Debating science with the non-science

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. 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.
Click to expand...
Did Galileo spend his time trying to convince people he was right? No, he spent his time looking at the firmament and making discoveries.
 
I think he was asking me. I have a double graduate degree in Nutrition, ten years apart [I switched from clinical to molecular] and am working towards my PhD. Currently, I am employed by a lab as a research associate.
 
OilIsMastery said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I feel that the truth does need defending when smeared.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Did Galileo spend his time trying to convince people he was right? No, he spent his time looking at the firmament and making discoveries.
Click to expand...

I see you know as much about Galileo as you do about organic chemistry. :cool:
 
OilIsMastery said:
He was defending himself at times because he had to not because he thought that was the best way to allocate his time as a scientist.
Click to expand...

Galileo was an arrogant SOB who insulted prominent people [who funded his research] in public because they would not accept his theories without any evidence. In fact, the big joke is on him, because he ignored Keplers work since he considered him a poor scientist and had his book sitting on his shelf for years, unopened, when it could have given him the last bit of evidence he needed to confirm his findings.
 
S.A.M. said:
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
Click to expand...
Wait, are you saying you come here to improve your funding?

Also my post did not assume that everyone comes here to have their views challenged - in fact that's what debates are all about.
 
Simon Anders said:
Wait, are you saying you come here to improve your funding?

Also my post did not assume that everyone comes here to have their views challenged - in fact that's what debates are all about.
Click to expand...

I'm only the moderator, my job is to find ways to keep the discussion going and to adhere to my own subjective standards. I find real life to be a pretty good barometer of what works in discussions, and I try to provide those tools.
 
Enmos said:
I studied Biology at university level, but I do not work in that field.
I don't see why you quoted those two posts..
Click to expand...
It seemed like you took the OP to be directed to you. I hesitate to say whether having studied Biology at University put you 'in the field' or not. I also did that but even with a degree I do not tell people I am in the field of biology. I thought SAM was addressing experts working in the various fields of science and asking them how they should deal with non-experts.
 
Simon Anders said:
It seemed like you took the OP to be directed to you. I hesitate to say whether having studied Biology at University put you 'in the field' or not. I also did that but even with a degree I do not tell people I am in the field of biology. I thought SAM was addressing experts working in the various fields of science and asking them how they should deal with non-experts.
Click to expand...

I think the challenge on a forum like this is to apply your critical thinking skills to concepts that do not arise from critical thinking. Most scientists have poor people skills and even with good ideas, achieve very little in terms of advancing science in society.
 
Simon Anders said:
It seemed like you took the OP to be directed to you. I hesitate to say whether having studied Biology at University put you 'in the field' or not. I also did that but even with a degree I do not tell people I am in the field of biology. I thought SAM was addressing experts working in the various fields of science and asking them how they should deal with non-experts.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I am in the field.
I only reacted the way I did because I think SAM made this thread because of this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83622
 
S.A.M. said:
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
Click to expand...
Sad. All so-called "scientists" care about is the next buck and next hoax to scam billions of dollars from taxpayers. They will say anything as long as it convinces the check writers. The truth they couldn't possibly care less about.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Sad. All so-called "scientists" care about is the next buck and next hoax to scam billions of dollars from taxpayers.
Click to expand...

All scientists care about is that they are allowed to work. There can be a surprising amount of integrity, even playing the system. It does not help that those people who are giving the money don't share the same sense of adventure and risk taking initiative, all they want is a return for their grant.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think the challenge on a forum like this is to apply your critical thinking skills to concepts that do not arise from critical thinking. Most scientists have poor people skills and even with good ideas, achieve very little in terms of advancing science in society.
Click to expand...

OK. And as a religious scientist you might then connect this lack of people skills to a lack of other abilities. But that is merely an aside.

I sort of hope that scientists do not view sciforums as primarily 'advancing science in society'. IOW as a 'how do I get this knowledge into that head' kind of enterprise. This means that one comes with the knowledge already set up and ready to be transferred and the only issue is 'can I get it in there'. Seems like we have institutions that are better set up for this purpose and also that it is the sort of thing one should be paid to do, at least with non-family members. It also means that knowledge is complete on one side in any interaction.

Seems an odd form of self-sacrifice.
 
Simon Anders said:
OK. And as a religious scientist you might then connect this lack of people skills to a lack of other abilities. But that is merely an aside.

I sort of hope that scientists do not view sciforums as primarily 'advancing science in society'. IOW as a 'how do I get this knowledge into that head' kind of enterprise. This means that one comes with the knowledge already set up and ready to be transferred and the only issue is 'can I get it in there'. Seems like we have institutions that are better set up for this purpose and also that it is the sort of thing one should be paid to do, at least with non-family members. It also means that knowledge is complete on one side in any interaction.

Seems an odd form of self-sacrifice.
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy to raise understanding of and respect for nature for free. Too many people lack it..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top