Bad science?

quote:

---

I would agree with this, theres tons of science that is produced by companies to show thier view is right and the other guy is wrong. remember all the stuff on colesteral and how bad eggs or bacon was?

---

Couple of problems with that example:1) That was good science. It was the best information we had at the time which has since been corrected by new information.2) Some of the problem with "eggs and bacon are very bad for you" as an idea was how the information was reported and disseminated to the public. It is very important to separate scientific findings from how those findings are reported.

quote:

---

Same thing about Christianity.

---

Oh? Where is this list of specific requirements of who is and who is not considered a Christian that is agreed upon by all Christians?But anyway, you are not comparing like things.Science and Scientists are different things.Science is the body of knowledge, and it is also the specific methodology used by scientists to discover that knowledge. There are very specific criterion, generally agreed upon by all scientists, which are written down and anyone can understand and use them to determine if something is scientific or not.If some person is a scientist or not is a completely different question, and a bit muddier than the one above.What makes a person a scientist, I think, is that they use the scientific method properly in their work, and if their main occupation is developing and testing theory.

quote:

---

But what it comes down too is that if you say your a christian, then you are one.

---

Right.But remember that you responded to a comment about what can be called science, not scientists.

quote:

---

Of you say you are a scientist, then you are one. You may not be a good one, but you are one, according to the fallacy.

---

No, I think that calling oneself a scientist requires more. It is a highly skilled profession requiring a decade or more of training and higher education, after all.Do you think that one can become a police officer, or a surgeon, or an engineer just by deciding you are one?Following a religion has nothing at all to do with learning any skill or technique or knowledge. It is a philosophical/emotional thing only.

quote:

---

Certainly the things that you talk about make one a better scientist. And publication in peer review journals and discovery of new information are things that one can point to as evidence to prove to a third person that one is a scientist. However, I still maintain that the sine qua non of being a scientist is following the scientific method. That is both necessary and sufficient.

---

If I play basketball under the official rules, does that mean that I can be considered a basketball player in the same way that Michael Jordan is considered a basketball player, only that he is better than me?

quote:

---

What would you call a person who uses the scientific method properly in their work but isn't developing and testing theory?

---

Maybe a skilled experimenter, or technician?

quote:

---

Interesting. If I'm following you, are you saying anyone who works in a scientific discipline outside of academia or a pure research position is not entitled to be called a scientist? Not that I personally give a hoot, but I have a number of colleagues who would likely disagree with this characterization. Assuming that's what you meant, of course.

---

Well, it depends.I am positive that there are people not working in the areas you mention whom I'd call scientists, but neither do I think that "people who use the scientific method in their work" is all that these people do to qualify as scientists.

So, when Michael Jordan says "I'm a basketball player" and I say "I'm a basketball player", it means exactly the same thing to each of us, and everyone else?

quote:

---

I mean it sounds like you develop theory to me. Little-t theory, but surely Schraf did not mean to restrict the term to the one or two geniuses who come up with enormous scientific frameworks like "evolution" or "relativity", don't you think? I hope she'll clarify.

---

No, no, of course not."Developing theory" means to me that you propose and test your ideas about some natural phenomena.That's all.

quote:

---

I guess this is probably where I'm having difficulty with your's and schraf's definitions. If you're "doing science", aren't you (almost by definition), a "scientist"?

---

Yes and no. In the common use of the word, no. If someone says "I am a scientist", I think most people would assume that they are a professional, and that's the way I'm using the word, pretty much.I also define it further in the ways I've described, as in testing theory, etc.

quote:

---

It's not really important - it's just one of those issues to which I have some kind of visceral (rather than logical) reaction. Indeed, it probably has more to do with being vaguely uncomfortable about a feeling that we're setting science and scientists up for accusations of "elitism" than anything else.

---

See, I don't mind elitism being attached to professioal scientists at all. There's a reason most undergrads in science never get to the PhD level; it's damned difficult and it is a real accomplishment that most people don't understand nor respect at all. It is an elite group and should be regarded as such.That doesn't mean that doing science, using the scientific method, should be considered an elite activity. Far from it. But the idea that anybody who "does science" is a scientist is just not true in my mind, using my definition of "scientist."

quote:

---

My feeling is that many non-scientists often perceive practioners as equivalent to some kind of "priest-hood": exclusive, unapproachable, and given to making pronouncements from on high that mere mortals aren't given to understand. Since nothing could be further from the truth, the more restrictive the term we use, the less likely we are to make science and scientists more "trusted" by the general populace.

---

I don't think that, in general, professionals are mistrusted because they understand things that the general populace doesn't. Every professional has specialized knowledge that people who are not in that profession don't understand.

quote:

---

I'm sort of groping blindly for a way to bridge this gap. The pursuit of knowledge was once considered the great leveller. Unfortunately, given the incredible complexity of most scientific disciplines today, and the years of training and experience that are required to understand the details, it really IS becoming "unapproachable" to the average person. I'm not sure there's any way around it. I'm open to suggestions.

---

What science needs is another Carl Sagan.