Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 198 (291312)
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2006 6:10 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 03-02-2006 2:54 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 4:21 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 5 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-02-2006 4:23 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 03-02-2006 7:10 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 15 by riVeRraT, posted 03-02-2006 7:19 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 17 by nator, posted 03-02-2006 8:03 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 51 by JavaMan, posted 03-03-2006 3:42 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 108 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2006 12:45 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 198 (291315)
03-01-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


Oh, I'm sorry, Holmes. I must have missed where Percy and the admins anointed you as the one who gets to decide who talks about evolution and who doesn't.
I'd like to point out that if our educational credentials are suddenly required to be taken seriously at this forum then it becomes an open question of who we're going to believe in regards to who actually has degrees and who does not.
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).
..and? Your evidence for this assertion? Hey, don't bitch at me. You raised the question when you implied that the rest of us without degrees aren't fit to be involved in the discussion.
Wait, did I say "without degrees?" What I meant was "BA's in biology, chemistry, and computer science, a masters in plant physiology, a Ph. D. in the same, and ten years of experience as lead researcher at Monsanto, Dow Agroscience, and ADM." I mean, as far as you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:03 PM Silent H has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 3 of 198 (291363)
03-02-2006 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


There should be a point at which you do not need to have a BA or masters to talk about science, this isn't a research site its a debate site, you shouldn't need to go through 4-6 years of schooling and research work to debate the validity of evolution or science
sure I think if you are trying to understand some very tricky concepts you should ask an expert in the field, but come on holms if we required a degree no one would debate it but a few people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:03 PM Silent H has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 198 (291365)
03-02-2006 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:03 PM Silent H has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 5 of 198 (291366)
03-02-2006 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


Science education
I think that a science background is certainly a benefit to those who would argue against or for a position in the evolution/creationism debate. But I think also that many really good and important contributions are made by "educated amateurs" (this is not an insult, it is a term we use in biology for people like bird watchers who may have never set foot in college, or have advanced degrees in architecture, but who are recognized as experts in the local bird fauna because of experience). I think there are a great many people who may have no formal education in science who have followed these topics and really make this forum better for their insights.
On the other hand this is not a free-ride to say anything you want. I think it is important to think carefully about what you claim. It appears to me that illogical claims on both creo and evo sides are smacked down pretty well around here, and that is a good thing. There is alot of calling for references for statements. I think this acts to our benefit as a mini peer-review, forcing all of us (or at least those of us really interested in truth) to search for sources and admit when we rely on half-remembered readings from long past (I do this often, relying on things I think are true but cannot find the ref until pushed).
As for the experience in science portion of the OP, I have an MS in crustacean reproductive biology, am finishing a PhD in shrimp trophic ecology, and currently a professor (in the American sense) of invertebrate zoology. But I learn constantly from all of the people here at EVC.
Anyway, my 2-cents worth.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:03 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 198 (291367)
03-02-2006 4:58 AM


Not being a snob, just raising a question
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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 5:10 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 9:58 AM Silent H has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 198 (291368)
03-02-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
03-02-2006 4:58 AM


Re: Not being a snob, just raising a question
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 4:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 5:42 AM Mammuthus has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 198 (291370)
03-02-2006 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
03-02-2006 5:10 AM


Re: Not being a snob, just raising a question
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 5:10 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 5:53 AM Silent H has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 198 (291372)
03-02-2006 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
03-02-2006 5:42 AM


Re: Not being a snob, just raising a question
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 5:42 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 6:09 AM Mammuthus has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 198 (291373)
03-02-2006 6:02 AM


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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 03-02-2006 10:13 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 198 (291374)
03-02-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
03-02-2006 5:53 AM


Re: Not being a snob, just raising a question
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 5:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 6:31 AM Silent H has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 12 of 198 (291376)
03-02-2006 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
03-02-2006 6:09 AM


Re: Not being a snob, just raising a question
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 6:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 6:39 AM Mammuthus has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 198 (291377)
03-02-2006 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mammuthus
03-02-2006 6:31 AM


Re: Not being a snob, just raising a question
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.
could you develop a button I cold push that would guarantee funding for my research?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 6:31 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2006 8:47 AM Silent H has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 198 (291380)
03-02-2006 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?
Answer: Yes.
You don't have to know all the details to pick up the gist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 9:42 AM robinrohan has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 15 of 198 (291383)
03-02-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:03 PM


Does someone have to go to school to have an understanding of science?
How about 24 years in the field practically applying things in science?
Plus no one here is an expert on the complete field of science.
I consider myself an expert in many fields, but if someone here wants to discuss with me about it, I will share what I know with them, even if they are ignorant. Others have done the same for me, and that is what I like about this site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:03 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 03-02-2006 7:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024