BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...

Subject: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:15 PM

Many a nay-sayer starts out with that proviso before giving their opinion on issues ranging from stem cell research to climate change and bunches between.

It just occurred to me that when a person says that, they are implicitly acknowledging that a scientist is better qualified than they are to speak on the subject.

So why do they bother? What do they think gives them credibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM

The fact that they're not scientists.

I don't think they're acknowledging that scientists are "better qualified" at all.

I think they're suggesting instead that scientists are self-important blowhards, while they themselves are practical, commonsensical people who can see through scientists' claims to superior knowledge.

Such people nowadays often invoke the "smell test" as the ultimate experimental procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:25 PM

Well, I'm no psychologist, but I believe that people are very fond of their opinions and like to share them with others, be they well-founded or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:28 PM

So why do they bother?

Suggest you ask the Republican Party with their history on climate change and all the rest of their "War on Science".

Or, perhaps they're just idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:53 PM

You don't need qualifications to be a scientist. At heart, all human beings are scientists. For the whole of the several millions of years of the existence of Homo, except for the last two or three hundred, all we've had to help us to explain the world are our five senses coupled with that mightiest of nature's inventions, the human brain. You go round with your eyes open, you become curious about what you see, and you try to explain it. But here's the rub: you realise that plausible explanations are possible only with evidence. Not witness, hearsay, tradition, the sayings of wise men, edicts, what you read in the Daily Mail, or, worst of all, ancient texts of dubious provenance. Once you realise what the real evidence test is, you're as mighty a scientist as Galileo or Einstein. And that does not require a university degree!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:11 PM

Soooo, to be a scientist, all you need to do is be rigorous in scientific principles and endeavours? Sounds cool. I can get with that. Unfortunately, there are many who don't, although I empirically postulate such based solely upon my cursory analyses of an unlimited sample size of bullshit which I can't be arsed to tie together because of the sheer volume of stupidity exercised ad infintum every time I hear one more idiot say shit and not back it up.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:24 PM

So, gnu, please cite your sources, both primary, secondary, and experimental.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:27 PM

Many scientists conduct research in narrow fiends, with varying degrees of certainity and resolution.

Most folks want answers to broad and far reaching questions, and want them now. Where uncertainity exists, and wherecwhat seems to be oposing science theories exist, many join the dots and meld their interpretation of sciebce together with notions to form their own conclusions (frequently lined up with those which seem the most convienent to them).

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:40 PM

I'm more concerned about the ones who claim to be scientists when they clearly have no understanding of how it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:41 PM

To add to the dilema, few scientists are interested, nor reinforced to communicate their science to the public. Among those who do, a large percentage have difficulty in making it interesting and understandable. Those few scientists who have the interest and good communication skills are frequently looked down upon by fellow scientists-who seem more interested in science precision than reaching and educating the public. The media, an important route to reach the public is often held with suspician by scientists, as the entertainement aspect is often seen as unimportant.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:53 PM

"I'm more concerned about the ones who claim to be scientists when they clearly have no understanding of how it works."

And, there is also that.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Gurney
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:56 PM

Ed T, on Dec2, did you really mean skinny devils?

grin

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:10 AM

I wondered too. In just how many forms do devils appear? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:31 AM

Two Christian evangelists knocked on my door the other day. They tried to persuade me that God exists and the He created the Universe. I asked them how they knew that. One of them patted the bricks around my door frame and said, "well, I always point to a person's house and tell them that someone must have created it!" To which I replied, "that's just an hypothesis based on an analogy; now where's your supporting evidence?" They both left rather swiftly!

In the end, all opinions are relatively worthless and equate to mere hypotheses - unless supported by convincing evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:53 AM

There can be rigorous rules of procedure to be in a position to test a hypothesis and publish your results.

However, if a newspaper wishes to discredit you with a bloke in the pub's view and they refer to him as a scientist, you are screwed.

The term scientist is much abused, hence oxymorons such as "Christian Science" but no matter who you are, what you say or the foundation of your stance, you run the risk of being "they" as in "they are telling us sugar is bad when only ten years ago they told us it was ok." "They" is a big pool of resource!

My more recent experience of this is in health. All healthcare in England is subject to, if it fits registration criteria, a regulation that says guidelines and published research must be taken into account. That is one hell of a wide statement. However, the commentary to the law (Health and Social Care Act 2008, regulated activities regulations 2010) stipulates what can be used. Accredited research for instance includes anything published in British Medical Journal, Lancet and any and all equivalents in EU, Australia or New Zealand. Only New England Journal of Medicine can he considered from The USA and Canada. All other publications cannot be guaranteed free of commercial bias in conclusion. It is made easier to rely on NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) as they work to this formula in developing guidelines.

