# EN World scientists...



## freyar (Apr 21, 2008)

... show yourselves!  I know I've seen a number of people identify themselves as scientists in various threads, so let's make a list.   Feel free to say what you do, what stage in career you are (still in school, working in academia or industry, whatever).

I'll start: I'm a theoretical physicist concerned mostly with high-energy particle physics, gravitation, and cosmology.  Currently I'm a postdoc, which, for those who aren't familiar with the terms of academia, is a sort of glorified internship after you do your PhD.  It's something like how doctors perform a residency after med school, but the practice varies widely in different disciplines.

So, who else?


----------



## Steve Jung (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm an scientist for PTC Therapeutics. I just started a couple weeks ago after 10 years at Rutgers University. My group is working on a treatment for Hepatitis C.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 21, 2008)

Aspiring scientist of quantum theory/physics.


----------



## Lady of Pain (Apr 21, 2008)

I lurk a lot but this topic interests me. I'm a scientist in the veterinary medicine field. I work mostly with hybridoma cells and cloning. Immunology is 70% of my work. The rest of the time I'm busy with the paratuberculosis study in domestic cattle.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 21, 2008)

Undergraduate student of physics. My goal: PhD, but I still have 2-1/2 years to go until I get my MSc.

"Hoping for more projects, less exams", LT.


----------



## freyar (Apr 21, 2008)

Wow, big response already and an impressive group so far! 

SJ: I wish you a lot of luck with Hep C.  I know you don't need to be told, but that's really important work!  I'm impressed!

Rev (still want to call you Fru!): Let me know if you want book recommendations or something, that's totally my field.

LT:  Totally agree about the exams.  Good luck with school, any idea what field you want to pursue?


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 21, 2008)

BA in Physics, and halfway through an AAS in Electronics.

I'm an RF Technician (Practical Scientist? ) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 21, 2008)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.



Particle Accelerators, always been fascinated by those.  

I Am Not a Scientist, though I wouldn't mind going into archeology after I've had some time to get financially back in shape before jumping fields.  At least I'm close enough I wouldn't have to start from scratch.


----------



## Steve Jung (Apr 22, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Wow, big response already and an impressive group so far!
> 
> SJ: I wish you a lot of luck with Hep C.  I know you don't need to be told, but that's really important work!  I'm impressed!



Why thank you. Right now we're just testing gobs and gobs of compounds that our chemistry department pumps out.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm a physicist who figured out he could earn half again as much working for academia as working in academia.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 22, 2008)

Lady of Pain said:
			
		

> I lurk a lot but this topic interests me. I'm a scientist in the veterinary medicine field. I work mostly with hybridoma cells and cloning. Immunology is 70% of my work. The rest of the time I'm busy with the paratuberculosis study in domestic cattle.



i'm in a related field.

i work for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services(DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases (CCID), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Division of Tuberculosis Elimination (DTBE), Mycobacteriology Laboratory Branch (MLB), Reference Laboratory Team (RLT)


i work as a gene jockey.


----------



## Khuxan (Apr 22, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'm a physicist who figured out he could earn half again as much working for academia as working in academia.




Out of curiosity, what do you do for academia? (If you don't mind me asking).


----------



## freyar (Apr 22, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'm a physicist who figured out he could earn half again as much working for academia as working in academia.



 Finding higher pay working outside academia is a familiar story.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 22, 2008)

Microbiologist in the Pharma/Biotech industry on the Quality Control side of things.  Been doing this for more than 15 years.


----------



## Galethorn (Apr 22, 2008)

Geology undergrad, minors in Physics and Astronomy. I'm planning on going straight into grad school after I get my BS.

My goal is to work for the USGS Astrogeology lab in Flagstaff for a few years as a post-doc, and then find a university that'll give me a team of grad students to trudge around the wilderness with, and teach a class here and there when I'm not in the field.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 22, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Rev (still want to call you Fru!): Let me know if you want book recommendations or something, that's totally my field.



Oh, definetely. Please.


----------



## Wereserpent (Apr 22, 2008)

I am studying for a Chemistry test right now, does that count?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2008)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what do you do for academia? (If you don't mind me asking).




