Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

quote:

---

How about 24 years in the field practically applying things in science?

---

Do you mean your own experience, rat?What science do you do?

I think that having a science-based education is not always a protection against personal bias, particularly if one has not gone the whole way to the PhD level and actually develops and tests theory for a living.Working "in science" is not the same as "being a scientist".

quote:

---

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.

---

In the public sphere..perhaps. Though my experience in the US is that there is almost no attention paid to science even in the popular press. At least not in comparison to Europe where there are several daily programs dedicated to modern science. Actually quite good programs. But the working scientists life has not changed. Nobody believes anything you say unless you can support it with data...and in some cases, they still don't accept it until it would be absolutely ridiculous not to. It can be frustrating but it keeps the system going..though it is only practiced by the small core group of scientists in the world actually involved in science. As schrafinator points out, the students often are not able to make the distinction and can let bias enter more easily...but that is why they train.I am still in Germany...but only for a few more months..then I trade in my saurkraut for a professorship and better weather.

I would agree, with the exception of having to reach PhD level. Even at the master's level one is involved with developing and testing theories (or at least they were at my schools), and one may go on to work in scientific organizations at a level where the same methods are employed. This is true. There is a difference between being a lab assistant with little knowledge, and being a person who engages in actual work with collecting and handling data or designing/overseeing project development.

---

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

Check out post #10, where I've refined my question a bit. I'd be interested in seeing what your answer is.

---

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

How about this for a crazy idea - why don't we judge the credibility of someone's post based on its accuracy and factuality? Rather than on the alphabet soup someone decides to pretend comes after their name?Who is right and who is wrong will become instantly apparent when their posts are compared to the facts. I don't see the need to base credibility on anything more than that.

That is somewhat true, but pop science sounding ideas do make their rounds of the press and people do seem to eat it up. Ah, I am glad you said this. I can't speak as to how it has changed, but I can discuss what I have seen as problems arising for science and science programs, based on the exact issue we are discussing.With the idea that anyone can be a scientist, people do make it into the science world and do effect it. We just saw the case of the Bush appointee trying to change things at NASA. From my experience that is how things occur within the gov't, and it is not just creos doing this (or ID supporters like this appointee).I have said before that a manager in charge of projects at the org I worked for, when confronted with questions from scientists on methodology and data, actually announced that they did not care about data (ironically slipping and even saying did not care about science), that what was important is that people BE CONCERNED. After all, it was a hot topic and they were concerned about it and thought everyone else should be. This person related to an astonished group of scientists that their level of science knowledge was enough. The person was an art major who read science magazines and so could use some science lingo and "pose" as a someone who knew science.This person, due to power of their position, was able to divert a review program (peer reviewed and recommended by many other orgs including NASA) so that the data and hence their message would go through unchallenged as official science findings for this gov't body.I had been warned (before beginning my job) that I would never trust a gov't study again, unless I personally double-checked its methods and if I could, the data. They were absolutely right.We do have modern science "Myths" being generated, and we do have self-professed pro science people getting into positions to effect research and data so as to propagate their version of "truth". I miss better weather.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 04:04 PM

---

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

One just needs the ability to reason and an overall grasp of whatever the theory is (like an understanding of natural selection in evolution). I read this book on evolution by Ernest Mayr and there were certain genetic concepts I didn't grasp, but what I did grasp, I think, is what was important to understand and what it was that was not essential to grasp. Science is important in a practical sense. If advances in medicine can make me live longer and healthier, then I think that's mighty important. Theoretical science about big issues like evolution or astronomical matters is interesting, but I don't know that it has much effect on the viewpoint of masses of people. One movie might have more effect. I haven't studied science because it's not my field, not the thing I do well (to the extent that I do anything well). Some people are better in other fields. I can think but I can't calculate.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-02-2006 09:14 AM

quote:

---

I would agree, with the exception of having to reach PhD level. Even at the master's level one is involved with developing and testing theories (or at least they were at my schools), and one may go on to work in scientific organizations at a level where the same methods are employed.

---

In my experience as an observer of several people studying to get PhD's at the third-ranked Cognitive Psychology program in the country, there is a big jump in what is required of a PhD candidate compared to what one needs to do to get a terminal Master's degree. The level of intensity of study, amount of work, and expectation of excellence is ratcheted-up considerably after they pass their Prelim's.That's why most people starting out intending to pursue a career as a professional academic scientist don't make it.Certainly, this is an extremely limited sample so take it for what it's worth.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-02-2006 10:30 AM

So you would say formal logic and some information about a field (including specific topics)? Heheheh... I'd agree with that. Do you feel this places limits on what you can discuss? What are they?

---

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

Well I'd agree with the intensity of study and the amount of work, but I'm a bit uncertain about expectation of excellence. That may differ from school to school however.I'm more concerned about the nature of the work and master's and phd work are essentially the same, except in size. In addition some fields only require masters in order to go out and work as a scientist in that field. Its not unusual to see people leave in order to make money doing the same work and producing results in the same way.

---

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

quote:

---

That may differ from school to school however.

---

And/or discipline to discipline.I was involved in Ph.D programs in two different subjects at two different schools. One, I would say that the quality of the students' research was pretty good and indeed advanced the field, even if in minor ways. The goal of the program was to produce researchers; there is a place even for scientists who are not necessary at the top of the field.The other, the students could expect a lot of "assistance" in their research (including, in one case, the advisor actually writing the dissertation himself), and the research topics were, in my subjective opinion, rather uninteresting. The goal of the program was not to produce researchers, but to produce people capable of teaching at a small, non-research oriented college.By the way, to put my opinions in context I failed to get the Ph.D. in both cases.

---

"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

I don't think the study of FORMAL logic is necessary. Many can recognize a contradiction or a fallacy like "begging the question" when they see it, even if they don't have a label for the fallacy. Logic is a natural faculty. Yes, of course. The biggest problem I have is with unfamiliar technical terms. In fact, I become annoyed at times with what looks to me like unnecessary and pretentious jargon. My view is that if you understand something, you should be able to write it in clear and plain language, no matter how subtle or complicated the idea.However, I realize that "jargon" is relative. What's jargon to me might be everyday vocabulary for somebody else. They don't even think of it as jargon.

Holy... I've heard of advisor's taking credit for work without merit, but never actually doing work for a student.Did the student do well?

---

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

I agree. And I agree with your comment about jargon as well. I do not believe this. Correlation meaning causation is not logical and yet is a basic, or natural way of thinking. Its one of the things that formal logic (or practiced logic) ends up reigning in.

---

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