Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

quote:

---

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

---

Logic is not something that humans do very well at all. Particularly, abstract logic is very difficult. That's why gambling is so profitable; very few people can think through the implications.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's induction, not logic.Look, I've done a decent amount of reading on this subject and I'm quite sure you are wrong about logic being natural to humans.You can choose to remain incredulous on the basis of your own (I am guessing, uninformed) personal impressions on the matter, or you can do some reading yourself.You can start with this page.

No, it isn't "simply a way of looking". Science involves careful measurement and testing. It is not just looking, it is knowing what you are looking at by means of rigorous examination of data. No, a theory is not an "educated" guess. A theory brings with it new concepts, new ways of understanding, new ways of investigating.

Induction is a form of logic.

Deduction:My Mommy said that we will live forever.My dead dog is a "we."Therefore my dead dog is not really dead.

I'd say it would depend on the university you're at, and the supervisor you're under.I'm in my masters right now, and i'm pretty independent, and have done and am going to be doing, all the things you listed for a PHd. Of course, i have a supervisor with high expectations While having lunch one day, this subject did come up in the tea room, and i posed the question, to a retired professor. He said that the main difference is that a Phd's research aim, and possibly, findings are expected to be original; something that has never been done or found before.This message has been edited by U can call me Cookie, 03-03-2006 09:14 AM

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

I'm with Crashfrog on this. If you can't defend an argument without flashing your qualifications around, you've lost.Most of the scientists I know have about as much insight into Science as the average car mechanic has into Transport Policy.

---

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

Thanks!
Not to drag things too far off topic, I hope that I am not leaving Europe for good. I hope the EU gets its act together over the next decade and actually makes it possible to do research rather than allowing themselves to fall further behind the US (and now China and India as well). If I can get something back in the EU in the next 5 or 10 years, I might be tempted to return. I am skeptical because I am usually advising Germans how to get jobs in the US since they are being forced to jump ship. Really sad actually...at least to the consternation of the creos here..I will be teaching evolution

Holmes, Not necessarily, but mostly I agree. Wasn't the aquatic ape hypothesis perfectly good science yet formulated by a non-scientist? I know it's not accepted mainstream science, nor do I find it particularly compelling, yet it deserved a better hearing from the scientific community rather than the derision that it actually received, because it was good science in that it adhered to the scientific method & supported its own claims.Perhaps that turns it on its head a bit. Mark

---

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

Mammuthus, Don't.....hold.....your.....breath.....Europe is the mother of all beaurocracies.Mark

---

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

Indeed, it is often the case that scientists from distinct disciplines can bring novel insight into an unrelated field. Francis Crick did not start out as a biologist for example. However, this is different than bringing completely non-scientific backgrounds or hypothesis from one discipline to another such as Michael Behe does. He demonstrated in the Dover trial that he knows diddly squat about molecular evolution and stunningly little about forumlating scientific hypotheses. On the other hand, I worked with a mammalogist who knew little about molecular biology but through hard effort and research managed learned enough to shake up the field of Late-Pleistocene extinctions with a very interesting and testable hypothesis. Whether it holds up or not is irrelevant. It just illustrates that without a degree in the specific field, he was able to marshal his talents as a scientist to apply them to an unrelated field. Laypeople are also capable of doing this provided they put in the effort. Lots do...too many don't.Reading through the thread, it seems the consensus is that credibility is given to those who can support their position rather than those blathering about their degrees which is good. It is also why creo's fail so badly in the debates since they never support their assertions and in several instances, have used appeals to authority (or dubious texts) as their sole "support".

In general I'd agree with that PhD is supposed to be more independent. However I have to agree with Cookie, like the other issues you had mentioned it comes down to where and who you are doing work under.I was fortunate in going to Universities, and worked under professors who pretty much demanded original and independent work. Non thesis literature research was somewhat guided (I assume so that they'd be better at judging quality of one's analysis), but thesis research and experiment was novel and wholly independent.Also I should note that there seems to be a difference between US and foreign university approaches. Even at the undergrad level here (at least in the netherlands) there is much more independence and originality demanded.

---

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

I agree with this. I was not arguing that discussions be conducted in the form of appeals to authority. I was raising the question if verbal commitment to science and rudimentary understanding of scientific theories are sufficient to discuss science as if one was engaged in scientific practice, and to consider onesself a "scientist". There are technicians in labs, and yes my question would apply to them as well. There are also just plain bad scientists. Its hard for me to believe that "most" scientists have no knowledge of the discipline they are in.

---

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

I think there is a problem with science not listening to well reasoned possibilities from outside of science... and sometimes inside science if it just isn't popular. There have certainly been developments (partcularly in medicine) which came from (technically) outside the field.

---

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

Well I already proved in another thread that I do in fact develop and test theory for a living, and in my hobbies.Also what does being a scientist have to do with the ability to understand and talk about science?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.

I agree that appeals to authority are not correct, and its nice to see people backing that up. But what I was in a way suggesting is that some people with a lack of knowledge in science to some extent "buy" credibility they do not actually have, by using lingo from science and acting as if support of a theory in science is to defend science and be scientific.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. Indeed some even use it against scientists in their own field, treating a disagreement with them as somehow turning their back on science, because of course "they use the scientific method"... but do they, and why does that mean the scientist doesn't?The creos don't have that ability to make such statements to be sure, but I find it is a problem that crosses both lines, and I have concern over the popularization of appeals to self authority based in allegiance rather than practice. ID is a good example of a shift by creos to using that same formula.In a previous reply to you I noted what I had seen of that effecting science in a real way. Coincidentally there was an article in the Christian Science Monitor on this just today. It is focusing on Bush to some extent, but it notes that it has been there, and it sure as hell was in there under Clinton. Only the focus was different. From the article... and This is exactly what I saw happen and it wasn't a Bush appointee, and it wasn't even just public affairs. And the person played the "everyone can be a scientist" card to undercut data to drive policy based on personal feelings.I don't want to stifle debate, and I definitely don't want "higher degree wins the day". I am really seeking a bit more of what EZScience suggested, which is a realization by those who like science and support it, to recognize better what their limits are in speaking to matters of science and methods within science (even if it is out of field). To not use their enthusiasm for science (or a particular theory) as an authority to wield over creos or anyone else.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-03-2006 12:24 PM

---

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