Right now, I manage projects in MIT's IT shop.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Apr 23, 2008)

Currently I have a BA and MS in Physics where I did research in astronomy.  I also have an MA in Biology and did work on astro/microbiology.  But currently I am working as an adjunct professor of mathematics/physics/biology and my next job will be a circulation supervisor in a Law Library.  I've just had problems finding science jobs since I don't have much programming or instrumentation experience (I can program in BASIC and Pascal, and the only instruments I've used have been a Gas Chromatograph and a Telescope with a CCD camera).


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Apr 23, 2008)

Physicist who is trying to do his PhD in the field of Computational Materials Science.

Right now I'm on a research project in Columbus, Ohio instead of my usual haunts in Aachen, Germany...


----------



## bolen (Apr 23, 2008)

PhD in loop quantum gravity here.  If you look on the ArXiV you can get my papers.  (My user name is my last name)

I am a visiting professor teaching all levels of undergraduate courses.  (From non-major courses to Griffith's EM)


----------



## bolen (Apr 23, 2008)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> BA in Physics, and halfway through an AAS in Electronics.
> 
> I'm an RF Technician (Practical Scientist? ) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.



How are they handling the layoffs at Fermilab?  I heard 200 people are being let go?

Also what is the plan for when the LHC turns on?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 23, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> LT:  Totally agree about the exams.  Good luck with school, any idea what field you want to pursue?



Not *that* sure, but my focus (and strength) is definitively skewed towards theoretical and/or quantum/particle-physics. Though I suck at everything concerning too much thermodynamics (but statistical physics is pretty okay, just plain thermodynamics just... don't really click - I can only learn that stuff).

So: I hope to end up with some academic career. I dunno if anybody else will actually hire me, if I keep going into direction! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 23, 2008)

bolen said:
			
		

> How are they handling the layoffs at Fermilab?  I heard 200 people are being let go?




It's down to about 160 people (due to people voluntarily retiring, and to any budgetary windfall), the list has already been made up, and management will notify who's what in a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, everyone at the lab is taking a mandatory week of unpaid furlough every two months. Unless a miracle happens, that'll continue into the foreseeable and indefinite future.



			
				bolen said:
			
		

> Also what is the plan for when the LHC turns on?




Hard to say...  We had plans for a couple of major projects to replace the Tevatron, the ILC among them, but the funding for those projects was cut so severely that we've had to essentially halt R&D on almost all of them.

If we don't get enough money in future budgets to rebuild our credibility for multinational collaborations, we'd effectively become the world's biggest support facility for CERN and the LHC.

In other words, for the moment, at least, we're up  creek. :\


----------



## Jdvn1 (Apr 23, 2008)

Do social scientists count?  (hides)


----------



## freyar (Apr 23, 2008)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Do social scientists count?  (hides)



 Well, EN World is a friendly place, so we won't hold it against you.


----------



## freyar (Apr 23, 2008)

bolen said:
			
		

> PhD in loop quantum gravity here.  If you look on the ArXiV you can get my papers.  (My user name is my last name)
> 
> I am a visiting professor teaching all levels of undergraduate courses.  (From non-major courses to Griffith's EM)



 Just looked up your papers on SPIRES (you have some interference from another Bolen who's on a big collaboration, though).  Didn't think most of those papers looked too loopy; you mostly work with just higher curvature corrections, right?  You'd fit in ok with the string theory crowd probably.


----------



## stonegod (Apr 23, 2008)

Physics and Computer Science dual BS, CS MS and PhD. Assistant Professor going up for tenure this year, doing visualization research with all sorts of interesting data from other (more real?) scientists.

For those still studying physics: Get out now!


----------



## bolen (Apr 23, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Just looked up your papers on SPIRES (you have some interference from another Bolen who's on a big collaboration, though).  Didn't think most of those papers looked too loopy; you mostly work with just higher curvature corrections, right?  You'd fit in ok with the string theory crowd probably.



I am the same guy.  I did my masters on the SLD experiment at SLAC.