In short, where it counts science is observed. Ironically, many U.S. healthcare providers use NICE now, including Kaiser Permanante and Evercare in many areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:59 AM

I suppose that the reason folk sometimes find scientific opinion arguable is that sometimes their work is published in the popular press, and a slant given to the conclusions which makes people look at each other and wonder why anyone would spend time to study something that looks to have an obvious answer, to the uninitiated, anyway.
The scientist is looking for Why, but us numbskulls wonder, 'why bother? What's the problem? Isn't it obvious?'
And 'how did they get funding to study that, anyway?'

Findings taken out of context, that's what I'm trying to say.
Not that I'm a social scientist. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:46 AM

""skinny devils""

Huh?

In what thread?
I dont see it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:03 AM

Ignorance is not a point of view. 'Common Sense' shows the sun passing over our heads every day. Science just a bit more tricky?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Then there are the people who think they know and understand History better than the Historians, who have got it all wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:15 AM

Would that be the history of science, K A of H?
If so, can you broaden your meaning a bit, as I haven't considered that perspevtive.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:17 AM

The term is "history" not "History."

The term is "historians" not "Historians."

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:20 AM

"However, if a newspaper wishes to discredit you with a bloke in the pub's view and they refer to him as a scientist, you are screwed."

This reminds me of the current situation vis-a-vis human-induced climate change - particularly in the US.

There now seems to be unequivocal evidence (see recent IPCC reports) that the burning of fossil fuels is leading to dangerous, and probably irreversible, climate change. If this climate change is not tackled soon the prospects for our species, and every other species on the planet, are bleak. The science behind all of this is based on hard evidence which has been published in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journals. According to the IPPC, around 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that dangerous climate change is happening and is being caused by fossil fuel burning.

But, of course, the science threatens the profits and future of the immensely powerful, and almost inconceivably wealthy, fossil fuel industry and associated industries. One of the tactics which they use, to counter the science, is to set up 'think tanks' often staffed by people with real scientific qualifications. Many of these are, in fact, retired 'Cold War Warriors' who think that environmentalism is a sort of 'communist plot' (environmentalist are 'water melons' - green on the outside but red on the inside (!)). They publish their opinions (rarely backed by evidence) in glossy, 'scientifically-respectable-seeming' publications.

The mass media, who, of course, collectively, have little understanding of science believe that they must provide 'balance' and give both sides of the 'argument'. But, in this case, balance is irrelevant - only hard, scientific evidence has any meaning.

Unfortunately, scientists know that there is rarely any such thing as certainty and tend to attach probability estimates to all of their findings. In addition the atmosphere/land/ocean system is immensely complex and there are still many unknowns (and probably always will be). Critics can, of course, always point to these uncertainties and shout: "Aha! You're not certain about the reality of climate change then!" and imply to a scientifically illiterate media and public that because uncertainties exist the science must all be wrong.

Thus the fate of our species is sealed (although, of course, the rest of the biosphere will recover in a couple of million years).

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM

Ed, in the WWI debate here, some people are challenging the findings of the historians and claiming to just know what happened.
Belief over evidence.

On the actual subject, nutritional scientists are currently challenging the risk factors previously ascribed to consuming animal fats like butter.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:30 AM

It would help if "the historians" was a single view, hypothesis or conclusion, but Keith A of Hertford inadvertently gives us an excellent example of what happens when people say "the scientists" as a single block.

"Belief over evidence." Yes, you keep reminding everybody you are a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: G-Force
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

Scientists are employees. Someone is paying their wages. So they better come up with 'science' which supports the wage-payer's agenda, or they're soon going to be ex-scientists.

Explains a lot of what goes on, and why I for one take man-made global warming with a pinch of salt. But then, I'm not a scientist ...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM

Aw, History of Science is fun, learning how Scientists suddenly became convinced in the late 17th Century that they knew it all, and steadfastly refuse to discuss how they got there and all the crap they had to dump along the way, or then to recognise that there may still be a load of it on board now, not least in the Medical profession.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:37 AM

""Scientists are employees. Someone is paying their wages. ""

If they are government scientists, one could assume the goal is "science for the public good" (unless in cases where they are pressured by their political bosses)? If financed by an industry with a direct financial interest in the result, the impartiality of their research would (and should) be under suspect. A rigid "peer review" should go far towards weeding out poor science-but, does nothing to determine what is subject to the research, nor what is made public.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

Where did you ever read all that about the history of Science, Rahere?

That brief, but all encompassing, assessment of the history of all science seems kinda off base to me. While it may sum up some personal assessments of individual scientists, quasi-scientists and politically-minded folks, it does not seem like a reasonable assessment of all science, as it has evolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

The History of Science.

