Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

I'm not sure where this is going to head. This essentially stems from the "defending evolution" thread.There are a lot of people here both for and against evolution, and to some degree "modern science", or the "scientific method". There are also a mix of people with science experience, and not.I'm curious who has had education in science, and worked firsthand in science as a scientist. Not like a whole cv or something, but just if one has actually received a degree or comparable education in a science field, and worked within the field (or lab).For those that are "proscience" and have not had an education, why was such an education not pursued? Do you feel it is possible to discuss science properly without such education?For those that are "proscience" and have had an education, do you feel those who have not had an education are not in a position to be speaking about it?And to all, if it stands against creos to argue without an education, why does it not stand against those who support evo, even if they are agreeing?To start... I have rather extensive science education (up to master's level in two fields), and have worked in (and for) a major science organization (at a reasonably decent level).While one does not have to be fully degreed to understand science, I do get the feeling that a lack of education and direct experience does weigh against the "proscience" poster almost as much as the creo or "antiscience" crowd. I see the same mistakes being made, with the added frustration that more than half the time they are saying things I believe in and so I'm torn as to what to say to them.It makes me wonder if its a good thing when people are merely agreeing, or advocating positions because they have the label "science", rather than understanding why they are agreeing with any particular theory.

Hmmmm... people seem to think I meant more than I said.I agree that a person without a formal education can produce good science. I also agree that a person without formal education can debate the topic.My question is if a lack of education (or at least extensive self study) stands against those who are pro-evo, as much as for anti-evo. That is given the same level of experience, should we consider the words of a pro-evo poster more credit than a pro-creo poster?This sort of gets to the point iano was making regarding faith. Those in religion are happy to hear voices saying the same thing, regardless of the reason. I don't think science is best served working in the same fashion, and I am troubled when I see someone backing evo or science, and then notice they really have no clue what they are talking about. They are simply parroting arguments heard elsewhere and applying less than solid logic to it.I do NOT want to discuss individual posters AT ALL. This is about science in general, and whether we should be content with debate being conducted poorly, or people backing tenets with little knowledge why. If this is acceptable it makes me wonder if science does not become like religion.And I am certainly not trying to discourage posting. If anything I am trying to encourage people to become more practiced in science and so contribute here in a more progressive form, rather than dogmatically. I am encouraging scientists not to be satisfied hearing dogma and help those with an interest in science, to improve their knowledge.Right now I tend to see people ganging up on creos, and letting bad science slip by.As far as speaking outside one's own area of study, that is not as much of a concern to me. Once you understand how science itself is conducted and can make your way around a science article, rather than just reading an abstract and swearing by every word, there is an ability to discuss things on a more equal footing. Many fields are indeed cross disciplinary.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

That could be the case. It may also be that you are assuming I mean they make the same mistakes as often... which I am not. That said, I have seen (and this is across) my stay here, pro-evo people making wholly inaccurate comments about science, how it works, and about specific findings in fields (though usually not so much in straight evo topics). They are NOT merely misplaced names and out of date refs.I have stated this before and remarked that it did not seem to merit attention from the pro-evo side which I found strange. This is why I sometimes feel myself agreeing with creos that complain about the bias here. Yeah they do make more of the mistakes, but when an evo makes the same error, it often goes by without notice. Heheheh... of course maybe its just that no one notices in the flood of evo responses.I do not want to get into specific names and examples. I will say that names of people who I greatly respect here as fantastic contributors have been mentioned. Thus I was not equating lack of education with inability to make good posts, or understand some things well, or that they must be unreasonable.Of course I have also watched people be lauded here for some of the worst examples of logic, debate, and info as has ever been seen on the creo side. I am at a loss for why this occurs, other than a sense of loyalty to a side.AbE: Oh, but I forgot to focus this back to my main question. Perhaps I should make it more specific than abstract as it is now.Lets say some percentage of the population is relatively dogmatic and uninterested in engaging in actual science. Is science better off with the population simply parroting science theories as dogma, and pretending like they know what it is, than as it is right now with many of the dogmatic types hanging on to religious belief systems?I am concerned that results may be people equally "superstitious" in reasoning, only now in the name of science. Its not like this hasn't happened before, and as far as I can tell is occuring again in the likes of sociobiology and evopsych. Science is treated as if it can give meaning to all questions with pat speculation.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 11:50 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Hmmm, I wasn't sure where this would head, but I guess I see another question as well. If education or direct experience in conducting science is not necessary, what is sufficient for a person to engage in credible debate on a topic, or make comments about science in general?One might say an adherence to formal logic, and that could be it. Though I might suggest a history of science (even a brief one) and an overview of a field's present positions/arguments are also important.Then again, we talk about scientific method. That is not simply formal logic and an overview of present positions. How much of this is understood through practice, and education? How does one understand what proper methodology is, without some instruction in that, so that one can understand the validity (or strength) of present positions?This is one of the reasons I asked people without such education to answer why, if they feel science is important, they have not pursued actual study or practice. And if they feel competent to speak as if they are scientists without such understanding. How does someone without knowing the methods involved with physics, or stats, make arguments against those within that field?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