A paper that I just published with Andrew and Middleton was on cosmology with higher curvature terms but my part of PhD was motivated by loops.  I was looking at the difference between group averaging over the Hamiltonian constraint and imposing the constraint directly.  I am also interested in the generalized uncertainty principle (which seems to be inherent in any theory of quantum gravity with a minimum length scale).  But right now I am neck deep in teaching.  I have 12 hours so not a lot of time for research.


----------



## Numion (Apr 23, 2008)

Research Scientist (that's what my card says, anyway) at the State Research Centre in Finland. Mostly done research in risk and reliability analysis in the nuclear field. Now I'm on a one year contract to Institutt för Energiteknikk in Norway, working on human reliability analysis.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Apr 23, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> ... show yourselves!
> 
> So, who else?




I'm an astronomer in disguise as a physicist.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Apr 24, 2008)

BA in physics, teach physics in high school, so not really a scientist myself. But I hope I'm helping to guide a bunch of future scientists.

And, wow, physics seems to be the science of choice here.


----------



## freyar (Apr 24, 2008)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> And, wow, physics seems to be the science of choice here.




Yeah, interesting considering I'd expect there to be many more bio people in the general population.

Here's a question for those in academic settings (others, feel free to chime in, too!): I often feel like I need to hide that I have a hobby -- not that there's a prejudice against RPGs per se, just that I get the feeling that I'm expected to live 110% for my work.  Anyone else ever feel that way?


----------



## Steve Jung (Apr 24, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Just looked up your papers on SPIRES (you have some interference from another Bolen who's on a big collaboration, though).  Didn't think most of those papers looked too loopy; you mostly work with just higher curvature corrections, right?  You'd fit in ok with the string theory crowd probably.



You're looking up our papers? Lemme explain, I was young, I needed the publications for school.


----------



## freyar (Apr 24, 2008)

Steve Jung said:
			
		

> You're looking up our papers? Lemme explain, I was young, I needed the publications for school.



  Nah, only bolen's because we're practically in the same field and he mentioned them.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 24, 2008)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Do social scientists count?  (hides)




So long as you treat it as real science, yes.  

Contrary to popular opinion, "hard" science does not refer to difficulty, but to the physicality.  A "hard" science has physical objects and results you can point to.  "Soft" sciences are not easy - their targets simply aren't as concrete.


----------



## abri (Apr 24, 2008)

Well, I'm a French engineer (diploma in material science and engineering and another in applied mathematics) that decided to become a researcher. So now after getting a PhD (materials science)in the US, I'm doing research in a michigan small start up. 
Research is fun


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 24, 2008)

abri said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a French engineer...




_"Heaven is an English policeman, a French cook, a German engineer, an Italian lover and everything organized by the Swiss. Hell is an English cook, a French engineer, a German policeman, a Swiss lover, and everything organized by the Italians." _
- John Elliot


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Apr 24, 2008)

stonegod said:
			
		

> For those still studying physics: Get out now!




I did and went to Space and Planetary Sciences out of fear of the physics candidacy.  Biggest mistake of my life.  At least the physics candidacy was a) objective and b) gave you a second chance.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I'm an astronomer in disguise as a physicist.




Yay! I'm not alone. 



			
				Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> And, wow, physics seems to be the science of choice here.




It may have to do with the comfort with complex rules systems.  After having to go through Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics the corebooks just don't seem that involved.  I've used Riemann Zeta functions to analyze gun damage in Masque of the Red Death before (good Lord I'm a nerd).



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Here's a question for those in academic settings (others, feel free to chime in, too!): I often feel like I need to hide that I have a hobby -- not that there's a prejudice against RPGs per se, just that I get the feeling that I'm expected to live 110% for my work.  Anyone else ever feel that way?




Well, I the other physics grad students thought I was a geek for being a D&D player and the other D&D players thought I was a geek for being a physics grad student.  Made them feel better and a bit uncomfortable not being the geekiest person in the room.

