Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-12-2012, 23:53   #31
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by equivariant View Post
The Standard Model seems to be the work of many physicists, not just Higgs. Also it is fairly clear I think that you do not know enough to make assessments like "the standard model is the most important theory in all of science". The fact that you would even make such a statement is evidence of your ignorance.
Your arguments might have some merit if you did not continue to misquote me. Where did I say the Standard Model was the work of Higgs alone? He made a very significant contribution to the Standard Model.

I said "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science. In my opinion a theory that describes what the physical universe is composed of is the most important theory in all of science, but that is just my opinion.

As for ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, my undergraduate and graduate degrees and 30 years of work in a research scientific field would say otherwise.. but continue to attack the poster, it seems those who attack the poster on A&A are given a pass as long as they espouse the standard A&A opinions.

Richard Dawkins is a scientific lightweight compared to Peter Higgs. There is nothing whatsoever that Dawkins has published that made significant scientific progress in his field of study. Yes, he has done an excellent job popularising evolutionary Biology but there is a difference between a pop science writer and a likely Nobel prize winner. Higgs is a likely Nobel prize winner because of his "Higgs Mechanism" discovery, Dawkins is not because there is no such discovery or anything like it in his resume.

If you are looking for an analytical comparison between scientists then the h-index is useful. It ranks the productivity and impact of the published work of scientists, based on the number of papers they have published and how many times they have been cited in other publications. As the below paper by J.E. Hirsch who developed the metric explains (source: National Academy of Sciences (USA), biologists typically score higher than physicists.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full

Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.

I realize atheists love Dawkins, but he truly is not a leading scientist and no amount of jumping up and down and howling at the moon will change that.
nagirrac is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
28-12-2012, 23:58   #32
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
I realize atheists love Dawkins, but he truly is not a leading scientist and no amount of jumping up and down and howling at the moon will change that.
I truly hope not.
gbee is offline  
29-12-2012, 00:16   #33
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.
And Dirac has a score of 19. Another light weight I'm sure.

What's Higg's score? You seem to have left that out suspiciously....
Edit: lol. one estimate I found has Peter Higgs' h-value at 10....

Last edited by King Mob; 29-12-2012 at 00:23.
King Mob is offline  
29-12-2012, 00:46   #34
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
And Dirac has a score of 19. Another light weight I'm sure.

What's Higg's score? You seem to have left that out suspiciously....
Edit: lol. one estimate I found has Peter Higgs' h-value at 10....
Source??

As the paper points out and you conveniently ignore, physicists score much lower than biologists, presumably because of the volume of work in life science compared to theoretical physics. The point on Dawkins is he scores very low for a biologist.

Paul Dirac was a leading physicist with numerous key discoveries in quantum mechanics, certainly not a lightweight.

I am still waiting for one of Dawkin's fans to enlighten us on a scientific discovery of his, as opposed to popularising others' work. I have not found any but perhaps they exist.
nagirrac is offline  
29-12-2012, 00:47   #35
MagicMarker
Banned
 
MagicMarker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 31,878
According to Microsoft Academic Search...

Dawkins has a H-Index of 10.
Peter Higgs has a H-Index of 1.
Albert Einstein has a H-Index of 29.

Well that's clear as day, Dawkins is ten times the scientist that Higgs is, and almost a third as good at science as Einstein.

What's your H-Index nagirrac? I assume you know as you're always so quick to tell us all you're a scientist.
MagicMarker is offline  
Advertisement
29-12-2012, 00:48   #36
equivariant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
Your arguments might have some merit if you did not continue to misquote me. Where did I say the Standard Model was the work of Higgs alone? He made a very significant contribution to the Standard Model.

I said "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science. In my opinion a theory that describes what the physical universe is composed of is the most important theory in all of science, but that is just my opinion.
For goodness sake, inserting the adjective "arguably" does not make your statement any more convincing. Yes, I mistyped your statement. However, I stand by argument that making a statement like "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science" only serves to demonstrate your ignorance.

Quote:

As for ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, my undergraduate and graduate degrees and 30 years of work in a research scientific field would say otherwise.. but continue to attack the poster, it seems those who attack the poster on A&A are given a pass as long as they espouse the standard A&A opinions.
And what is your field of research? My own is mathematics.


Quote:
Richard Dawkins is a scientific lightweight compared to Peter Higgs. There is nothing whatsoever that Dawkins has published that made significant scientific progress in his field of study. Yes, he has done an excellent job popularising evolutionary Biology but there is a difference between a pop science writer and a likely Nobel prize winner. Higgs is a likely Nobel prize winner because of his "Higgs Mechanism" discovery, Dawkins is not because there is no such discovery or anything like it in his resume.

