Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

quote:

---

That may differ from school to school however.

---

And/or discipline to discipline.I was involved in Ph.D programs in two different subjects at two different schools. One, I would say that the quality of the students' research was pretty good and indeed advanced the field, even if in minor ways. The goal of the program was to produce researchers; there is a place even for scientists who are not necessary at the top of the field.The other, the students could expect a lot of "assistance" in their research (including, in one case, the advisor actually writing the dissertation himself), and the research topics were, in my subjective opinion, rather uninteresting. The goal of the program was not to produce researchers, but to produce people capable of teaching at a small, non-research oriented college.By the way, to put my opinions in context I failed to get the Ph.D. in both cases.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

...And those who do science professionally can help clarify things that relate to their areas of expertise.

---

Like inkorrekt, our new resident expert biochemist?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

A wrong theory can send the entire science comunity on centuries long wild goose chases.

---

How would this be possible, when the theory is continually being checked and tested by the scientists attempting to use it to explain their results?I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't sound very plausible to me.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

There are two topics on Big Bang that are currently on-going -- if you want to discuss Big Bang in particular, those are where we should go.As it is, even this discussion is probably off-topic, but I will try to respond.A scientific theory is a theory only if it makes predictions that can be tested. If predictions are made (like in Big Bang), and we observe exactly what we are supposed to observe (like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), then the theory is considered verified. As long as the predicted phenomena are actually observed, why should we discard the theory? In fact, if the predicted phenomena are observed, why shouldn't that boost our confidence that the theory is essentially correct?On the other hand, it is when predicted phenomena are not observed, or when unexpected phenomena are observed, that we must examine the theory. Maybe the theory can be modified and "improved", maybe it must be discarded altogether.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt