Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

Mammuthus, Congratulations, couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Leaving European shores for good?Mark

Your name was mentioned as someone who did not have a science education. I generally find your science posts to be well done, and indeed it was your postings which convinced me to stay at EvC when I bumped into it.So I am interested in what level of sci ed or experience you've had. You don't have to be specific as to field or anything.If no serious training or work, how did you develop your knowledge in the area, and do you feel there are limits to what you can discuss with those working in science on a more professional basis?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Hi Holmes,I was educated in the UK to A level standard, taking chemistry, physics & biology. No degree. But biology was always my thang. I am simply very interested in evolution & read as much as I can on the subject.I am limited, as you put it, by the fact that people like Mammuthus or Quetzal simply knows a shedload more than I about the subject. I could possibly point to the odd area that I have sampled more than they, perhaps palaeontology, for example. But then that's dodging the question slightly, Mammuthus isn't a palaeontologist by trade, so why would anyone expect him to be an expert on the subject? Of one thing I am sure, however, that there is nothing I can tell him about molecular biology.I don't have a professional level of knowledge in the subject is the short answer, I suppose.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

And/or academic advisor to academic advisor.My advisor is notorious for demanding long and extremely involved theses from his students. Mine is already 200 pages long and I haven't even finished the last two chapters,the references, OR the appendices.A little more work and it would probably qualify as a Ph.D.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-02-2006 01:07 PM

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.

This has been raised before and it is a question in and of itself. Is there a difference between a scientist discussing a field they do not specialize in, and a nonscientist discussing science in general?While they can make similar mistakes, I feel like there is. Though I guess it could just be the number of mistakes they make.Here's an analogy. People who have been to war say that those who have not experienced it do not know what it is like to be a soldier. Now I can talk about violence I have experienced and accounts from other soldiers that speak to me, and even issues on strategy or tactics to some theoretical level, but I couldn't talk about what it is to be a soldier and what it is to fight in a war.Isn't that similar to science, where those outside can speak about experiences they have read and some theoretical issues, but not what it is to do science? What science is about?I'm not trying to push an answer here, but raise questions about it.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Your distinction between 'doing science' and 'understanding science' is a valid one. Similar to the difference between simply being a soldier and actually fighting a war (not that science is a war, but it can get pretty competitive).You don't need experience doing actual research to understand science and its implications. All you need is some basic education. I think a lot of non-scientists here do a pretty good job defending the principles of evolution without being professional biologists.Problems only arise when people forget to recognize the boundaries of their education and the limits of their understanding.
This goes for non-scientists dicussing science and for scientists discussing topics outside their area of expertise.I think we should encourage everyone to discuss their ideas about science, right or wrong, and those who do science professionally can help clarify things that relate to their areas of expertise. That's one of the most positive aspects of this board. The question of who is credible and who isn't is ultimately up to readers to decide for themselves.

Concise and positive. I agree.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

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

Ahhhh. I knew the question of credibility might be a stickler.
There's no peer-review process to survive here, so I guess the onus is on everyone's respective ability to discriminate who the real molecular 'experts' are.
My money is on guys like WK and Mammuthus.

Since science is simply a way of looking at things, anyone can talk about the value of the aproach or give thier opinion on it.
If you speak in terms of specific fields and the factual findings one may become familiar with, in that light....no..those who deal with the facts they find are more aware of them.
How those facts are interpreted is another thing. That is why theories are born. A theory is simply an "educated" guess.
So one can take the view that one persons educated guess may come with a bit more insight than anothers. But we know in life this is not always the case. If fact throughout history, far more theories from those who follow science have been inorrect than those proven true. We have a inherant ability to see what we look for.

Memory shot?

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.

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