Re: [Phys-L] prizes

[Paul Nord <paul.nord@valpo.edu>]

Physics has been the preeminent science for approximately the last hundred years.  But the traditional labels of the sciences are artificial.  The distinction of a field known as physics is rapidly fading and quickly being overtaken by genetics and medicine, among others.  But it had a good run.

Discuss.

Paul

On Oct 9, 2014, at 6:45 PM, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

> It is amusing that this year's prize in chemistry went to
> three guys I've always thought of as hard-core physicists
> ... while the physics prize went to three hard-core
> electronics / materials engineering guys.
>
> The same body makes the final decision on both prizes (even 
> though the /nominations/ come from different subcommittees) 
> ... so I assume there was some horse-trading involved.
>
> You could perfectly well have reversed the labels on the 
> two prizes.
>
> This is not the first time something like this has happened.
> Marie Curie joked that the labels on her two prizes would
> make at least as much sense if they were reversed.
>
> I consider all of this to be a Good Thing.  A great deal 
> of the world's best work fits in more than one discipline
> -- or none.  To say the same thing the other way:  paying 
> attention to artificial boundaries and labels is almost 
> always a bad idea.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l