Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

quote:

---

How about 24 years in the field practically applying things in science?

---

Do you mean your own experience, rat?What science do you do?

I think that having a science-based education is not always a protection against personal bias, particularly if one has not gone the whole way to the PhD level and actually develops and tests theory for a living.Working "in science" is not the same as "being a scientist".

quote:

---

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.

---

In my experience as an observer of several people studying to get PhD's at the third-ranked Cognitive Psychology program in the country, there is a big jump in what is required of a PhD candidate compared to what one needs to do to get a terminal Master's degree. The level of intensity of study, amount of work, and expectation of excellence is ratcheted-up considerably after they pass their Prelim's.That's why most people starting out intending to pursue a career as a professional academic scientist don't make it.Certainly, this is an extremely limited sample so take it for what it's worth.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-02-2006 10:30 AM

quote:

---

Logic is a natural faculty.

---

No, it really isn't.If it was, there wouldn't be so much irrational thinking, and there wouldn't be so many people engaging in logical fallacies all the time.Indeed, there are even studies showing that even people well-trained and practiced in logic are prone to certain errors in logic.

quote:

---

I'm more concerned about the nature of the work and master's and phd work are essentially the same, except in size.

---

I had to wait until the scientist I live with came home so I could ask him about his experience and take on this issue.He says, in his case, the major difference in work after the terminal Master's level is the degree of independence.Someone quitting at the Master's level in his program is probably going to be set to finish up an ongoing research project, often thought up and begun by someone else. By contrast, someone doing their PhD project is expected to come up with an original idea for research, design and conduct the experiments, crunch the data, and write up the paper pretty much on their own.

No.I know generally what line of work you are in, and, last I checked, that line of work would more acurately be called technical work, perhaps leaning towards engineering.But you don't develop and test theory for a living, and that's what most scientists do.

quote:

---

Because a faculty is natural, it does not follow that we will do it perfectly.

---

Logic is not something that humans do very well at all. Particularly, abstract logic is very difficult. That's why gambling is so profitable; very few people can think through the implications.

quote:

---

Children engage in logical progressions of thought continually.

​

Can I get away with playing hookie? Let us consider the various possibilities of getting caught. My mother is always gone from house at this time of day. Therefore, I infer that she will be gone today as well. . . . etc.

---

That's induction, not logic.Look, I've done a decent amount of reading on this subject and I'm quite sure you are wrong about logic being natural to humans.You can choose to remain incredulous on the basis of your own (I am guessing, uninformed) personal impressions on the matter, or you can do some reading yourself.You can start with this page.

quote:

---

Well I already proved in another thread that I do in fact develop and test theory for a living, and in my hobbies.

---

I really don't think you did.I think it was decided that you were a "troubleshooter" or a technician/engineer rather than someone who develops and tests theory.But I could be wrong. Please indicate which thread that was and we can take the discussion over there.

quote:

---

Also what does being a scientist have to do with the ability to understand and talk about science?

---

That's what this thread is about, riverrat.

quote:

---

The application of those theories is a continuing process that is carried out by people like me, who further refine and improve it
From a practical stand point we can sometimes even come up with a better theory and apply it.

---

Application of theory, and using theory for practical purposes is NOT the same as developing theory.Medical Doctors, for example, use, and even sometimes refine, techniques and technologies which stem from scientific work, but they are NOT engaging in scientific work when they do this.

quote:

---

In other words in place of stating "I have a degree" as an appeal to authority, they state "I follow the scientific method" or "I believe in science" as if that makes them more knowledgable than a creo.

---

Or, as if that makes them more knowlegable than another evo they disagree with.

deleted by author.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 07:59 AM

quote:

---

I'd also argue that a science education by itself tends to make an individual less skilled in reasoning than an education in the humanities or social sciences. Science training is generally focused on learning facts and principles, and on showing that you've learnt those facts and principles, rather than on putting together a reasonable argument for a case.

---

That's not been the experience of the scientists I know.You had damn well better be able to argue your case, in lab meetings and at conferences and in grant applications and in the papers you write if you want to be successful.

I have no idea what the point of this is supposed to be.Have you tried to figure out the Wason card logic problem yet?

If all your science graduate program teaches you is facts and principles, and not how to put together a reasoned argument, it's a pretty crappy graduate program.

quote:

---

Well, germ theory was denied by most of the scientific community for some time, even after it was shown to have positive benefits.

---

Was science a formalized profession yet, and was the modern peer-review process in place at that time?

quote:

---

To show that logic is a natural faculty.

---

Have you tried the card logic puzzle yet?