If you are looking for an analytical comparison between scientists then the h-index is useful. It ranks the productivity and impact of the published work of scientists, based on the number of papers they have published and how many times they have been cited in other publications. As the below paper by J.E. Hirsch who developed the metric explains (source: National Academy of Sciences (USA), biologists typically score higher than physicists.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full

Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.

I realize atheists love Dawkins, but he truly is not a leading scientist and no amount of jumping up and down and howling at the moon will change that.
I never mentioned h-index, but as pointed out by another poster, that argument does little for your position given that Higgs seems to have quite a low h-index. Personally I think that h-index is a very poor way to judge the quality of a scientists research.
Anyway, bringing up h-index is just another attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you are clearly unable to speak authoritatively on Higgs contributions to physics. Your attempts to answer my challenge are seemingly based on whatever information you can scrounge up from google in the last few hours - so I'll ask again.

Can you say anything about Higgs' work (or Dawkins' work) work that apart from the stuff that you read on wikipedia? If not, please desist from making pronouncements that you have no place making
equivariant is offline  
29-12-2012, 01:02   #37
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
Source??
Lol you first. And then provide a h-vaule you trust for Higgs. What with you making the claim and all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
As the paper points out and you conveniently ignore, physicists score much lower than biologists, presumably because of the volume of work in life science compared to theoretical physics. The point on Dawkins is he scores very low for a biologist.
Ah right, so it's only a valid comparison when it shows your point is right, but isn't valid when it doesn;t...
Very scientific indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
Paul Dirac was a leading physicist with numerous key discoveries in quantum mechanics, certainly not a lightweight.
Yet has a very low h-value compared to other physicists. And Higgs who you argee is a leading physicist has an even lower score...
Seems like it's not that hard to be one in your eyes...
Just as long as you say stuff that you can twist to make it look like they agree with your nonsense beliefs.
King Mob is offline  
29-12-2012, 01:11   #38
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicMarker View Post
According to Microsoft Academic Search...

Dawkins has a H-Index of 10.
Peter Higgs has a H-Index of 1.
Albert Einstein has a H-Index of 29.

Well that's clear as day, Dawkins is ten times the scientist that Higgs is, and almost a third as good at science as Einstein.

What's your H-Index nagirrac? I assume you know as you're always so quick to tell us all you're a scientist.
Considering Peter Higgs did most of his research and published the results of his research from 1951 to 1966 and the source you quote starts (for Higgs) in 1994, I think we can safely give a grade of F to the Microsoft Academic Search and yourself (for failing to spot the obvious). No extra credit either for Einstein's published work and citations starting in 1958.

My h-score is not relevant to this discussion, but perhaps you can help by tracking down one of Dawkin's discoveries.

Last edited by nagirrac; 29-12-2012 at 01:14.
nagirrac is offline  
29-12-2012, 01:22   #39
MagicMarker
Banned
 
MagicMarker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 31,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
Considering Peter Higgs did most of his research and published the results of his research from 1951 to 1966 and the soucre you quote starts (for Higgs) in 1994, I think we can safely give a grade of F to the Microsoft Academic Search and yourself (for failing to spot the obvious). No extra credit either for Einstein's published work and citations starting in 1958.
You mean Higgs hasn't done anything in almost 50 years? Jaysus, I thought he was supposed to be good at this science lark?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
My h-score is not relevant to this discussion, but perhapos you can help by tracking down one of Dawkin's discoveries.
Why would I want to do that? I don't give a toss about any of his discoveries or lack there of. I personally find your ranting hilarious. You seem to be more concerned with what Dawkins says and does more so than any atheist I've ever met, the ironing is delicious.
MagicMarker is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
29-12-2012, 01:22   #40
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
Lol you first. And then provide a h-vaule you trust for Higgs. What with you making the claim and all...

Ah right, so it's only a valid comparison when it shows your point is right, but isn't valid when it doesn;t...
Very scientific indeed.

Yet has a very low h-value compared to other physicists. And Higgs who you argee is a leading physicist has an even lower score...
Seems like it's not that hard to be one in your eyes...
Just as long as you say stuff that you can twist to make it look like they agree with your nonsense beliefs.
If your source for h-index scores is Microsoft Academic Search then you also get an F. The data for Paul Dirac starts in 1958, hardly scientific as you say yourself considering the Dirac equation dates from 1928.

I am not claiming the h-index is infalliable, but it is useful in comparing the productivity of scientists within their field. Compared to his past and present peers in Biology, Dawkins is very low on the scale.

