Shouldn't scientists be valued more than politicians actors and sportsmen?

[hari]

It requires far more dedication and extaordinary genius to think of great theories and most often a lifetime of dedicated effort to bring new ideas to the world.But the ppl who often are remembered and honoured are war winning politicians and sexy actors.More ppl know then George Bush and Tom Cruise than Stephan Hawking or Einstein

[Thudlow Boink]

Well, most living scientists haven't finished their "lifetime of dedicated effort" yet, so it's a little early to tell which ones we should be valuing, and how much. I think we do value the scientists of a couple hundred years ago more than we value their contemporaries who were actors, politicians, or sportsmen.

And how do we tell who's valued more? By how much attention they get from the general public? How much money they make? The esteem of their peers? Their reputation centuries later?

People in the worlds of sports, entertainment, and politics get their pictures on a lot more magazine covers because seeking that kind of attention is part of the nature of their business (and, often, part of the personality of those who are drawn to it). And the average person is a lot more aware of the work they're doing because they can see them actually doing it.


"Perhaps one day people who spell correctly will replace athletes at the top of our national pantheon." -Lisa Simpson

[El_Kabong]

I'd like to believe that in the long run, scientists receive far more recognition than sports or entertainment figures. Aw, who am I kidding?

Economically, it's capitalism at its most naked. Figure out a way to get people to shell out large amounts of money to watch scientists work, and your problem's solved.

As for why we value politicians so much, haven't a clue :D

[MEBuckner]

Not to say that we shouldn't highly value scientists, but I don't think politicians belong in the same category as actors and athletes. Politicians make life-or-death decisions about war and peace, and pass laws that can affect us all. We should rightly value--or revile--politicians based on how wisely or unwisely they do those things far more highly, or more severely, than we do an actor who wins an Oscar, or stars in a terrible flop, or some athlete who lets a grounder go between his legs in a World Series game.

[Marley23]

I think athletes are, in a sense, more accessible. Not everybody understands quantum mechanics, but it's easy to appreciate the human body pushed to its fullest because it's something we can all do. I mean, I'll probably never dunk a basketball without a trampoline, but I know how great it can feel when you exert yourself. And as a kid, anybody can dream of doing stuff like that. It's a little harder to relate to e=mc2 on that primal level- you need to know more stuff to appreciate that, so it comes to you later in life.

None of which is to discourage the capitalism side of it, because I think one reason kids are that way is because of the athlete-loving society we live in. Nor is this to say it's right. But come on, I can't be the only one here who grew up hoping to play a sport.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by hari
It requires far more dedication and extaordinary genius to think of great theories and most often a lifetime of dedicated effort to bring new ideas to the world.But the ppl who often are remembered and honoured are war winning politicians and sexy actors.More ppl know then George Bush and Tom Cruise than Stephan Hawking or Einstein

How many sports heroes of the late 1600s or early 1700s can you name off the top of your head?

How many scientists?

[astro]

Originally posted by Dogface
How many sports heroes of the late 1600s or early 1700s can you name off the top of your head?

How many scientists?

I was about to make the same point but Dogface beat me to it.

Name three actresses that were popular between 1850-1910.

Name three inventors or scientists from the same period.

Stop complaining. The fruits of intellect always win in the end.

[Zenster]

Unequivocally, YES!


"Kill all the politicians, and everyone is happy.

Kill all the engineers, and everybody dies."Buckminster Fuller

[Revtim]

But who did the contemporaries of those historical scientists want to be? Isaac Newton or the now-forgotten actors and politicians of the day?

[RickJay]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
I'd like to believe that in the long run, scientists receive far more recognition than sports or entertainment figures. Aw, who am I kidding?
I don't know.

Ask yourself this: How many people could tell you, at least a little bit, who Edison, Pasteur, and Pavlov were? A pretty fair number, I'd say. Now find how many people can name three famous actors or singers of the 19th century. Damned few, I'd say.

How many people know the name Albert Einstein? How many people can name one actor who was famous in 1906?

Maybe scientists DO get more recognition in the long run.

[capacitor]

Teachers should be the most revered of all professions.

