Debating science with the non-science

S.A.M. said:
Yeah, I've been doing that here. Has it worked? ;)
Click to expand...

Somewhat.
I do think that this was a "special" claim though.. I was actually shocked that someone thought that.
It is ridiculously basic and frankly just common knowledge that trees are alive.
I wouldn't have acted in this way if it was a 'normal' claim.
 
S.A.M. said:
I'm disappointed that the average response to questions by non-science posters is
argue1.gif


Thats not an argument that would convince me.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate the intention of this thread, your post above implies strongly that 'convincing' is the overriding verb for these interactions. The OP uses the word 'debate'. Debates tend to have formats with winners. It is a competitive enterprise. I would suggest replacing debate with 'discuss' and to consider a wider range of options than 'convincing'. I realize that you may have written the OP as a response to the obvious desire to debate and convince and wish to problem solve given that desire, but, nevertheless, I wish to push the conception to something more complicated.
 
Enmos said:
Well, we are at a science forum. I can expect people to at least know the scientific definitions..

I don't get your use of "unless" here..
Click to expand...
I read some of your posts here in this thread Enmos. Here's the OP.

How should people in science fields debate scientific topics with those who are not in science fields?
Click to expand...
Are you 'in a science field'?
Which one? In what way are you in it?
 
Ultimately, the aim of all scientists is to convince, either their peers, their students or the lay people. Otherwise, its not possible to move forward in science. Of course, scientists are also willing [mostly] to be challenged on theories they have been convinced about. There is a notion of TRUTH in science, although science itself proves nothing.
 
S.A.M. said:
Ultimately, the aim of all scientists is to convince, either their peers, their students or the lay people.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The aim of scientists is not to convince anyone. The goal of science is to discover the truth and the truth needs no defending. A good scientist can make discoveries all by his or herself in a lab without ever convincing anyone of anything. Convincing peers and students is all about ego and is the goal of rhetoric and sophistry.
 
S.A.M. said:
Ultimately, the aim of all scientists is to convince, either their peers, their students or the lay people. Otherwise, its not possible to move forward in science. Of course, scientists are also willing [mostly] to be challenged on theories they have been convinced about.
Click to expand...
I would have thought the aim of most scientists can arguably be to gain knowledge. Further given that scientists are human beings and are 'not working' while they participate here, the range of overriding goals seems like it could be pretty wide. And a reading of the threads backs this up. If the overriding verb on the scientists side is 'convince' then they will likely only learn debating skills, at best, via practice.

I can see where this is more likely to be the stance AFTER certain posts in the Science forums, but see it as less appropriate in other forums here.

If someone pops into geology and says the earth's core is solid ice, I certain expect that 'convincing' becomes the early verb and 'dismissing' the later one, unless somehow someone comes up with some very interesting new information. But in the philosophy, religion, hell even human science forums this seems off base and limiting.

For examples

investigating
exploring
checking one's own assumptions
reevaluating
cataloguing
refining
trying on

seem like, off the top of my head, some useful main verbs to consider.
 
Sort of like Galileo arguing his theories without evidence and being surprised when he was rebuffed by the scientists and influential funding agencies of the day. The most convincing argument wins in science, based on methods that consensus dictates measure what is proposed. The tools and theory may both be wrong, as the geocentric theory was, but unless you can convince people about it, its not going to matter much.
 
S.A.M. said:
Sort of like Galileo arguing his theories without evidence and being surprised when he was rebuffed by the scientists and influential funding agencies of the day. The most convincing argument wins in science, based on methods that consensus dictates measure what is proposed.
Click to expand...
Was this meant as a response to my post? I hope not.
 
Simon Anders said:
Was this meant as a response to my post? I hope not.
Click to expand...

It was. Did you find it inadequate? You assume, I daresay, that people come here to have their views challenged. I work in the field and believe me, thats not really an issue. Most people just want a convincing argument to the next funding stage. I'm learning to "play the system", its a facility that keeps me employed. :D
 
Simon Anders said:
I read some of your posts here in this thread Enmos. Here's the OP.


Are you 'in a science field'?
Which one? In what way are you in it?
Click to expand...

I studied Biology at university level, but I do not work in that field.
I don't see why you quoted those two posts..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top