Then again, I had a program director in Space and Planetary who got upset if you even hinted at having a life outside the lab.  He hated the fact that I had a lot of friends outside of the program and that I just didn't click with the rest of the grad students in the program (except for my then girlfriend who was also a gamer and an Aspie which was part of problem with the rest of the grad students).  He really encouraged us to form friendships with each other and that the only outside ones we should have were ones that were "useful."  We were supposed to have a personal life only when he wanted us to and that was only for his parties and the field trips.  Part of the reason getting into that program was a mistake.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 24, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I often feel like I need to hide that I have a hobby -- not that there's a prejudice against RPGs per se, just that I get the feeling that I'm expected to live 110% for my work.  Anyone else ever feel that way?




Nope, never...  

It's the #1 reason I chose to not go to grad school, despite the assumption from friends, family and professors that I would.  I don't want to live 110% for my work, and I never want a job in which I'm expected to. That sort of ambition simply isn't in me.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 25, 2008)

BSc in Geology, Msc in Distributed Multimedia Computing and although I always dreamed of growing up to be a scientist, being a computer programmer (of various sorts) rather took over. Slightly better paid for me too


----------



## Jdvn1 (Apr 25, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> So long as you treat it as real science, yes.
> 
> Contrary to popular opinion, "hard" science does not refer to difficulty, but to the physicality.  A "hard" science has physical objects and results you can point to.  "Soft" sciences are not easy - their targets simply aren't as concrete.



Did you mean to draw a parallel between "real" and "hard," or is that merely a side comment?

If it's a side comment, I think that's an interesting definition, considering string theory wouldn't fall under your definition of a hard science, according to some physicists I know.

If it's not a side comment... I'm sorry I brought it up, considering the discussion it's likely to spark.   

I'm working towards a BS in Economics, and was told today that I will be accepted to grad school by the lady who makes that decision--she just hasn't sent the letters out yet. 

I might consider Economics a "real" science in that we have mathematical models that describe reality to a reasonable extent (depending on your definition of 'reasonable', I suppose, but we can say some concrete things... and, meteorology is considered a science anyways). I also take it "real"ly seriously, as an academic pursuit, too. 

A lot of research, though, doesn't have physical objects and results you can point to, though it does happen at times in specific cases. The research can be statistical, or testing of models to see how closely they vary to real life. My understanding (I have a lot to learn, still) is that tests of basic supply-demand models hold very firm, with relatively concrete results. It may be considered "soft" because results may not be _as_ concrete as most natural science research (but then, what do you call string theory, math, and such?). It's not as "soft" as Psychology or Sociology, I'd argue.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 25, 2008)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Did you mean to draw a parallel between "real" and "hard," or is that merely a side comment?




Neither, unless you feel that noting that some folks who claim to practice soft science don't actually do so is snide.  I have great respect for those who do soft science as science, and a rather strong disdain for anyone claiming to do science when it is clear they aren't.  Pet peeve of mine.




> I might consider Economics a "real" science in that we have mathematical models that describe reality to a reasonable extent (depending on your definition of 'reasonable', I suppose, but we can say some concrete things... and, meteorology is considered a science anyways). I also take it "real"ly seriously, as an academic pursuit, too.




I'd call that science, so long as you compare your models to reality, are honest in measuring your errors, and modify your models when they don't match reality.  You know, scientific method and all that 



> It may be considered "soft" because results may not be _as_ concrete as most natural science research (but then, what do you call string theory, math, and such?). It's not as "soft" as Psychology or Sociology, I'd argue.




Well, just for the record - math is not an empirical science.  It is, perhaps, what you might call a "formal science".  Pure math doesn't correlate to real-world phenomena in any way, shape, or form, so there is no such thing as an experiment to test if a mathematical theory is accurate.  Math is great stuff, and amazing tool, and I love it.  But it isn't testable, so it isn't empirical science.

Until such time as string theory produces testable predictions, it isn't empirical science, either.


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Right now, I manage projects in MIT's IT shop.



 So... you're a moderator in real life?


----------



## freyar (Apr 25, 2008)

Interesting link, Umbran.  I can see the distinction you want to make between empirical and formal sciences, but I'm not sure if the distinction between "formal" and "natural" sciences is really as clear as that Wikipedia article implies.  At least I can point you to one philosopher of science who disagrees. 

