posted
This thread is to pose a question. There are quite a few arguments that I have read here that seem to be centered around people quoteing erroneous scientific, or more specifically biological, claims. I think most of you understand where I am going with this.
The question I am asking is who of us here at Hatrack feel that they are really qualified to cite all of these scientific theories and proclaim them as unrefutable fact? More specifically, who here has a biology degree or is specifically trained in the field? And what are their educated opinions about all of the scientific fallacy that is being tossed around here like holy handgrenades?
Not that I am one who beleives what someone says just becasue they have "Dr." in front of their name, but I do value the opinion of someone who is trained in the field of a topic over someone who can quote one perspective from one article and claim is a basis for their argument. So are there any here who are qualified to offer their scientific opinions?
Okay, before turning your thread into a fluff dump, I'll contribute that I was a science major for a couple of years. And I discuss issues a lot with my sister, who is an M.D./Ph.D. I think reading on you own is valid. I hate to think that only those who have been educated by an approved source can be taken seriously.
It is important that folks understand the nature of academic inquiry, which is very different from the new religion the media makes it out to be. I think more than a degree in science, everyone here needs to see the movie "Broadcast News".
posted
I have my B.S. and am working on a Masters degree in biology. However, in terms of the journals I have been out of the loop for a while; I was out of school for about three years due to illness and do not work in my field at present. My opinion is worth something, but I'd honestly take the opinion of a layman who was up to date over it.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a biotech major and know several doctors, and do my best to keep a layman's interest in the field. Does that count, or do I need at least a Master's? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I think reading on you own is valid. I hate to think that only those who have been educated by an approved source can be taken seriously. "
See pooka, this is what I was trying to avoid. I don't mean to suggest that only those that have studied in a particular field have anything of worth to say about the topic. But I will say that I, as a Biology major with my lowly bachalors degree, have an understanding about the background information (i.e. genetics, evolution, neurotransmitters and bio-psychology, etc.) that is useful in understanding what an arcitle states.
As I see it, you can find "research" to support just about anyting you want. And you can cite it all you like, but that dosn't make it true. What I am asking is if anyone here has actually explored the research they are quoteing and checked it's validity? Or if anyone here has the skills to do so? (i.e. professional scientific mind)
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, I'm sure everyone can admit that just because you've got a degree in a science doesn't make you an expert in the field. You cannot stay current on everything, it's physically impossible. It's entirely possible that a "lay person" is going to know more than me about something biologyesque simply because they're really, really interested in it.
Like any subject, you get to know who really understands what topics. Science as much as politics, economics, philosophy, whatever. Rather than having everyone submit their degree and all their work experience I think you're going to have to just take the time to get to know people.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, in terms of my scientific arguments - I have a science degree with a physics major. My mother is a GP (general practioner). Between the two, I get most of my scientific/biological stuff.
I don't tend to claim that as the absolute truth.
What I do rely more on is my background in law - I'm in my 5th year of a law degree, and know quite a bit about certain subjects. They're the ones I speak out on.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks Pooka, it had been a while since I saw that movie and I only saw it once. In fact I only had to see it once b/c I knew most of it before I ever saw it b/c people quote it so darn often! And now I am one of those.. Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What I am asking is if anyone here has actually explored the research they are quoteing and checked it's validity? Or if anyone here has the skills to do so? (i.e. professional scientific mind)"
I think this needs to be #3 on the "How to recognize a newbie by their questions" list. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I've never seen the whole thing all the way through, but I'd hate to think my brothers-in-law were muddying the waters.
I did get my degree in linguistics, and worked enough with academic publishing on the side to know that wasn't what I wanted to do for a living. The whole point of a study is not to lay down absolute truth but to invite others to challenge and refine it. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of how good your argument is based on your research. (universal you)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok so I am admititly a newbie... look at my post count and you can see this. Why is this an invalid question? Educate me please Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I think a few days of lurking here before you started posting silly questions would have answered that question for you. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The whole point of a study is not to lay down absolute truth but to invite others to challenge and refine it. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of how good your argument is based on your research."
