Bad science?

Of course it does. I can't imagine doing what I do every day if I wasn't passionate about it. Can you? However, letting an emotional desire to be "right" get in the way of the facts is problematic.

Well Rat, I don't really disagree fundamentally with what you've written. I do disagree from the standpoint that you are generalizing from the specific. MOST scientists, in whatever field, really don't make that much money, ergo most aren't driven by monetary gain as a primary motivation for their work. Take our very own Mammuthus. Here is a scientist whose work I am familiar with to the point that I have referenced some of his papers in my own work (a bit of it is somewhat relevant). I've even seen a televised interview with him. I guarantee you he isn't getting rich off it.SOME scientists, on the other hand, do indeed fit your description. I have long called them "corporate shills", and they work in several industries. However, even there, not all the scientists who work in these industries fit the description. As long as you are willing to admit that the "bad science" is limited to a vanishingly small subset of all scientists, then we have no further disagreement. Well, I'd say that has more to do with the subject matter than anything else. It's a topic that lends itself to emotional response. Some of that also has to do with the types of arguments - it's hard to stay dispassionate when someone comes on the board and claims that all scientists are dishonest hell-bound scumballs. What would your reaction be?

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.

Don't feel bad, crash. By EZ's and schraf's definitions, I'm evidently not a scientist either. I'm thinking of changing my job title to "Used Tinkertoy Salesman". I've always liked tinkertoys.

I was trying to be a smartass by illustrating that a number of people on the topic were playing an almost creationist card by skirting a "no true scientist" kind of fallacy. I mean, I have a total of one, count 'em, one peer-reviewed publication in my entire career - and in an obscure journal to boot (EZ's definition). On the other hand, I can glance over at my filing cabinet and see what I calculate to be approx. 2 linear meters of reports I either authored or co-authored during the same time frame. Reports with titles like, "Preliminary Biodiversity Analysis of...", "Vegetation Density and Distribution Patterns in...", "Stream-Level Macroinvertebrate Census of...", "Historical Land-Use Patterns in...", "Proposal for Ecological Restoration and Rehabilitation of...". Etc.In addition, although I don't develop theories (schraf's definition), I routinely make observations in the field that lead to the "why" questions, develop hypotheses to explain the observations, design tests to eliminate or support the hypotheses, collect data, analyze myself or with colleagues or occasionally through use of relevant experts, and use the analyses to direct strategy, modify program implementation, or develop alternatives. All in the field, in a conservation biology context. But obviously, by the "no true scientist" definitions presented in the thread, I ain't one. I can live with that. Hence, changing my job description (I wonder if I can get a refund on the unused business cards with the wrong title on 'em?) Bottom line: science is what scientists do. Ergo, if someone is doing science, they are by definition scientists.Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

I think you're right, EZ. Kind of the point I was trying to make. Moreover, there is simply no way I could do my work without the theoretical and observational framework provided by research scientists like Terbourgh ("I am not worthy"), Janzen ("Look on his works, ye peasants, and dispair"), Whittaker ("All bow down"), Brown ("Landscape ecology R us") and the myriad of other researchers, almost all of whom are academics, who have laid the groundwork.It might be a more fruitful discussion - and actually bear some resemblance to the topic - if we came to a concensus on what "science" is, rather than trying to define what a "scientist" is. That way we could make a distinction between "good science" and "bad science".

Okay. That was sort of the thrust of my question. What DOES qualify one for the term "scientists" in your view?

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"? 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. 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'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.

Alternatively, especially in many of the biological subdisciplines, an observation is made (a new organism, a complex interaction, etc), and a hypothesis is developed to explain the observation. Then, either experiments, predictions, retrodictions, or possible additional observations are outlined ("if this is true, we should see..."). Then further observations are made to test the hypothesis. If it isn't disconfirmed, then we can start assigning confidence levels to the hypothesis. The more data, the better the probability that our idea is correct. Mostly, biological scientists don't "pull something out of the air", then try and find data to support their ideas. IOW, observation first then theory, not usually the other way around as you outlined - again, at least in biology.

