Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

A broom like that one? All my brooms have rakish angles.But yeah it is more likely related to making news papers I guess.

Kinda addictive.

So the only scientists that count who believe in ID are those in the biological sciences who have done post doctoral work?

Presumably, that depends on what you are counting.The theory of evolution is not a theology. It is, most importantly, a framework for research in biology. So, strictly speaking, only those who are using the theory that way are qualified to judge how well it serves that purpose.Personally, I am a mathematician and computer scientist. I find biology interesting, and I count myself as an evolutionist. But I am not doing biological research, so my view doesn't really count. If biologists find a better theory tomorrow, and start using that, then if I want to maintain my interest in what the biological researchers are doing, I would have to switch to the new theory.

If they've not done post-doctoral work, it's not clear that they even count as scientists; and since Trixie was explicitly asking for scientists with "experience in biological sciences", then scientists not fulfilling that criterion would not count as an answer to her question.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I question whether anyone who hasn't done post doctoral work should be counted as a scientist, no matter what they believe.Matt Ridley, writer of a number of pro-evolution books isn't usually counted as a scientist despite having a doctorate in Zoology.The suggestion that I am only counting those in the biological sciences ignore the context of the question. Certainly those with other qualifications can be counted as scientists - but equally their qualifications don't automatically give us any reason to believe that they have any real understanding of biology or evolution. Their opinions on those matters cannot automatically be given any more credence than those of the man in the street (perhaps less, if their opinion is clearly based on prejudice). This is why Trixie wanted to know about the number of biologists in the ID movement.And might I suggest that if you find this site a hostile environment you should turn down your own hostility. If you act like this you have to expect replies in kind, and complaining would be hypocrisy.

A little perspective, perhaps.I work as a software engineer, doing the software for embedded systems (hardware systems that are driven by a microprocessor, far more common than most people know). Before working on my computer science degree, I was a foreign language major, primarily German.One of my German professors, a PhD, once shared with us his blue-collar father's views, that he, as a blue-collar "Joe", knew a little about every thing, whereas his son, the PhD, knows everything about nothing. In other words, PhDs are very highly educated, but normally within narrow fields. When a PhD says something pertaining to his own field, he should know what he's talking about. But when he says something completely outside his own field, his doctorate doesn't really lend any support there. For example, disregarding the "diploma mill" issues, "Dr." Kent Hovind has made many "scientific" claims and statements and his followers figure that since he's a PhD then he is a scientist. Well, his PhD, whether valid or not, was in Religious Education. Has nothing to do with science. In comparison, back in the 1970's there was a commercial depicting a cocktail party where a medical situation arises and somebody calls for a doctor and a doctor steps forward, a PhD in Musicology (as per Peter Schickele, made infamous by P.D.Q. Bach: "Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who cannot teach become musicologists.").So, back to your question: It is a question for the biological sciences. So are you going to accept as pertinent or as questionable the objections of someone with a PhD in religious education? That is not a rhetorical question.Here's an infamous example. Fred Hoyle was a well-known astronomer. He made some well-known probability arguments, including the "tornado in a junkyard randomly assembling a 707". They were complete bullshit; he didn't know what he was talking about. Hoyle knew something about astronomy, but he didn't know anything about biology. Does his expertise and reputation in one field transfer over to an entirely different field? Uh, no, unless he can demonstrate knowledge of that other field, which Hoyle did not do.Of course, we do have Jonathan Wells, PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from Berkeley. A member of the Unification Church, his expressed purpose for getting his PhD was in order to oppose evolution and in very short order he joined the Discovery Institute, etc. A parallel story is that of Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The ICR financed his education, during which he would publish under the pseudonym of "Stuart Nevins." He used that pseudonym to cover up his identity to his professors. During that time as a post-graduate student, he made many statements and claims that any lower-division under-graduate would have immediately known was completely and utterly false. Now as an in-house PhD for the ICR, his main claim to fame is in setting up situations that any geologist would know would create false dates, which means that he is deliberately creating "anomalous dates".Both Wells and Austin have agendae outside of science. And they have both demonstrated a willingness to prostitute the truth in favor of their agendae.OK, those PhDs in favor of ID. That has to do with the biological sciences. How many of those PhD's are in the biological sciences? What is said by those PhDs in the biological sciences? What does it matter what is said by the PhDs in the law, or even by Phillip E. Johnson, the father of Intelligent Design? Whose main objection against evolution is that "it leaves God with nothing to do." (I did honestly and truly read that article by Johnson, but have not been able to find it since then).OK, then, just exactly why do you question biological sciences expertise in a question that intimately involves the biological sciences?

