Physicism

At the Summer 2011 meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers I re-introduced the word 'physicism' to raise the question whether we should have some sort of social bent across physics education, pointing to the analogous 'environmentalism' common among those studying and teaching environmental science. See A broad look at the energy curriculum.

About environmentalism

I have overgeneralized environmental scientists as all being environmentalists, including in their teaching. There are strands of environmental science pedagogy that eschew activism, rather embracing appreciation and scientific knowledge for its own sake. Workers in these strands might be called 'naturalists' rather than environmentalists.

Perhaps that subtlety could be informative to our consideration of physicism. There might be one subset of physicists who espouse physicism living peacefully with another subset who don't care for activism in their field, both sharing an appreciation for the science itself.

What is the de facto social bent of physics, if it has one?

The philosophy of physics follows certain well-worn channels in the indoctrination of students. Evidence includes the tautology "you cannot break the laws of physics" and the widespread concept that physics "is the base" of chemistry, which in turn is the base of biology, which is in turn the base of all things human.

One tacit assumption common in physics education for non-physicists and pre-specialists, to much greater degree than in other fields, is that there is a set of knowledge and skills, the canon, which must be visited before the gates to the rest of physics can be opened. This leads to an atmosphere of fraternity, including the selectivity and shaming associated with exclusive clubs. So, de facto physicism includes a sense of privileged expertise.