science isn't rested on individuals and our respect for them. it is a self correcting process.

Every single scientist has made serious mistakes in their careers (even Einstein failed in his attempt to create unified theory because he rejected QM).

I don't care about the flaws of these individuals, I care about the process of getting better and better approaches to a set of models of the universe.

Science isn't about hero worship. Its a flaw in human nature that we confuse the scientist with the work because we are programmed to follow leaders.

Br Cornelius