Me, too. That's what makes me suspect an April Fools style joke. Static electricity at a level that wouldn't spontaneously discharge through the air to any nearby object is probably at least a couple of orders of magnitude too weak to cause a broom lying on the floor to stand on end. The typical demonstration of static electricity involves a comb and little bits of paper, not a cylinder of wood.George Lolos is apparently a real professor of physics, but either he's in on the joke or one should avoid his courses. Anyone who's played with a Van de Graaff generator has observed that even charges of thousands of volts causing sparks longer than a foot do not generate easily noticeable forces.--Percy

I suspected that it was malarky but then I thought maybe it was something that I had never heard of.I will have to recalibrate my bogosity sensor. Cheers

Although a PhD in a specific field should know more about his field than scientists from other fields, most competent scientists from a wide range of fields, can offer very valid objections if they have done sufficient research on the subject. Having certain analytical skills and a certain amount of intuition comes with being a competent scientist in my opinion. Now, if you get a large number of competent scientists from a variety of fields outside of the subject in question that object to the conclusions of the expert in the subject, I feel their objections have considerable merit. The subject of global warming comes to mind.

What hostility? I am giving my opinion. I guess my opinion is offensive to some on the face of it. I find your post to be hostile though.

What do you mean, "what hostility" ? Your post was aggressive and confrontational, falsely attributing a quite unreasonable view to me - as well as ignoring the context.

quote:

---

Although a PhD in a specific field should know more about his field than scientists from other fields, most competent scientists from a wide range of fields, can offer very valid objections if they have done sufficient research on the subject.

---

Well that's the issue isn't it. We can''t assume that they HAVE done sufficient research. And just listing people won't tell you whether their opinion is based on anything more than prejudice.Really, just giving a list of scientists (often padded with people who aren't even scientists) is more often a propaganda tool designed to cover up a lack of valid scientific support.

quote:

---

Now, if you get a large number of competent scientists from a variety of fields outside of the subject in question that object to the conclusions of the expert in the subject, I feel their objections have considerable merit. The subject of global warming comes to mind.

---

Except that it turns out that the objections didn't have much merit...

I am confused as to what you mean by people who have performed post-doctoral work. If by that term you mean anyone and everyone who is recruited to perform research after obtaining a PhD in a given field, such as those who jump right in to the path of a tenure-track position or those hired by industry or national labs to do research, OK. If instead you mean those who could not find suitable employment in their field and labor away in what is commonly advertised as post-doctoral positions at close to minimum wage, well they have my pity, but they are not the sole keeper of the flame.Just puzzled as to the terminology.

No, foreveryoung, that should read:

quote:

---

Although a PhD in a specific field certainly does know more about his field than scientists from other fields, most competent scientists from a wide range of fields can offer very valid objections if they have done sufficient research on the subject and if they can demonstrate their objections.

​

Having certain analytical skills and a certain amount of intuition comes with being a competent scientist in my opinion. Now, if you get a relatively small percentage of competent scientists from a variety of fields outside of the subject in question that object to the conclusions of the bulk of the experts in the subject, without demonstrating their objections, I feel their objections don't have merit. The subject of global warming comes to mind.

---