Regarding math, I think we may have to agree to disagree.  Self-consistency is an extremely important test, though maybe not an empirical one.  Math is accurate (ignoring human error); what might be inaccurate is a given mathematical model proposed to describe some phenomenon.  

As most-likely the only string theorist in the room, I also think I need to mention a couple of things.  First off, self-consistency and consistency with empirically correct models are very difficult to achieve in modeling any fundamental theory of physics.  In fact, it's difficult to convey how stringent consistency is.  So the fact that string theory passes these tests is in itself an achievement, even if not an empirical one.  Another point is that many string theorists (and scientists in bordering fields) take making predictions very seriously.  There's been a tremendous amount of work over the last 5 years on building concrete string models of cosmology for comparison to precision tests, like the WMAP and upcoming PLANCK experiments.  These are not definitive predictions because, well, nailing down all possible string constructions is not possible right now, but it is some progress.  And people are really trying to "compare your models to reality, are honest in measuring your errors, and modify your models when they don't match reality," as you say.  I can provide references on request...


----------



## Umbran (Apr 25, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Interesting link, Umbran.  I can see the distinction you want to make between empirical and formal sciences, but I'm not sure if the distinction between "formal" and "natural" sciences is really as clear as that Wikipedia article implies.




Well, of course not - it is Wikipedia not "The Authoritative Source for Everything".  It got the basics down.  The subtleties are left as an exercise for the reader  



> Regarding math, I think we may have to agree to disagree.  Self-consistency is an extremely important test, though maybe not an empirical one.  Math is accurate (ignoring human error); what might be inaccurate is a given mathematical model proposed to describe some phenomenon.




Um, I think we may be talking past each other here.  To me, this is a matter of definition - calling math an empirical science is like calling an orange a poodle.  

Empirical science compares a theory to collected real-world data as a check of the accuracy of the model.  Mathematics cannot do this, as mathematics itself makes no claims on what real-world data it should be checked against. 

A theory in a formal system can be proved or disproved with respect to that formal system, and that's all.  There is no experiment, no taking of data, no observation of reality is required, or even called for.  It is thus not possible for it to be empirical, by definition of the word "empirical". 



> As most-likely the only string theorist in the room, I also think I need to mention a couple of things.  First off, self-consistency and consistency with empirically correct models are very difficult to achieve in modeling any fundamental theory of physics.




Just so you know - my thesis work was on computer modeling of spin propagation in high-energy jet formation.  I know whereof you speak here.

It still remains -  if the theory does not make predictions that can be tested, it does not sit in the realm of empirical science.  It may sit outside for practical reasons ("Sorry, the technology to make the measurements you want doe snot yet exist"), or it may sit outside for more fundamental reasons.  But if it cannot be falsified, it isn't empirical science, because what folks call the scientific method cannot be applied.

That doesn't make it unimportant.  Or easy.  Or fake.  It doesn't make the people who do it any less hard-working.  It may be that some version of string theory will, in time, come into the empirical realm.  But as far as I'm aware, none of them are there yet.  As far as I'm aware, they're all still in the formal realm - a formal realm that's informed by empirical theories, but not yet emerged to the measurable.

That's okay - the same was true for General Relativity once upon a time.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Apr 25, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'd call that science, so long as you compare your models to reality, are honest in measuring your errors, and modify your models when they don't match reality.  You know, scientific method and all that



Ah, I want to make the distinction that not all economic research deals with models. Sometimes it's more similar to statistical analysis, sprinkled with theory. I think dealing with models is more clearly a science, but statistical analysis is more similar to whatever one may call psychology (my impression is that you may call it a science, but I know people that wouldn't).


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, just for the record - math is not an empirical science.  It is, perhaps, what you might call a "formal science".



Hah! Well, I just mentioned it because some may consider mathematicians scientists. I do agree with what you say, there.

"Formal science," I thought was a term that died off in the 70s! My first encounter with the term was years ago when I picked up a 1969 book entitled _Philosophical Essays on Curriculum_. Just to provide a definition for the term for everyone else (or, at least, another opinion on what this may refer to), here's how the introduction describes it.


> In logic and mathematics, our procedures for arriving at the conclusions are most settled. Moreover, the conclusions are certain, unlike conclusions in every other field. We are sure, for example, that in formal logic, A is A and that in the Euclidean system of geometry the shortest distance between two points on a plane is a straight line. We know this sort of thing as surely as we can know anything.
> 
> In the physical and natural sciences, procedures for arriving at conclusions are well established but are not as well established as those of the formal sciences. In the formal sciences no factual claims are made. In contrast, the purpose of the empirical sciences, that is, the physical, natural and social sciences, is to make reliable factual claims about the world. We are not as sure about the truth of factual statements as we are about the truth of formal statements. The method we have for finding the shortest distance between two points is more reliable than the method for finding out whether nails rust in damp air.




I think that's pretty clear, and it also somewhat echoes what Umbran is saying about the applicability of the scientific method.


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2008)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Ah, I want to make the distinction that not all economic research deals with models. Sometimes it's more similar to statistical analysis, sprinkled with theory. I think dealing with models is more clearly a science, but statistical analysis is more similar to whatever one may call psychology (my impression is that you may call it a science, but I know people that wouldn't).




Statistics is information engineering. Well, applied statistics anyway.


----------



## freyar (Apr 25, 2008)

Yeah, I think you're right that we're probably talking past each other.  I generally agree with what you're saying, though I do think there's more to the scientific method than falsifiability.  

Anyway, don't want to threadjack my own thread , so I'll step back and see if anyone else shows up.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 25, 2008)

Eh...  don't look at me.  I'm a Technician.

As far as I'm concerned even the Engineers are flying backwards and half-blind most of the time.



You'd be surprised how often we have to tell Physicists that they can't do what they want to do, because the real world doesn't work that way.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Apr 26, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Just so you know - my thesis work was on computer modeling of spin propagation in high-energy jet formation.  I know whereof you speak here.




Are you talking about the formation of bipolar jets in blackholes?  I've always wanted to know how they form, but just haven't gone through the literature.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 26, 2008)

For the record, I have a BA in Econ (gained under some of the toughest old birds out there- if you took an econ class, you used a book by one of my profs), and did some work on applying Chaos Theory to Economics.

That said, I don't think Economics as a whole could be considered a "hard science"- after all, a good portion of it depends upon how the perceptions of human beings create interactions with observed"rules"- but certain sub-disciplines within it are almost pure math.

Call it..."hardish scienceish."

Beyond all that, I do like to apply the scientific method when I can, and that is as close as I can come to being called a scientist.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Apr 26, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> For the record, I have a BA in Econ (gained under some of the toughest old birds out there- if you took an econ class, you used a book by one of my profs), and did some work on applying Chaos Theory to Economics.



Most common book is by a Harvard guy.


> That said, I don't think Economics as a whole could be considered a "hard science"- after all, a good portion of it depends upon how the perceptions of human beings create interactions with observed"rules"- but certain sub-disciplines within it are almost pure math.



Well, the rules tend to be good approximations. The current models wouldn't be used if they didn't at least describe reality most of the time. It's math + empirical observations + theory.

It's a weird mix of stuff at times, and different people have their own definitions (just coming up with a definition of 'economics' isn't easy).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 26, 2008)

> Most common book is by a Harvard guy.




Yes- Samuelson.  During a sabbatical, he came to our program and taught from his book.  There is nothing like taking a class with _the_ guy- all the context, footnotes and behind-the-scenes stuff is walking and talking a few feet away from you.

We also got Walter Adams for Antitrust until he had to go testify in the hearings about the Time-Warner merger.

Trinity gives a LOT of high-flyers paid vacations from their home institutions, and the faculty isn't small 'taters either.

Richard Butler & John Huston were my advisors when I did that Chaos theory/Econ project- at the time they were wrapping up a huge study of deregulation of the airline industry (and how Reagan was screwing it up).

We also have William Breit, who among other things, writes mystery novels centered around fictional Harvard economist Henry Spearman, under the nom de plume Marshall Jevons.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Apr 28, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yes- Samuelson.  During a sabbatical, he came to our program and taught from his book.  There is nothing like taking a class with _the_ guy- all the context, footnotes and behind-the-scenes stuff is walking and talking a few feet away from you.



