[wwalker3]

When I saw the TEDx guys' caution about a "physics-related speaker [who] has a degree in engineering, not physics", it struck a bit of a nerve for me.

My Ph.D. is in electrical engineering, not physics. I recently got a computational physics paper accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, and I'm hard at work on a second paper. And in a different world, I could speak at a conference and no one would have to worry about my bona fides.

But I think the TEDx caution is well-founded.

Engineers are often accustomed to knowing more about science than the average person. It can be very easy for them, with the best of intentions, to convince themselves and others that they know more than they really do. It's easy to think you've got some great new idea if you don't engage existing experts in the field via peer review and reading papers.

This is not to say electrical engineers can't be authorities on physics topics -- quite the contrary! But I agree with the TEDx guys that it does merit a bit of extra checking, especially in their situation.

[lutusp]

> Engineers are often accustomed to knowing more about science than the average person. It can be very easy for them, with the best of intentions, to convince themselves and others that they know more than they really do.

I agree, but that's true of scientists also, many of whom have a very narrow specialty in modern times and may not be qualified to speak outside their field of expertise. Example Nobel Prizewinner William Shockley and his now-infamous lectures on the topic of race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Statements_abo...

BTW I agree with you that one can make too much of a person's degree, especially when compared to actually understanding the topic to be discussed.

[likpok]

There was some discussion a while ago about the tendency of Nobel prizewinners to go off into crazyland (see Linus Pauling, others [1]). I recall hearing some speculation that this was (somewhat) inherent to getting a prize. I think the willful ignorance of established thought (to make the great discovery) plus the feedback loop of the prize made Nobel winners uniquely confident in their more off-the-wall theories.

[1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease