|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Cult Of The Amateur | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: That's the point behind peer review and publishing: You put your work out there to be examined in excruciating detail by people who aren't you, aren't looking to support you, and actually want to find flaws in your work. Amateurs are very important in science. A lot of everyday astronomy wouldn't happen if it weren't for amateurs. Yes, all the big, flashy science with space telescopes and X-ray satellites are impressive, but the search for new comets, asteroids, and the other near-earth debris flying around is often found by amateurs: They're the ones who have the time and inclination to just go out with a telescope and look up to see what happens to pass in front of the lens. But notice the reason why it works so well: The "start-up costs," so to speak, are so low. It doesn't take a lot of work to do a bit of actual astronomy. You just need a telescope, a dark night away from city lights, and the desire to sit out in the middle of a field overnight. It's why mathematics has so many good amateurs in it, too: You just need paper and pencil and the willingness to slog through it. Other fields are a bit more difficult to get involved in. Cooking is essentially chemisty and clearly there are brilliant amateurs out there, but doing deep chemistry requires equipment and materials the amateur simply doesn't have access to. Even simple chemistry requires chemicals that are often restricted. One of the physics experiments in my college physics class had the cliche statement: Everything will be OK so long as you don't eat the radioactive source.* And with regard to biology, especially evolutionary biology, what sort of amateur has the means to study species for generations? Who can tag the individuals, safely take genetic samples, and sequence them? Do you have a DNA sequencer handy to run PCR? But, just in case you do, that's the point behind publishing: You make your results public so that anybody anywhere can learn what you have discovered and try to duplicate your results. At no time, however, does "grass root lay folks" enter into it. Even if you are an amateur, you still need to know what you're doing. Science isn't something you can "common sense" your way through. Things don't function the way you expect, there are variables that aren't obvious that need to be controlled for, and you always need to be willing to consider the possibility that everything you think you know about everything is wrong. It is not enough to simply think you know what you're doing. You have to actually show it. When was the last time you did any original research, Buzsaw? * "Yes, it is radioactive and you will run a higher risk of cancer some 40 or 50 years down the line, but it is also highly toxic and poison you much more quickly." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: Then why are we talking to you when the person who has the knowledge of the subject is your pastor?
quote: Indeed, but what then makes you think you are capable of responding to us? Now, this is nothing more than an internet BBS. We're not really expecting the highest levels of evidence and standards of proof. But, we do need to have some process of justification in order to get beyond your statements simply being your opinion. This was one of my biggest problems in becoming a mathematician: I understood everything intuitively but had a hard time formalizing it. "Repeat this process an infinite number of times" is not sufficient for actually proving something. Instead, it needs to be strictly described in terms of limits. You need to provide more than just your say so.
quote: Weren't you just claiming that "the grass root lay folks" are supposed to be in there, too? It would seem that air sharpens iron, too, according to you. Science, however, relies on sunlight to sharpen it (points if you get the reference.) Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote: BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's just precious. You really do believe that, don't you? No, I'm not saying that major discoveries haven't been made by amateurs. It's the attitude that they "would never ever [sic] have been achieved were it left up to the educated elite." Most famous example of the "talented amateur" is probably Fermat. He wasn't what you would call the "educated elite," but was simply somebody who had an interest in mathematics and worked on it as a hobby. So why do we consider him such an important player in mathematics? Well, it certainly wasn't because of his rigor. Fermat was sloppy as all getout. His explanations were often half-baked, over-simplified, and failed to actually prove what it was he was trying to prove. No, the reason why we consider him an important player is because he managed to be right. But the only reason we know he was right is because the "educated elite" whom you seem to so despise did the work that Fermat was incapable of doing. Fermat's Greater Theorem has been proven, but it is clear that Fermat was not thinking of the proof that was finally required to get to the result. The reason why Fermat's name is even really known is because he kept sending his work off to Mersenne...who happened to be an actual mathematician. Liebniz was the one to prove Fermat's Lesser Theorem. And he wasn't always right. "Fermat numbers," those of the form 22n + 1, are not always prime despite Fermat's claim. Euler figured that out. You know Euler, yes? He's the one of whom it is said that if you removed him from 18th Century mathematics, it would have ground to a halt. The man averaged 800 pages of manuscript a year, wrote 500 books, and has over 800 references. Pretty much the reason we write mathematics in the notation we do today is because of him. That's how it works: Amateurs are good, but they lack the ability to apply the rigor and scrutiny required of good science. It isn't out of stupidity but simply out of lack of resources. We've all heard of the story of the little girl who wanted to test the existence of "therapeutic touch," Emily Rosa. She ran an experiment where she had nurses who claimed to be able to manipulate the "human energy field" sit behind a barrier with their hands through it. Emily would then either place her hand above the subject's left or right hand, decided via coin flip, to see if the subject could detect her "human energy field." They failed miserably. But here's the thing: The publication of the study was done through normal channels. Emily's name is on it, but the bulk of the paper was written by the co-authors: Linda Rosa; Emily Rosa; Larry Sarner; Stephen Barrett: "A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch" Journal of the American Medical Association, April 1998; 279: 1005 - 1010. This idea of yours that the "educated elite" are some contemptuous of those that aren't professionals is laughable.
quote: The guideline of Wikipedia is that you document the claims (Citing Sources). In addition, no original research is to be used.
quote: And that's part of the problem. When we get onto these subjects, we find that those who are advocating for science come up with peer-reviewed sources while those who advocate against science...well...they often don't have any sources, but those that they do provide typically come from the popular press at best and more typically from vanity press.
quote: Because before you can comment on the state of the science, you need to be familiar with it. Have you not been following Nemesis Juggernaut's commentary on the Loving v. Virginia case? He admits that he hasn't read it. Then what on earth makes him think that he has any ability to make any intelligent statement regarding it, what it is about, what it says, how it justifies itself, or anything else about it? Your right to have an opinion does not come with a concurrent guarantee of it being worth anything. You have to do your homework. You have to read up on the subject. You have to learn the fundamentals so that you can be sure you're not wandering off the ranch. And if you're going to make the extraordinary claim that the fundamental concept of all of biology is a load of crap, you had better have some outrageously detailed evidence to back it up.
quote: I pesonally don't recall ever repairing a watch or clock. I had a weight-driven cuckoo clock I could never get to work because it had no instructions and I had no idea what I was doing. I suppose if I decided to take the time to learn, I would, but I haven't and so I don't.
quote: None. I am unskilled in automotive repair. I know how to check my fluids, change a tire, and I've installed a stereo, but such things aren't really "repair." Again, if I decided to take the time to learn, I would. But, I haven't, so I don't. I expect you are about to claim that you have done this...that you somehow "confounded the experts" by being able to do what they couldn't. Little old you, who is just a common, everyday person, were somehow blessed with brilliance of insight that all them damned "educated elite" were too stubborn to even consider. I call bullshit. No, not that you didn't manage to do something an "expert" couldn't. No, what I mean is that it's bullshit that you were onto some grand statement about the universe that people who know what they're doing are actually poseurs and that real understanding can only come from people who are "untainted" by rigor and process.
quote: As I have no training of any kind with regard to combustion engines, the answer to that is no. Nor do I pretend to know. I expect you are about to claim that you have done this...that you somehow "confounded the experts" by being able to do what they couldn't. Little old you, who is just a common, everyday person, were somehow blessed with brilliance of insight that all them damned "educated elite" were too stubborn to even consider. I call bullshit. No, not that you didn't manage to do something an "expert" couldn't. No, what I mean is that it's bullshit that you were onto some grand statement about the universe that people who know what they're doing are actually poseurs and that real understanding can only come from people who are "untainted" by rigor and process.
quote: Define "dirty." And what does this have to do with anything? Yes, I know you're playing a game of gotcha. Again, I expect you are about to claim that you have done this...that you somehow "confounded the experts" by being able to do what they couldn't. Little old you, who is just a common, everyday person, were somehow blessed with brilliance of insight that all them damned "educated elite" were too stubborn to even consider. I call bullshit. No, not that you didn't manage to do something an "expert" couldn't. No, what I mean is that it's bullshit that you were onto some grand statement about the universe that people who know what they're doing are actually poseurs and that real understanding can only come from people who are "untainted" by rigor and process.
quote: Since "alternative methodology" is pretty much a quack, I know the answer to this is that you haven't, either. Care to submit yourself and your family to the rigors of peer review? You're the one making the claim, so you're the one who needs to show the proof. Your say so is insufficient. Especially since you are clearly emotionally invested in the outcome, your testimonial cannot be trusted. Just in general, you are sure to be overlooking and misreporting data since I'm sure you don't follow research protocol over your daily life. But on top of that, because you have a vested outcome in the results, it is pretty much guaranteed that you will be unable to give an unbiased report of things (see Martin Gardner's book, Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus for a good accounting of what happens when people who are supposed to be reporting data objectively are not rabidly watched.)
quote: You mean become an inveterate liar, drug addict, and hypocrite? Yes, I'm sure I could if I put my mind to it.
quote: No, because that isn't true. And just as a summary point: When did being one of the "educated elite" become a bad thing? If you needed heart surgery, would you want the "elite" heart surgeon or someone who has read some books, knows a lot of heart surgeons, but has never stepped foot inside an operating theater? Now, this hardly means that the best surgeon in the world is perfect and that someone who graduated at the bottom of his class is a complete idiot. And I certainly don't want to give the impression that the argument from authority actually holds water. But expertise really does mean something. It doesn't mean we blindly accept what they have to say, but it does mean that we should listen because they actually have justification for their claims and can, or at least should be able to, walk you through the process. That's what is happening here, Buzsaw: You're being asked to provide the justification for your claims and walk us through the process. And because you are an amateur, because you have no expertise, because you haven't done your homework, you are having a hard time. I understand the frustration of asking what you think is a simple question and getting flooded with reams of documentation showing you that what you thought was the answer is unjustified. Get over it. If you have the evidence to support your claims, then bring them forward. Your say so is not sufficient. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to subbie:
quote: I'm sorry...was there an argument in there? It seemed to be nothing but ad hominem commentary. You wanted some specifics? How about the entire Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theorythread? Many of us asked you many questions over and over and over again. Just at random from my own posts in the thread, Message 111: Rrhain writes: For the third time: Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics. Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know? Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor? I asked you this previously, too, but apparently you decided to blow it off as well: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton? The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works. You never did respond. Throughout that thread, I repeatedly asked you to directly justify how your definition of god could be reconciled with the second law (Message 127):
Rrhain writes: What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator? I wrote about this very specific example when discussing how one can derive the second law from scratch. It is a common example and is used in all three of my physics textbooks, which is why I also used it. You say that god expends work. That's fine. You say that god takes up energy back. That is fine, too. You seem to think that this cycle can continue indefinitely, especially since you claim that universe is eternal. But this is a direct violation of the second law. Heat to work, work to heat, what does the second law tells about this? You never responded. We have an entire thread of you not responding to direct questions put to you and you have the audacity to claim that someone pointing out this propensity of yours is a "personal attack"? So when are you going to start answering the questions that are put to you? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat responds to me:
quote: Who said it didn't? If you want emotional comfort, you would rather have someone who has experience in providing it than someone who doesn't. You seem to be saying that emotional answers are equivalent to factual answers when nobody here said they were. Since we are seeking factual answers when it comes to science, I am a bit confused as to why you want emotionality to be sufficient.
quote: So? That doesn't answer the question: When did being one of the "educated elite" become a bad thing? Your example of the "professor of comparative theology" assumes that he is incapable of giving you what you need. Said professor can be good at more than one thing, you know. The fact that he knows the theory doesn't mean he has no style or flair or sensitivity. And when it comes to science, why on earth would we not want experts? When did being an expert become a bad thing when the goal is to find accurate descriptions of the world around us?
quote: And how does that change the reality of whether or not said folk medicine actually does anything?
quote: And I never said they didn't. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. I even gave examples of times where the amateur provides a valued and needed service. However, an amateur will never be able to do what the expert can: Provide thoroughness. That is important when it comes to having accurate descriptions. Michael Faraday was a brilliant scientist...but his lack of formal training made it very difficult to accept his results. He had a good, intuitive sense of the nature of light, but he was unable to provide the formal structure that would make it able to do real work in science. It required Maxwell to provide that thoroughness and it was only after Maxwell was able to provide the formal framework that progress was able to be made. Again, Fermat is the perfect example of the talented amateur. He's one of the most respected mathematicians out there despite having no real formal training in it. But, it required actual experts to provide the formal justification for his claims. Why? Because despite the fact that he was often right, he made some huge mistakes along the way. Because he was not an expert, because he was unable to be thorough, because he could not provide the formal structure, his pronouncements could not be trusted. So once again, why it is a bad thing to be an expert? Why is it a bad thing to have answers to questions? To be able to justify them? To provide large scale descriptions that elucidate small scale issues?
quote: And that's fine. Naivete is very good for getting questions asked. It's terrible for actually answering them, though.
quote: That you find facts "cold" and "hard" is telling. That you are hinting that those who value formal analysis seem to be emotionless automatons is telling.
quote: Indeed. And your denigration of those who endeavour to be astute and critical readers is telling. When did being smart and capable become a bad thing? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024