Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

quote:

---

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.

---

I disagree with this assessment. Since I participated in the thread that spawned this thread allow me to comment. I have a PhD in human genetics and have been working for years as an evolutionary virologist. I also dabble in mammoth genetics But I don't believe that I am the only one on this board entitled to debate or have the final say on the topics of virology or evolution or ancient DNA. What I tried to distinguish in the related thread was those who have absolutely NO background in the fields they are criticizing. Those who say, "I don't know anything about genetics but there is a genetic barrier between kinds so evolution is not true" are examples of completely ignorant posters who should not be commenting on how to butter bread much less on the genetic basis of evolution. This is very very different from a well informed layperson who may not have a degree or wet lab experience in the relevant science.I'll put some specific examples out there (without intending to put anyone on the spot). I find that crashfrog's posts on science are often of exceptional quality and reveal someone well versed in multiple scientific disciplines. He says he does not have a degree. Could have fooled me. Exactly the same qualities for mark24. In fact, mark24 is probably more familiar with specific aspects of evolutionary biology than I am and I would defer to him in a debate on a given subject where I feel he is more competent. In fact, I know many evolutionary biologists who have never read any of Darwin's books (since it is not the atheist bible contrary to popular myth) whereas I know lots of non-scientists who have. Who should be "allowed" to comment then on Darwinism...the guy with the degree in molecular evolution who did not read Origins or the layperson who did?Ultimately, I do not see the same mistakes being made by the anti-science and pro-science crowds on this board. I have seen the pro-science crowd (with or without degree) make some errors in terms of innaccuracies or occassionally out of date references. But this is different from the anti-science crowd which brings outright lies, unsupported assertions, or mischaracterization as "support" for their positions. These are two different beasts.As a question, if you think only those with direct lab experience or a degree in exactly the subject of science under discussion can comment on science, what do you think of those who write about science? SJ Gould did not have a degree in anything molecular yet wrote about molecular biology. Ditto for Dawkins. Bill Bryson wrote a wonderful book called a Short History of Nearly Everything. Should they be allowed to comment?Everyone here has opinions. The best posters muster factual support for their assertions regardless of whether they have a degree or not.

quote:

---

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?

---

Maybe it is because I am posting less or not around that much but I am not sure I see where this is happening on the pro-evo side. In the Biological Science forum people like Modulous provide information with links to original sources. I often see pro-science people clearly state when they are not sure of something and ask that an person with more info step in. Now that Quetzal is posting again, one of the highest quality informative posters on the pro-science side has returned. The general quality (in the subjects I follow) tends to be high.I don't see how you could equate the errors that the pro-evo side makes, say a misplaced name, out of date reference or something with the utter nonesense and outright lies that the anti-evos here post. I am failing to see how they can be equated.

I guess maybe the reason that I don't see it is that some of my biggest fights on the forum have been with other Evos. I got into a really nasty exchange with Rei about extinction and with another pro-evo about the genetics of race. Thus, I don't see it as a free ride for pro-science types because if I spot something I think is wrong, I usually go after them to. Also, for me, it is more worth my while to correct scientific errors that appear in scientific publications than to try to fact check all the errors on a board such as this. The appeal here is to watch the creos rather than to check up on all the evos. In principle, I tend to watch the statements made by other bench scientists (in terms of following them up) since they tend to post links to the primary literature.

Good question. I would say the main reason for pushing the button would not be to change a group of mindless followers from following one thing mindlessly to another. Rather, the subset of literalists who oppose science are an impediment to science. They are partially responsible for the fact that fewer Americans get PhDs and that our research effort is entirely dependent on luring educated foreigners to our universities. They squash the creativity and desire to question and exlore the natural world in our youngsters. They push anti-intellectualism with a variety of the "ignorance is bliss" agenda. Pushing the button would at least change active clueless opposition to clueless neutrality...could you develop a button I cold push that would guarantee funding for my research?

quote:

---

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.

---

In the public sphere..perhaps. Though my experience in the US is that there is almost no attention paid to science even in the popular press. At least not in comparison to Europe where there are several daily programs dedicated to modern science. Actually quite good programs. But the working scientists life has not changed. Nobody believes anything you say unless you can support it with data...and in some cases, they still don't accept it until it would be absolutely ridiculous not to. It can be frustrating but it keeps the system going..though it is only practiced by the small core group of scientists in the world actually involved in science. As schrafinator points out, the students often are not able to make the distinction and can let bias enter more easily...but that is why they train.I am still in Germany...but only for a few more months..then I trade in my saurkraut for a professorship and better weather.

Thanks!
Not to drag things too far off topic, I hope that I am not leaving Europe for good. I hope the EU gets its act together over the next decade and actually makes it possible to do research rather than allowing themselves to fall further behind the US (and now China and India as well). If I can get something back in the EU in the next 5 or 10 years, I might be tempted to return. I am skeptical because I am usually advising Germans how to get jobs in the US since they are being forced to jump ship. Really sad actually...at least to the consternation of the creos here..I will be teaching evolution

Indeed, it is often the case that scientists from distinct disciplines can bring novel insight into an unrelated field. Francis Crick did not start out as a biologist for example. However, this is different than bringing completely non-scientific backgrounds or hypothesis from one discipline to another such as Michael Behe does. He demonstrated in the Dover trial that he knows diddly squat about molecular evolution and stunningly little about forumlating scientific hypotheses. On the other hand, I worked with a mammalogist who knew little about molecular biology but through hard effort and research managed learned enough to shake up the field of Late-Pleistocene extinctions with a very interesting and testable hypothesis. Whether it holds up or not is irrelevant. It just illustrates that without a degree in the specific field, he was able to marshal his talents as a scientist to apply them to an unrelated field. Laypeople are also capable of doing this provided they put in the effort. Lots do...too many don't.Reading through the thread, it seems the consensus is that credibility is given to those who can support their position rather than those blathering about their degrees which is good. It is also why creo's fail so badly in the debates since they never support their assertions and in several instances, have used appeals to authority (or dubious texts) as their sole "support".