Who are the scientists?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Jul 7, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Would it be fair and reasonable to ask the forum Administration, to label some of our members, as "AVATARS" and the science discipline they are accomplished in?
    It is fairly obvious in some circumstances with regards to some members and their contributions, like Grumpy, brucep, Trippy, AId, origin, and obviously Neddy rpenner with regards to the recent SR thread. And a few more I've probably missed.
    Maybe there names in red?

    It will give any newbies some inclination as to who is expressing proper mainstream accepted knowledge, from other potential billy goat type answers.
    That doesn't mean others cannot answer or give relevant information, it just highlights those that are deemed to be more likely to be correct.

    What do you think?

    Again, this procedure was in place in a past forum, of which James was contributing, and in which he was an "Avatar" for general physics if I recall correctly.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    You could start a poll. Be sure that you explain that believing in the scientific method of thought and experimentation does not qualify one as a scientist, rather that you are interested in knowing who holds one or more scientific degrees, works as a scientist, or is possibly some sort of engineer, technician or teacher of a science, or has retired from or hopes to soon start a career in such endeavors. It could be optional if the participants wish to actually identify themselves by their usernames.

    I cook using the scientific method: measurements, observation, experimentation, but that doesn't make me a scientist, does it? Just a passable kitchen assistant.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I agree. The thing is most of our reputable scientists, are reluctant to reveal themselves other then by their obvious professional answers...using of course Occams razor.
    But also as a cook you would still be able to contribute and offer thoughts...me also as a layman interested in mainstream cosmology and associated stuff.
    The "AVATARS" would certainly have required degrees, or have shown that they have knowledge that equates to that anyway.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    If the actual scientists don't wish to be immodest, better we just let them be, and as you say, their professional remarks will reveal them well enough. For the record, I am not a professional kitchen worker, I just sometimes do things in the kitchen for myself and others.

    I am also interested in cosmology. So here's one of those thoughts you say I am able to contribute even though I am just a lay man:

    black holes suck!
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    They do!
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    The problem I see with this idea is how you verify somebody's credentials. We have all sorts on these forums, some even a bit cracked in the head and I would not put it past some individuals to invent credentials. I suspect the current law of the jungle, by which posters and readers learn whose opinions they personally are prepared to take seriously, is as good as anything.

    [Since we're on the subject you might as well know that I have a degree in chemistry from Oxford, and took quantum chemistry as a supplementary subject, but it was 40 years ago and I have only dabbled in chemistry off and on during my subsequent working life so I have forgotten a lot. At least, that's what I claim and I have to leave it you as to whether I can be believed or not!]
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I never really doubted that for a minute.
    We do though have some who have been shouting there credentials from the rooftop, in damn well near every post, and promoting self grandeur, which is laughable considering the standards of there posts.
     
  11. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Have you considered that maybe things are best the way they are? Say some member is a high muckety muck of science and everyone listens to his pronouncements like messages from a Lord of the New Church. People would be afraid to challenge him. The way things are now, the muckety can pronounce all he likes, but some trolling lay man will just go on challenging him.

    Now suppose, some day, the trolling lay man is actually right, or at least makes the real scientists stop and take note. The layman could have a fresh perspective that leads one of the professionals to a Eureka moment.

    I know it's unlikely, but the present anonymity and no-special-honors-given situation makes it possible that someday this forum may be the catalyst to an important scientific breakthrough. And then all this bull shit and bickering, heartache and rhetoric will have been worth it.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You appear a reasonably nice bloke, but really and truly that will not happen.
     
  13. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    It could happen. Think of penicillin, or vulcanized rubber - accidental inventions. Think of how Edison said it was a good thing he didn't know platinum filaments wouldn't burn in a vacuum.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    We have an inherent advantage in the interplay of interdisciplinary knowledge.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Neither Florey nor Fleming were outside of mainstream science.
    Sure serendipity plays a part in science.
    I have never denied that. My point is great discoveries are near always by those in mainstream, and that goes triple for science today.
    I mean what upstart from out left field somewhere, has access to all the incredible equipment, both on Earth and in space we see today?
     
  16. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    True, but recall your OP is about labeling (recognizing) the professional scientists among us. I then raised the question if it may not be better not to know who they are. Incredible equipment on space stations aside, maybe some dumbass will someday say, for instance, 'Well, how can you be so sure perpetual motion is impossible, and wouldn't near perpetual motion that you could restart (by poking the caged squirrel) be better than fossil fuel dependency?'

    ...And the learned physicist may take pause, and...

    It would make all this shite finally, actually mean something.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Possibly: But there is also a non zero chance that life on Earth may be the only life in the Universe.
    Which in reality would truly be a miracle and one which I don't think is likely at all.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Except that's not even close to how people settle into a natural pecking order. Every one of us who have a formal education in any of the sciences can easily separate the wheat from the chaff. It doesn't matter too much if one person excelled in one area of expertise, or reached out and started exploring more general topics after specializing. All of that becomes evident in the posts. We understand each other in that we speak the language of science, regardless of who has accomplished more or less in their respective careers. It's all about the language. You shouldn't fear it. It's actually a good thing. It's out there saving lives and bringing the world out of the dark ages, turning misery into joy.