That's cool! But, Samuelson's book isn't as common as it used to be. Samuelson's was the book to use, now probably replaced by Mankiw's.

Sounds like you had a fun time there, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 29, 2008)

Hey- times change!

I bet the physicists on this board are happy we aren't using pre-Copernican textbooks!


----------



## freyar (Apr 29, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Hey- times change!
> 
> I bet the physicists on this board are happy we aren't using pre-Copernican textbooks!



 No kidding!  Though there is a college in the States (St John's, at least the Santa Fe campus) that teaches from the primary documents.  By which I mean you learn calculus from Newton, etc.  While that might be very interesting, I think I picked up a lot from the combined pedagogy of the last few hundred years...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 29, 2008)

Sometimes seeing the path can be as enlightening as the journey.

I took Texas Marital Property rights with a guy who was a lifelong Texas resident...and who was an 8X divorcee.

The man didn't need the textbooks he handed out to us- he had (for some _inexplicable_ reason) memorized the law of TX marital property from the original state's constitution through the last update with each interim change.

By each revised section title.

It was almost impossible to keep up with him taking notes as he sped from origins through 18 different changes in the law...


----------



## Tonguez (May 4, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That said, I don't think Economics as a whole could be considered a "hard science"- after all, a good portion of it depends upon how the perceptions of human beings create interactions with observed"rules"- but certain sub-disciplines within it are almost pure math.
> 
> Call it..."hardish scienceish."




Ernest Rutherford (the guy who split the atom) said that "Physics is the only true science all else is stamp collecting" which might explain the number of physicist in the room - or it might not

Really all sciences have to be considered ..."hardish scienceish" largely because "_a good portion of it depends upon how the perceptions of human beings create interactions with observed "rules_" and because _certain sub-disciplines within it are almost pure math_ (thats you String Theory)

Personally I started life as an Anthropologist who did some geology and physics.

oh and discussion String Theory really should be banned under ENworlds no religion rule


----------



## Gothmog (May 4, 2008)

I'm a professor of biology (PhD in Neuroscience) at a small liberal arts college now.  My work has focused mostly on the theraputic and neuroregenerative use of stem cells to repair the brain and spinal cord, but I also recently started working on a project involving the use of batrachotoxin (made by poison dart frogs) as an anesthetic.  I teach quite a few undergrad courses, run my lab supervising and coordinating student research, and I'm working on establishing a neuroscience interdisciplinary department.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 4, 2008)

I'm a PhD student in Bioengineering, with a BS in biochemistry.  Right now my research is in the area of controlling bacterial biofilms via non-antibiotic methods.  I also do a little biomaterials work, since that's what my department primarily does.


----------



## Psionicist (May 4, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I'm a professor of biology (PhD in Neuroscience) at a small liberal arts college now.  My work has focused mostly on the theraputic and neuroregenerative use of stem cells to repair the brain and spinal cord, but I also recently started working on a project involving the use of batrachotoxin (made by poison dart frogs) as an anesthetic.  I teach quite a few undergrad courses, run my lab supervising and coordinating student research, and I'm working on establishing a neuroscience interdisciplinary department.




Hi Gothmog. Can you recommend a good undergraduate-level text about neuroscience? I don't have much biology or chemistry under my belt, but I'm interested in learning the basics and I know plenty mathematics and computer science. What I'm really looking for is a well written and engaging text about any neuroscience-related subdiscipline (not necessarily computational), to see if it's for me. Thanks.


----------



## freyar (May 5, 2008)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> oh and discussion String Theory really should be banned under ENworlds no religion rule




I've been sitting on this comment for a while, trying to decide if I should respond.  I just want to point out that string theory is on very solid theoretical (ie, formal) ground and has made a number of contributions to other fields within physics (and mathematics), including theories closely related to those that describe the Standard Model of particle physics.  Believing in string theory is no more religious than thinking that it is the best candidate.

String theory has gotten some bad press recently, largely due to a trio of anti-string-theory books.  All I'll say about that is that the authors (L. Krauss, L. Smolin, and P. Woit) are not experts on string theory and have not shown much evidence of being up-to-date and in at least one instance appear to have distorted information given them by string theorists.  (I can probably dig up some references if I need to.)  

