Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

NTS, no-true-scientist

quote:

---

Well I already proved in another thread that I do in fact develop and test theory for a living, and in my hobbies.

---

I really don't think you did.I think it was decided that you were a "troubleshooter" or a technician/engineer rather than someone who develops and tests theory.But I could be wrong. Please indicate which thread that was and we can take the discussion over there.

quote:

---

Also what does being a scientist have to do with the ability to understand and talk about science?

---

That's what this thread is about, riverrat.

quote:

---

The application of those theories is a continuing process that is carried out by people like me, who further refine and improve it
From a practical stand point we can sometimes even come up with a better theory and apply it.

---

Application of theory, and using theory for practical purposes is NOT the same as developing theory.Medical Doctors, for example, use, and even sometimes refine, techniques and technologies which stem from scientific work, but they are NOT engaging in scientific work when they do this.

quote:

---

In other words in place of stating "I have a degree" as an appeal to authority, they state "I follow the scientific method" or "I believe in science" as if that makes them more knowledgable than a creo.

---

Or, as if that makes them more knowlegable than another evo they disagree with.

That's an interesting point. In fact that might have made a better thread title.I don't think all scientists must share the same dogma, or understandings of models about the world. But you know I really do believe there is a delineation based on how a person goes about approaching model building, and what experience a person has doing such things.Maybe there are no true scientists. Are there implications of this standard?This message has been edited by holmes, 03-03-2006 01:21 PM

---

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

Yep.

---

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

deleted by author.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 07:59 AM

To be honest I don't know any Scientists, I only know Chemists, Biologists and Geologists. Actually it's not even as general as that. I only know experts in Flavonoid synthesis, mollusc behaviour and undersea oil extraction.The further you go in academic training, the more specialised you become. What you become expert in is a particular very specialized field, not the whole of Science. Your opinion on questions about that field is to be valued, but you can't claim a special knowledge about the rest of Science.I'd also argue that a science education by itself tends to make an individual less skilled in reasoning than an education in the humanities or social sciences. Science training is generally focused on learning facts and principles, and on showing that you've learnt those facts and principles, rather than on putting together a reasonable argument for a case.It's only self-education outside of the academic training that can make a scientist informed and skilled enough to put together a decent argument. And if a scientist can educate himself in these skills, then so can anyone else.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

quote:

---

I'd also argue that a science education by itself tends to make an individual less skilled in reasoning than an education in the humanities or social sciences. Science training is generally focused on learning facts and principles, and on showing that you've learnt those facts and principles, rather than on putting together a reasonable argument for a case.

---

That's not been the experience of the scientists I know.You had damn well better be able to argue your case, in lab meetings and at conferences and in grant applications and in the papers you write if you want to be successful.

Those aren't part of the academic training - you need to do those things in any career.And how much reasoned argument you need to put into an academic paper depends on the discipline. If I'm writing a paper on a novel synthesis of a compound, I have to follow a very strict formula - the only bit of discussion I'm allowed to make is in relating my current work to the work of others, and that too tends to follow a formula. There really isn't any need for me to make any case other than the obvious one, that my synthesis is novel.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I have no idea what the point of this is supposed to be.Have you tried to figure out the Wason card logic problem yet?

If all your science graduate program teaches you is facts and principles, and not how to put together a reasoned argument, it's a pretty crappy graduate program.

You have your opinion on the subject and I have mine. It apears to me that you hold "science" with a reverence. As if it is on a pedestal.
I see it for what it is. A tool and nothing more.A theory can be very wrong and misleading. A wrong theory can send the entire science comunity on centuries long wild goose chases. Incorrect assertions are made on a daily basis. Peoples bias work to distort the meaning of facts on a daily basis. How many drugs are being pumped out onto the market prematurely and we are the lab? Science has it's implications both good and bad. We are the falible lynchpin. There is no avoiding that.
A "theory" is only as good as the source. Somehow you have mistakenly elevated the idea of a theory beyond the falible capabilities of the source.

I don't agree with that at all. I can see where you might have a point that facts and principles alone are not going to make one better at reasoning. And it is possible some programs and instructors will emphasize f&p over r. But I can't agree that it would make one less skilled than someone educated in the humanities or soc. sciences.I do agree that a proper science education should include work on reasoning skills, particularly logic and research method analysis. And a history of science class might be useful as well.

---

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

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

Well, germ theory was denied by most of the scientific community for some time, even after it was shown to have positive benefits. Theories regarding sexual pleasure as harmful were and still are to some extent accepted by portions of the science community, despite the counterevidence (and inconsistency).I think the key is that some confuse science with adherence to a specific theory, or their own opinions with fact, and so test other theories with their own.Of course sometimes its not even a case of being a poor scientist, but rather that there is not enough evidence (or conflicting evidence). I knew a guy that was against continental drift theory and fought it at the time, until evidence from the ocean floors pretty well substantiated that as a plausible theory. And Adler Planetarium ran an exhibit explaining why heliocentric theory was really not the more plausible explanation at the time it was first being advanced.Sometimes lack of evidence means those (unknowingly) departing from the more accurate model, are doing better science. Of course it is examples like these which scientists should keep in mind when deciding to stick with a current theory.

---

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