Exactly Pooka! Anyone who has a science background accepts that science is thoeries and best-guesses and working explanations. I just see a trend around here of people citing a study and saying, "This is fact and you can't argue with it," when they don't understand that research is a work in progress and also open to interpretation. It's that same feeling I get when talking with some (not here at Hatrack though) on theology and they say "Well this is Biblical, you have to accept this" over a trivial point that we don't agree on.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing based on science or biology is ever irrefutable fact.
However, I reserve the right to present anything I am reasonably confident in as a refutable fact.
Furthermore, I'd expect people to trust me unless they have some reason not to, and reject my claim if there's some reason to. Nobody on this forum or anywhere should be considered an irrefutable authority on anything, but nor should we assume people are making stuff up without good reason.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I majored in Biological Sciences with an emphasis on genetics (I took Genetics, Molecular Genetics, and Evolutionary Genetics, along with other courses that contain genetics material), and am currently in Med school (2nd year). I have a quite reasonable foundation in Genetics, and biology in general. I often do extra background research before posting to make sure my claim is supported in the literature (using PubMed, textbooks, medical collections like eMedicine, books by prominent scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, syllabi, and notes).
Your question is a fair one.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So are there any here who are qualified to offer their scientific opinions?
Given that none of us can verify the claimed credentials of anyone else on this forum, no one is truly qualified to offer scientific opinions and have them accepted on the merits of the poster alone. Scientific opinions need to be either explained in such a manner as to be "self-supporting" either by logically building on generally accepted principles or with links to credible evidence.
However, each reader's past evaluation of information offered by a particular poster can lend credibility to otherwise unsupported statements. I'll take fugu's unqualified statements about computer science, CT's about medicine, etc. unless I happen to know something contrary or additional to what they've posted.
posted
More of a debater than a what? I'm not sure I understand.
And no, I wouldn't really call myself a debater, because debaters are often people who treat debate as a game played to win - which could not be further from the truth. I'd guess call myself a philosopher, because I'm mainly interested in understanding stuff and discussing ideas - and couldn't care less about whether I have played the debating game by the rules and won the most "points" or convinced the most people or sounded "elegant" (whatever that's supposed to be). That's why I'd hesitate to associate myself with being a debater.
I'm about to have a degree in chemical engineering. This means that when people start talking about, for instance, oil, I find I'm qualified to speak out.
Biology, not so much. I just ask BtL.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, on the other hand, am a debator. I try my very best to stay current in all fields, impossible as it may be. And I will never cite information without multiple verification, usually listed along with the citation.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I tend to stay out discussions that require knowledge in a particular area because I inevitably "don't know the half of it." Not everyone is as willing to concede that their research isn't as complete as they'd like to think, and that makes for some frustrating conersations. Basically, I think PV is just trying to address the idea that it's important to gather information from multiple sources before claiming the validity of the information.
In terms of my own area of "expertise" it's very similar to validating sources in journalism. Not all journalists have their own education on the subjects they write about, and it's important to make sure sources are accurate. No, you don't need a degree to debate a topic, but it is easier to take imformation presented as "fact" from an expert than a layman, and as a result it's harder for laymen to be taken seriously, whether they know what they're talking about or not.
I think I just proved my own point. I'm sort of trying to defend PV because he's my friend, and I don't think he's accusing anyone specific of anything, but I'm not sure if I got my point across. Give him time, though. He's really a great guy.
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit is a science Phd, though I can't remember what field. She occasionally checks in to debunk or drop some wisdom on us.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I think this is an important thing to discuss![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
thanks Pooka, it had been a while since I saw that movie and I only saw it once. In fact I only had to see it once b/c I knew most of it before I ever saw it b/c people quote it so darn often! And now I am one of those.. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