Yet look at how society treat them through the centuries:Socrates, Jesus, sentenced to death. Napoleon and Pluto, exiled. Newton, died a virgin. And today: low pay, schools converted to firearm or explosive targets or bomb shelters of a different kind.

[Milum]

Shouldn't scientists be valued more than politicians actors and sportsmen?

Good scientists maybe. Unfortunately today most who rise within their particular field are politicians and actresses who give lip service to scientific integrity and truth. These people are sportswomen who play a silly "publish or perish" game.

Shouldn't a mother who with selfless sacrifice and single-minded dedication raises her children to be moral citizens be more valued than scientists?

[Menocchio]

You are asking why their are few celebrity scientists. Others have brought up teachers, mother, I'll add soldiers, police, and other emergency workers as well.

It's simple. Its not their job to be famous. Actors are successful partially based on their ability to get people to know their names, and come to their shows. They have to be famous, or they don;t make money.

That's doubly true for a politician. An unknown politician is one who will lose the next election.

Scientists? Well, it helps if their have name recognition among their peers. They have to win grants and get published, after all, and get a plumb position at the institution of their choosing. But they don't have the need, inclination, or time to cultivate their image in the population at large. Only a few will publish with the layman in mind, or hire a publicist, make public appearance, and so on. It takes work to become a celebrity. Most scientist (or parents, teachers, etc) have other things to do.

Now, why aren't scientists as a group, or as a concept, valued more than actors? I wonder if they aren't. It's hard to tell since they aren't celebrities, and it's hard to celebrate a faceless diverse group, but I think we encourage science, and encourage people to become scientists. You don't hear many negatve stereotypes against scientists do you? And the ones you do hear (nerdy, shy) are mainly light-hearted.

[RickJay]

Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that by any objective standard you could argue we value sports heroes or movie actors more than we value teachers or scientists.

It's easy to be astonished at the salaries big sports stars or movie stars command, but

A) Even within the sports and entertainment industries they are the vast, vast minority. The great majority of athletes and actors don't make that much money, and they are in very high-risk careers with short lifespans. Some athletes make millions, but the great majority end up at 28 years old washed up, having made very little and having to restart in a regular career with no experience and often no education.

B) The extraordinary individual salaries are to a large extent a result of a pie being cut fewer ways rather than the pie being bigger.

For example, we hear a lot about baseball players making absurd amounts of money. But in terms of where society is putting its money, what does society spend more on - pro ballplayers, or teachers? The answer is teachers, by an enormous margin, at least a couple of orders of magnitude. The salaries paid out to elementary and high school teachers just in my province exceeds the amount paid to all the professional baseball players in North America. My province represents maybe 3% of the population of the continent north of the Rio Grande.

However, while society pays way, way more money to teachers than it does to pro athletes, the pie is split many more ways, because it takes many more teachers to do the work. Professional sports are a FAMOUS industry, as is entertainment, but by the standards of the North American economy they are not particularly LARGE industries. The Ford Motor Company pays out more in salaries in two months than the National Football League does in a year, and Ford isn't even the biggest automaker. Pro sports are dwarfed in size by the education system, and are probably dwarfed in size by "Science," though you'd have to define what you mean by that.

[Super Gnat]

Napoleon was a teacher?! (Even if he was, I think he was exiled for trying to take over Europe, not for spreading subversive learning.)

[Marley23]

Napoleon and Pluto, exiled.
What did Mickey's dog do to deserve exile? I think you mean Plato. ;) And Aristotle, perhaps?

Newton, died a virgin
That might be his own fault. The fact that he was a genius - although remember, he didn't consider gravity his major work - doesn't mean he was a player.

[CalMeacham]

Well, speaking as a scientist, I'd have to say "Yes!" But I don't think that'll happen.


A. Whitney Brown, in hi book The Big Picture, relates how he lookd up an ad for a Research Assistant in the New York Times. It gave a rather detailed description for a biological ciences position, in which the aplicant had to be expert in a number of tchniques and tchnologies. The kicker as at the end, where the stipend was revealed to be some unbelievably low figure -- $16k or something ik that. Brown noted that cab drivers made more than that. "Students should be steered away from a career in science for their own good!" he said, tongue not entirely in cheek.