Wow

How many years were you stuck to a table in The British Library? Anything you had to visit US Library of Congress for? The Bodlien takes some getting through I hear.   If you know where the contents of the library of Alexandria is, pray tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:43 AM

"Explains a lot of what goes on, and why I for one take man-made global warming with a pinch of salt. But then, I'm not a scientist ..."

Obviously not, G-Force - and so you have no qualifications in climate science then? Nevertheless, it's interesting - but rather in contradiction to your position above - that you should take the side of the fossil fuel industry ... and the people they PAY to hold denialist views (?)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM

I wouldn't be a climate denier unless the oil barons were paying me millions either.

But to do it for nothing? You are short changing your intellect G-Force, such as it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:55 AM

"and why I for one take man-made global warming with a pinch of salt. But then, I'm not a scientist ..."

Maybe gastronomy could go a little further down the list :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:30 AM

It seems to me that an awful lot of non-scientists want certainty but I do not think that that is a currency in which scientists deal. As I am not a scientist I cannot be certain of that.

By the way, NICE refers to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The name was changed some months ago. Thought Musket would have known that.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:48 AM

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I know one thing. There is only one person's opinion that really counts around here and that is 100% reliable, no matter what the subject is...

Mine! That's right. My opinion. Not yers...mine.

This has been obvious to me for a long time. And that is why I am so free about givin' my valuable opinion out to the world. The world needs my opinion. It don't need your opinion.

All the posts above this one are just a buncha rubbish, horse manure, and a lotta unfounded assumptions that don't got a leg to stand on. You might as well all just shut up, stop poundin' uselessly on the keys, and spare the world from yer vain and pointless pontificatin', coz it don't amount to a hill of beans, see?

You want the real answers to the important questions? Ask me. And be glad I am around to straighten you out on this stuff, specially you bozos in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:52 PM

Ed T, take a look at 8:27, December 2. :)
***************

You better all believe Chongo. The likelihood that he would be wrong twice on the same day would be very slim.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: gnu
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:57 PM

"So, gnu, please cite your sources, both primary, secondary, and experimental."

The answer to your request is readily available in my treatise (which is, apparently, the subject of your request) published in the Lyrics & Knowledge forum of the internUt website The Mudcat Café in the thread entitled "RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...", Dated: 02 Dec 14 - 08:11 PM.

Was this helpful? Yes __ No __

Do you want to be contacted by a research associate?* __

* Fees and taxes may apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

With regard to some of the above posts,I would like to quote a "scientist"...
" The difference between genius and stupidity
Is the genius has limits."

Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

I've been there, and bought the T shirt.


I am not a.... 

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:46 PM

Chongo, get back on your perch.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your hat off, and consequently your opinions leave much to be desired.


Anyone who fancies Bonobos..... And dislikes Gorillas!
For heavens sake!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:42 PM

Of course, the way to deal with those of us who are not scientists but disagree with the opinions of ....some, or even most ...scientists, is to give reasoned arguments that amount to more than consensus appeal, or appeal to data, that some other scientists interpret alternatively, and thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:16 PM

Opinions are never evidence, pete dear chappie. You really haven't a clue about this, have you. Don't you need a holiday?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,They're coming to take me away....
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:28 PM

These boyos believe the lads in white coats are fellow scientists...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:50 PM

the way to deal with those of us who are not scientists but disagree with the opinions of ....some, or even most ...scientists, is to give reasoned arguments...

Now THAT, pete, particularly in your case, really is hysterically funny.

Or perhaps abysmally sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:33 PM

Maybe this fellow could shed some light on the matter...

The definitive opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM

All that does LH is attract moths.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:28 PM

" ... thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence."

Now didn't someone tell me once, pete, that belief in the veracity of the Bible is based on consensus? Or have I got that wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:47 PM

and thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence.

Science doesn't do absolute evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:36 PM

Belief in the Bible is not necessarily based on consensus. It's based more than anything else on the Bible being part of a familiar cultural tradition, and that doesn't always equate to "belief" either. I've known many Christians who certainly don't believe in everything that's in the Bible, either in a literal or in a metaphorical sense...but they may still find considerable inspiration in various parts of it, particularly the moral/philosophical tales that are said to emanate from Jesus. This doesn't mean they have to believe everything that's in the book! (And yes, some of them do believe every word...but many others don't. There is no consensus in the Christian religion...rather, there are many widely differing viewpoints and that has led to the religion fragmenting into many different churches and sects in the last 2,000 years. Even within those sects there is much debate about doctrine, and it's ongoing...and probably always will be. Like other institutions the church evolves and changes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:52 PM

""Science doesn't do absolute evidence""..., nor does it claim to be in any way infallible-or claims to represent the final word on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:30 PM

But science does do absolutes. Anything else is philosophy, except when philosophy is dealing with absolutes and then it becomes some sort of theology.