In science, when we talk about falsification, we are talking about observation, evidence or data that disconfirms the idea or hypothesis. The best falsifications are when you have multiple, completely independent lines of investigation or evidence that ALL disconfirm the idea (such as genetics, geology, biogeography, physics, marine engineering, oceanography, materials science, etc etc, all falsifiying one or more aspects of the Noachian Flud hypothesis). Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

If you would like to resurrect an old thread concerning the Flud, or participate in the current one (concerning insect diversity), I'd be happy to provide specifics on which of those sciences disconfirms the idea. This really isn't the thread for it, and the Omniscient Admins tend to frown on discussions that pull threads too far off topic.Other than that, were there any "specifics" you were looking for?

That's all very nice as far as your religion goes, but what does that have to do with science? And why are you bringing it up?You could also try asking yourself what difference it makes how long an idea has been around. After all, nature worship in various forms has been around quite a bit longer than your religion. Does that mean we should all sacrifice goats to propitiate thunderstorms?

And this is a response to my post how, exactly? I'm afraid I'm simply not understanding your argument. Please clarify. Two things here. One, I'm afraid definitional games centering around religion would be considered off-topic for this thread. Here we are, after all, attempting to define science and determine whether evolution or other biological concepts and theories do in fact fit the definition. Your question inre religion would be very appropriate in another thread. I'm serious, the Admins here get very testy and cranky if a thread starts going too far off-topic. I have no particular desire to be suspended for something like this, especially when there are other threads for that discussion.Secondly, there was no "challenge" in the post to which you were responding. I merely asked you to reflect on the consequences of your statement concerning the validity of an argument based on the amount of time an idea has been around. Acceptance of ancestor worship, propitiation of nature spirits, and attribution of anthropomorphic benevolence/malignancy to natural phenomena have been around much longer than 4000 years. Thus the logical extension of your intimation (that the length of time an idea has been held is correlated to its validity) would be to accept even older beliefs. I'm sure you don't agree that we should be making sacrifices to thunderstorms. This was merely an attempt to get you to realize this argument is invalid.I'll be happy to discuss whatever evidence you feel is compelling concerning the Flud on the appropriate thread. Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

Musta been somebody else. One sort of "point of etiquette" which can get kinda confusing at first is that - in spite of occasionally massive quantities of responses - we tend to try and respond directly to the arguments made by a given individual here. In other words, people aren't obligated to defend someone else's point (although they're free to do so if they desire). To the best of my knowledge, I have never stated anywhere that "religion is the opposite of science", therefore I don't feel obligated to defend that position. You might wish to check back through the thread and see which poster expressed that idea, then respond to them directly.On another (more appropriate) thread, I would be very willing to discuss whether or not religion and science are compatible, or which of the methodologies employed by science or by religion provide a better approach to understanding of the natural world, or any similar discussion. Unfortunately, as Admin has pointed out, there doesn't appear to be a connection to that subtopic on this thread. You certainly don't need to "let me off the hook" on any topic in which I am actively participating. I enjoy the challenge, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Shall we recap? If you remember correctly, the first person who mentioned anything at all about "religion" was you: This paragraph is, of course, expressing a religious position. To me, the statement strongly indicates you are a Christian Young-Earth Creationist. Alternatively, you could conceivably be a Moslem Young-Earth Creationist, or even an Orthodox Jewish Young-Earth Creationist. However, the mention of the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, appears to indicate the first impression is the correct one. Feel free to enlighten me on the subject.Be that as it may, I limited my response to a single comment: Note the generic "your religion" could encompass any of the three possibilities. However, the remainder of the post, to which you failed to reply at all, deals with the meat of your contention that the length of time a belief has been accepted correlates to its validity. Beyond that, no discussion of religion - yours or anyone elses' - was either intended or expected.As another point of etiquette on this board, it is considered very bad form to incorrectly attribute something to someone, whether statement or position, that they don't actually express or hold. If you don't understand someone (or are unsure of their meaning or intent), the best thing to do is ask them.