This isn't something I take personally, and I hope you don't either.   I just think it's part of my job to educate the public, especially when there are people around mis-educating.


----------



## Gothmog (May 5, 2008)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Hi Gothmog. Can you recommend a good undergraduate-level text about neuroscience? I don't have much biology or chemistry under my belt, but I'm interested in learning the basics and I know plenty mathematics and computer science. What I'm really looking for is a well written and engaging text about any neuroscience-related subdiscipline (not necessarily computational), to see if it's for me. Thanks.





Sure Psionicist, there are a couple of good books I could recommend for you:

Foundations of Neuroscience by Fred Delcomyn is probably one of the best and most easily understood Neuro texts out there.  Its a little older (1999 I think), but his writing style is very clear, and I've used the text in classes with some non-science majors, and they seemed to pick up on it well.

The bible of Neuro has to be Principles of Neural Science by Kandel, Jessel, and Schwartz, due out for a 5th edition this summer.  Its a mammoth book, but it is probably the best overview of neuroscience out there.  Warning though, its not for the faint of heart- a basic understanding of cell biology, physiology and anatomy is needed for this 1200 page beast.  I still find myself going back to reference it pretty often, even after 10 years as a neuro grad student and now professor.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (May 6, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I've been sitting on this comment for a while, trying to decide if I should respond.  I just want to point out that string theory is on very solid theoretical (ie, formal) ground and has made a number of contributions to other fields within physics (and mathematics), including theories closely related to those that describe the Standard Model of particle physics.  Believing in string theory is no more religious than thinking that it is the best candidate.
> 
> String theory has gotten some bad press recently, largely due to a trio of anti-string-theory books.  All I'll say about that is that the authors (L. Krauss, L. Smolin, and P. Woit) are not experts on string theory and have not shown much evidence of being up-to-date and in at least one instance appear to have distorted information given them by string theorists.  (I can probably dig up some references if I need to.)
> 
> This isn't something I take personally, and I hope you don't either.   I just think it's part of my job to educate the public, especially when there are people around mis-educating.




Could you talk about it?  I had a QM professor at the University of Arkansas (Dr. William Harter) who spent a lot of time trashing string theory.


----------



## freyar (May 6, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:
			
		

> Could you talk about it?  I had a QM professor at the University of Arkansas (Dr. William Harter) who spent a lot of time trashing string theory.



 Well, depends what you want to know about.  I also had undergrad profs who weren't too fond of string theory, but they also didn't know much about it (no offense to Dr. Harter, but from his homepage at the UA physics department, it doesn't seem he does, either).  In terms of the books, I can point you to a book review of Smolin's and Woit's books from American Scientist magazine, which also appeared as a guest blog post on Cosmic Variance.  (Truth in advertising: the person who wrote the book review was by my PhD advisor as well as being a major string theorist.)  Anything else you're interested in?


----------



## Achan hiArusa (May 8, 2008)

It would be me basically conning you into a course on string theory.  I've had some relativity (derived Gamma from the Galilean transforms) and I have a good solid background on undergraduate QM and I've had EM up to the graduate level, but stopped before I got into relativity.  I would like to know where first of all standard QM and Relativity start to go wrong when wedded.  I have the math for it, though I do need to take some time and look over relativity again.


----------



## Shemeska (May 16, 2008)

Been out of grad school for a little under two years now, and currently working as a Cell Biologist for a small subsidiary of Invitrogen.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 18, 2008)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Been out of grad school for a little under two years now, and currently working as a Cell Biologist for a small subsidiary of Invitrogen.




So... hook me up with some Live/Dead stain.


----------



## fuindordm (May 18, 2008)

Ex-cosmologist here. My problem was that I started getting bored with the field about halfway through my second postdoc, when it became clear that the cosmic microwave background would tell us what kind of universe we lived in.

Now I'm working as a freelance science editor (see my sig).  If anyone knows a disgruntled postdoc with a talent for writing, feel free to point them my way! I could use some help.


----------