Forget about the compensation offered sports superstars -- a decent wage would be a good thing.

[hari]

Originally posted by astro
I was about to make the same point but Dogface beat me to it.

Name three actresses that were popular between 1850-1910.

Name three inventors or scientists from the same period.

Stop complaining. The fruits of intellect always win in the end.
The reason actors of the 19th century are not so famous was the absence of any enduring work by them and the extremely local nature of their work.I dont think anybody beyond 50 miles of the local theater got to see what alocal actor did.It was technology in the form of TV and cinema that made the stars of 20th century so famous.Few remember the inventor of the TV.Fewer still even know the ppl who made the Color TV.And a negligible number know who improved it to the level it is today....digital flat screen television with a hundred thousand features and associated technologies that make TV viewing so simple and enjoyable.The fact that it is so easy to switch the TV on makes us take the contributions of the ppl behind it for granted ,while the ppl on the screen become icons of their time.:confused:

[hari]

I want 20 ppl to name just 10 ppl behind the Pentium processor, the first walk on the moon (not the astronauts or Kennedy), the Ferrari (not the schumacher ) and the name of ten scientists from Dupont.
I feel it is wrong to say that scientists wouldn't like the attention and prefer to remain aloof.In fact many scientists lived their last few years in depression due to lack of recognition of their work in their lifetime.

[Epimetheus]

ppl?

[Smeghead]

Yes.

-Smeghead, scientist

[kflanaga]

"Economically, it's capitalism at its most naked. Figure out a way to get people to shell out large amounts of money to watch scientists work, and your problem's solved."

I wish I got paid as a post doc according to capitalism, but alas, for some reason, early career scientists have to work in a communist system where salaries are set by grants. Nomatter how good I am at my job, I will get paid the same as the post doc next door.

[capacitor]

Napoleon taught at a military academy when he took advantage of the Revolution.

[Black Train Song]

Carl Sagan was a popularizer of science but was pretty hated among his peers. So I guess there's a certain amount of crap you need to endure if you want to be a scientist that appeals to everyday people.

That's where science writers could be doing a better job in my opinion. Almost every science book I have, has the word GOD in its title (aside from Carl Sagans books)

[Menocchio]

So, hari, you wish that scientists would become more famous than big-name actors and athletes.

Without publicists. Without having our face on movie posters or commercials. When there are many, many more scientists than actors?

It ain't gonna happen.

[ataraxy22]

Originally posted by El_Kabong

Economically, it's capitalism at its most naked. Figure out a way to get people to shell out large amounts of money to watch scientists work, and your problem's solved.

How about a new reality TV show. Put 12 scientists in a lab and at the end of each episode, the one who has made the least important discovery is kicked off. The winner gets a new set of pipetmen. Great fun for all!

[Dob]

Not that I would regard Bill Gates as a scientist, but this always struck me as funny. And it kinda fits in here...


Michael Jordan will make over $300,000/game: $10,000 a minute, assuming he averages about 30 minutes per game.
Assuming $40 million in endorsements next year,he'll be making $178,100 a day (working or not)!

Assuming he sleeps 7 hrs a night, he makes $52,000 every night.

If he goes to a movie, he'll pay $7.00, but he'll make $18,550.

He'll make $3,710 while watching each episode of Friends.

If he wanted to save up for a new Acura NSX ($90,000), it would take him a whole 12 hours.

If you were given a tenth of a penny for every dollar he made, you'd be living comfortably at $65,000 a year.

Next year, he'll make more than 2X as much as past presidents for all of their terms combined.

Amazing isn't it?

...

BUT:

JORDAN WILL HAVE TO SAVE 100% OF HIS INCOME FOR 270 YEARS TO HAVE A NET WORTH EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF BILL GATES.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Dogface
How many sports heroes of the late 1600s or early 1700s can you name off the top of your head?

How many scientists?

And in a related way it's only fair to point out that most actors earn very little money, if any at all, and have to hold day jobs, and most professional athletes -- that is, minor leaguers--don't earn much. I'd be surprised if they earn as much as your average Ph.D. associate professor.