That's a pretty damn good answer.Okay so now answer my speculative question (which I'll make more fun). Let's say you had the power (let's say a button) to turn all the creos into ardent evo supporters. Though they do not understand any more about science than they do now, they agree with what is said by scientists and parrot what they say instead of religious leaders. Would you press that button?Sometimes I think I prefer an enemy I can see more clearly than those who appear within my midst, or misuse my own concepts for their own reasonings.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Another good answer, though I fear that the same cutural agendas will end up getting sucked up into science and twisting it the same way. I guess I don't see it as clueless neutrality. He who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities and all that. Scientists are working around the clock!Say are you still in Germany? There for long?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I would agree, with the exception of having to reach PhD level. Even at the master's level one is involved with developing and testing theories (or at least they were at my schools), and one may go on to work in scientific organizations at a level where the same methods are employed. This is true. There is a difference between being a lab assistant with little knowledge, and being a person who engages in actual work with collecting and handling data or designing/overseeing project development.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Check out post #10, where I've refined my question a bit. I'd be interested in seeing what your answer is.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

That is somewhat true, but pop science sounding ideas do make their rounds of the press and people do seem to eat it up. Ah, I am glad you said this. I can't speak as to how it has changed, but I can discuss what I have seen as problems arising for science and science programs, based on the exact issue we are discussing.With the idea that anyone can be a scientist, people do make it into the science world and do effect it. We just saw the case of the Bush appointee trying to change things at NASA. From my experience that is how things occur within the gov't, and it is not just creos doing this (or ID supporters like this appointee).I have said before that a manager in charge of projects at the org I worked for, when confronted with questions from scientists on methodology and data, actually announced that they did not care about data (ironically slipping and even saying did not care about science), that what was important is that people BE CONCERNED. After all, it was a hot topic and they were concerned about it and thought everyone else should be. This person related to an astonished group of scientists that their level of science knowledge was enough. The person was an art major who read science magazines and so could use some science lingo and "pose" as a someone who knew science.This person, due to power of their position, was able to divert a review program (peer reviewed and recommended by many other orgs including NASA) so that the data and hence their message would go through unchallenged as official science findings for this gov't body.I had been warned (before beginning my job) that I would never trust a gov't study again, unless I personally double-checked its methods and if I could, the data. They were absolutely right.We do have modern science "Myths" being generated, and we do have self-professed pro science people getting into positions to effect research and data so as to propagate their version of "truth". I miss better weather.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 04:04 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

So you would say formal logic and some information about a field (including specific topics)? Heheheh... I'd agree with that. Do you feel this places limits on what you can discuss? What are they?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Well I'd agree with the intensity of study and the amount of work, but I'm a bit uncertain about expectation of excellence. That may differ from school to school however.I'm more concerned about the nature of the work and master's and phd work are essentially the same, except in size. In addition some fields only require masters in order to go out and work as a scientist in that field. Its not unusual to see people leave in order to make money doing the same work and producing results in the same way.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Holy... I've heard of advisor's taking credit for work without merit, but never actually doing work for a student.Did the student do well?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I agree. And I agree with your comment about jargon as well. I do not believe this. Correlation meaning causation is not logical and yet is a basic, or natural way of thinking. Its one of the things that formal logic (or practiced logic) ends up reigning in.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Your name was mentioned as someone who did not have a science education. I generally find your science posts to be well done, and indeed it was your postings which convinced me to stay at EvC when I bumped into it.So I am interested in what level of sci ed or experience you've had. You don't have to be specific as to field or anything.If no serious training or work, how did you develop your knowledge in the area, and do you feel there are limits to what you can discuss with those working in science on a more professional basis?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This has been raised before and it is a question in and of itself. Is there a difference between a scientist discussing a field they do not specialize in, and a nonscientist discussing science in general?While they can make similar mistakes, I feel like there is. Though I guess it could just be the number of mistakes they make.Here's an analogy. People who have been to war say that those who have not experienced it do not know what it is like to be a soldier. Now I can talk about violence I have experienced and accounts from other soldiers that speak to me, and even issues on strategy or tactics to some theoretical level, but I couldn't talk about what it is to be a soldier and what it is to fight in a war.Isn't that similar to science, where those outside can speak about experiences they have read and some theoretical issues, but not what it is to do science? What science is about?I'm not trying to push an answer here, but raise questions about it.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)