More important than the h-index though is what scientific discovery was made, where did the individual move science along in terms of innovation. Any ideas on Dawkins?
nagirrac is offline  
29-12-2012, 01:34   #41
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
If your source for h-index scores is Microsoft Academic Search then you also get an F. The data for Paul Dirac starts in 1958, hardly scientific as you say yourself considering the Dirac equation dates from 1928.
Sorry, You made the original claim. Please provide the source you use to determine Dawkins h-value first. Then provide sources for the other figures you quoted, then provide what you believe to be an accurate figure for higgs's.
Otherwise, why should I put more effort in than you are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
I am not claiming the h-index is infalliable, but it is useful in comparing the productivity of scientists within their field. Compared to his past and present peers in Biology, Dawkins is very low on the scale.
And compared to other physicists so is Higgs. Your definition is arbitary and dependant on your own personal bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
More important than the h-index though is what scientific discovery was made, where did the individual move science along in terms of innovation. Any ideas on Dawkins?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...cademic_papers
Go nuts.

What were Higg's other achievements exactly?
Cause you must have a nice extensive list of them if you basing your claim on something other than a desperate and silly need to find a stick to beat mean old skeptics with.
King Mob is offline  
29-12-2012, 01:42   #42
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by equivariant View Post
Can you say anything about Higgs' work (or Dawkins' work) work that apart from the stuff that you read on wikipedia? If not, please desist from making pronouncements that you have no place making
According to who? I cannot express an opinion but other posters can dismiss a highly repected scientist as "old" and "dim"? Save the outrage.

Like all scientists I am mainly concerned with my own field (fMRI). I have a strong interest in theoretical physics and evolutionary Biology and have read extensively on the former and reasonably well on the latter (I have read most of Dawkins books for example, including the Extended Phenotype which in my opinion is his best). My opinion is that Higgs has contributed more to science in terms of discovery and that Dawkins has contributed more to science in terms of education.

Arguably is the key word in my sentence you misquoted. Arguably means it can be argued, and anyone who believes that the Standard Model cannot be argued as the most important theory in all of science is a statement of ignorance. Of course it can be argued as true, what theory could be more important than what the universe is made of?
nagirrac is offline  
29-12-2012, 02:12   #43
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
What were Higg's other achievements exactly?
Cause you must have a nice extensive list of them if you basing your claim on something other than a desperate and silly need to find a stick to beat mean old skeptics with.
Well done on digging up the wiki list on Dawkins. I am well aware of his published work, however that is not what I am referring to. In my opinion, Higgs discovery of the Higgs Mechanism to describe how sub atomic particles acquired mass in the early stages of our universe dwarfs anything Dawkins has done in terms of original work. If you could point me to a specific discovery that Dawkins is responsible for I will concede the point.

Dawkins is the one wielding a stick to beat those who have religious or spiritual beliefs. He is completely dishonest in attributing most of the world's evil to those that have such beliefs. That is the subject worth discussing and not which one of two atheist scientists is the better scientist. My only reason to defend Higgs was the scurrilous characterization of him as "old" and "dim" on the thread.
nagirrac is offline  
29-12-2012, 02:35   #44
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
In my opinion,
And your opinion on what is and is not important research has no stock here when you believe that psychic dogs is valid research...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
Dawkins is the one wielding a stick to beat those who have religious or spiritual beliefs. He is completely dishonest in attributing most of the world's evil to those that have such beliefs.
And making strawmen out of people's stances is dishonest.
Not backing up figures, then demanding others to back them up is dishonest.
Moving goalposts is dishonest.
Making arguments from authority and from self authority is dishonest.

So maybe you should start your quest for honesty at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
That is the subject worth discussing and not which one of two atheist scientists is the better scientist.
So why did you make that point to begin with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagirrac View Post
My only reason to defend Higgs was the scurrilous characterization of him as "old" and "dim" on the thread.
And please point to an example of people doing this.
As people are only referring to him as such in his rather ill-concieved arguments against Dawkins, not his scientific research.
King Mob is offline  
29-12-2012, 03:54   #45
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
And please point to an example of people doing this.
As people are only referring to him as such in his rather ill-concieved arguments against Dawkins, not his scientific research.
So because he disagrees with Dawkins is justification to call him "old" and "dim"?

Why are his arguments "ill conceived"? Do you think all scientists should bahave like sheep and worship at the altar of Saint Richard? Ironic that so many atheists accuse believers of being sheep while being sheep themselves.

The new atheist poster children like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins have no credibility on moral or ethical questions (for reasons explained over and over, but ignored by atheists) and need to be quite rightly called out by those that have a solid moral and ethical compass.
nagirrac is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet