Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

I have not read the rest of the thread, though I will when I get a chance. I wanted to answer the OP.I think I'd be considered pro-science, though I am a pretty radical theist (since I live in a Christian commune). I took two years of college and I quit, because I hated it too much to get myself to attend class. My major was statistics, and I went completely on academic scholarships and grants (small college).That said, my answer is that I think it is not only proper but essential for those without an education to discuss science. The reason is that science is giving all of us information all the time, and those of us who are the hearers need to share with each other our successes and means of success in understanding the information that comes our way and in determining who's honest and who's not.As a general answer to your OP, holmes, my thought would be that it is much easier to determine the worthiness of a person to speak on a subject by listening to them and making a determination than by reading the degrees after their name.For example, I'm sure Dr. Duane Gish has letters he can put after his name, but I know from experience that any information Sylas puts out is infinitely more reliable than anything Dr. Gish puts out. (It is statistics, not hyperbole, that produces the word infinitely here--dividing by zero produces infinity.) And I believe Sylas said he is not a scientist (though he's obviously educated).Or (and I'm going to get someone to comment on my continued references to this someday), take for example my dear friend and neighbor, Dr. Stephen Fretwell, author of Populations in a Seasonal Environment, whom I would attribute great authority to on any matter concerning birds, body chemistry, or even complex mathematics, but I decidedly ignore on most matters of nutrition and whom I do not consult on matters of evolution, either. It is not degrees, but experience with the person that raises or lowers my level of trust.