    Not on your life. "Nothing is new under the Sun." You can't have a Eureka moment concerning first principles of science, nor can you have one that amounts to anything without mastering those first principles. You can only arrive at the idea you're bringing up by not speaking the language of science. Hopefully someday you'll understand what I mean, and begin to embrace some of the elegance of nature in the way actual scientists do every day.


    The reason people argue this much is because the readership is open to lay people. If it was a closed community, the arguments would tend to be over details. But the difference is, regardless of how cantankerous folks might get, they would constantly be elevating nature, not superstition and other forms of crackpot junk science. In the language of science, the subject is always nature. You have to be grounded in the physical world to understand what I mean. In other words, if the lay people who grandstand would just sit down and shut up, the threads would flow naturally around the evidence rather than the politics, religion and crazed ideas of the uninitiated. In the first place, they should learn to respect their betters. If they never bothered to study science, why in the world are they lecturing the folks who paid their dues? In the first place it's really moronic and narcissistic. (Of course the premise was that Narcissus was actually good looking--I don't have a word for ogres who get turned on looking in the mirror.)

    In summary, I hope your experience at SciForums will bring you closer to the truths of science, so that you can get past your fear and loathing of the folks who base their world view on physical evidence. I sincerely wish you good luck on that.
     
  19. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    We've discussed this before. I don't understand why you're bringing it up now. What's it got to do with the topic at hand?
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I'm just illustrating that what you say maybe possible, but the chances are really slim.
    Life in the Universe is a favourite topic of mine and that's the comparison I used.
    Nothing more, nothing less, nothing sinister.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Ah yes, Aqueous Id. I see you are your usual self-righteous, condescending self. Do you really think people cannot see right through you? Your sole agenda has ever been to show off how smart (you suppose) you are, and your latest contribution is a prime example.

    I would ignore your priggishness as I often do, but you actually quote The Bible (Ecclesiastes, King Solomon) and how delicious, you choose a "truth" that I (The Bible Guy) actually find woefully wrong and ignorant! The sheer, memorable poetry of 'nothing new under the sun' aside, our wise Hebrew King (and the richest man ever) is quite mistaken on this count. How do I know? More delicious irony: Science!

    As crazed and cantankerous as you might find the likes of me, I do live in the 21st century and have some knowledge of the level of sciencey stuff we enjoy in these high-tech times. For instance, unlike Solomon I know that there is such a thing as genetics and DNA and mutations and stuff (that's right, stuff!). I know that every living creature, flora, fauna, fungi, virus and stuff - every one of them is a unique individual combination of genes. So every baby born in God's green world is indeed something new under the sun. Solomon was maybe too smart for his own good, wish I could say the same for you.

    Was it your awesome scientific mind and training that led you to believe me or any one else who writes here fear and loathe science?

    And who was ever discussing first principles? No one is saying some troll is ever going to come here and say something like, 'goddamit, I'm a republican and I think everyone is stupid but me, and E=Mc squared, and Obama is a jerk, yada yada' - No! it's just your usual superiority complex at work there.

    To return to the discussion now that we're past how offensive I find you, I do think a layman could have a fresh idea and just possibly make a trained scientist think again and come up with something. If you disagree, please do so without looking so far down your nose on everyone who just happens not to be you.

    BTW, if it's all about language, you ought to learn some subject-verb agreement. Sic:'Every one of us who have a formal education.' If you were anyone else, I'd allow simple human error, but you've made it very clear that you're no simple human.

    God bless!

    (See what I did there? my 'god bless' is kind of like your shit-eating 'I sincerely wish you good luck on that'. The irony is so thick in here I could choke)

    P.S. Oh so much offense, so little time. I am editing this post to go back and embolden all your most laughably condescending remarks. You're a riot! The hard part was not emboldening every word.

    Please, never ever respond to a post of mine. I am asking you nicely. I am not the least bit interested in your opinions.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I know it's not really my business, but I find it rather a pity that you two seem to have taken against each other. I've found the posts from both of you to be generally educated and thoughtful.

    I do have to agree with Aq Id and Paddoboy that today it is pretty unlikely that a total layman will have an insight that overturns important theories of science. This has not really happened for over a century now, to the best of my knowledge. But nor do I think new insights are going to happen on a forum such as this.

    I see this forum as a place for mutual education about science. I've learnt a lot since I started participating. Some of it has been through forcing me to revise what I dimly recall, and some has been stuff from fields outside my own that I did not previously know about at all. Laymen are very valuable here in that the questions posed or issues raised can be quite penetrating and challenging. In fact we would have very few discussions if it were not for them starting the balls rolling.

    As one of the people here with training in science I am quite happy for my contributions to by judged on their merits, rather than according to whether I am labelled as expert or not in the field in question. I think most sensible readers realise fairly quickly who is worth listening to on a particular topic and who is dicking around or speaking ex ano.

    The main risk is when we sometimes get a prolific crank or troll who drowns the threads with junk and gets everyone annoyed. I think that's where moderation comes in. But these individuals also fairly quickly get a reputation and can be ignored.
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    This would be a really excellent idea, IMHO. Those individuals with training by area should assume moderator status of those areas; those with actual, higher RL rank should take up higher positions in the staff accordingly. This might be an excellent solution to the problem of problem moderators, and/or of those commenting 'infallibly' on areas outside their actual expertise. For those without such training who wish to moderate or serve, institute a partnered system, perhaps. I think that would work.
     

Share This Page