[Giraffe]

While we're making a list, I also think scientifically-gifted teenagers should be incredibly desirable to the opposite sex.

[eponymous]

I don't think many scientists would want to be valued in the same sense as professional athletes and actors. Many scientists are scientists because of the work that they love to do. Sure, almost all of them would like more money and recognition (who wouldn't?). But having attention drawn to oneself all the time (like popular actors or sports figures) would detract from the work that they do. Maybe that's why popular scientists like Sagan, et al aren't/weren't really respected that much.

Note - think of Enistein. Most of his important work came before he was well known by most people. However, he was recognized/valued immensely by the scientific community - well before the general public. Had Einstein been a "popular" scientist, he may not have contributed much.

To sum - I think scientists want to be valued highly by the general public, but not in the same sense as actors, sports figures, musicians, etc. are. If they did, they wouldn't be able to do the "real" work of science.

[groo]

I agree with Spectre of Pithecanthropus on the money issue. Look at the median (not the average) income of all scientists & all engineers versus that of all actors & all sports entertainers, and I think the picture would change. And if you add musicians' salaries to those of actors & sports figures, I'd say the scientists & engineers win with a 'slam dunk.' (Of course, I have no cites for this. However, except for pre-1993 USSR, I've rarely heard of scientists who were waiting tables while trying to score their next big grant.) I've known many mediocre engineers who pull in $80K salaries, and I've seen bands with very talented musicians divvy up $50 for a night's performance in a coffee house.

However, if you add in the fame component, it looks better for the actors & sports figures. And let's be frank: it's not really about "Fame and Fortune," it's about, "Who's getting the chicks?" Been an engineer almost 20 years; never had a groupie.

In Sum
Science: higher expectation value of salary; negligible or negative effect on whoopy
Performing Arts: lower median salary (but much higher variance); more chances to score

(Still wondering if I made the right career choice....)

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Smeghead
Yes.

-Smeghead, scientist

This man speaks the truth.

Tars Tarkas, scientist

[Shaolinrabbit]

I think what we have here is a confusion of the word value. Average scientists probably make more money than average athletes and actors do in their field, as the average actor or athlete makes next to nothing. Those guys you see playing basketball at the park every day are the average athletes, Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are/ were absolutely exceptional superhuman athletes. Even among professional major/ minor players and college players, the average salary of all groups would be fairly low.

The actors we know from Hollywood are the most exceptionally recognized actors on the planet, and certainly some of the finest in existance. Technical preferences aside, being popular and likeable is a skill that requires a great deal of sacrifice and effort. I still can't manage it in my office, let alone on a regional basis. Most actors on average, are broke.

I can say that as someone who has been both a professional actor and a competitive athlete, and is now working on his Bachelors in IT. Tells you a lot about where the money is, eh?

About value, we can ask who really values actors and athletes. I don't, and I'm a fan of many sports and a regular(Some might say excessive) movie watcher.

The next time you're watching a football game on a big screen TV, you can watch with excitement as the game progresses, but when the TV's owner opens the second window in his screen to check the weather while the game is still playing, and someone asks, "What will they think of next?", remember who that they[i/] is.

If the world were Wisconsin, scientists would be the Packers. We may not know who is on the team, but every year we'll watch and wait, confident that [i]they will bring us something bigger, better, and more spectacular than they did before.

No one ever wonders what Tom Cruise will think of next, and if there were a magazine article about it, I certainly wouldn't pick one up. :)

Copaesthetic, Philosopher

[scotandrsn]

Scientists do get tons of recognition.

Name me the most prominent politician, actor and sportsman from the days of Galileo or Newton. The scientists' names are foremost in most people's minds now, and they were widely celebrated in their day as well.

Who was running Germany when Einstein formulated Special Relativity? Who was its greatest athlete or actor? More people in 1905 could have told you their names than Einstein's, but now who but a true fanatic has them on the tip of their tongue?

The really great scientists get lots of recognition. These days there are too many to keep track of, and it's been a long time since anyone's work resulted in such a fundamental change in how we see the world that awareness of them was forced upon us.