Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

[yongrel]

Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Why fallible expertise trumps armchair science—a Q&A with sociologist of science Harry Collins
By JR Minkel for Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you


If you take scientists at their word, human-induced climate change is well underway, evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth and vaccines do not cause autism. But the collective expertise of thousands of researchers barely registers with global warming skeptics, creationist movie producers and distrustful parents. Why is scientific authority under fire from so many corners? Sociologist Harry Collins thinks part of the answer lies in a misunderstanding of expertise itself. Like Jane Goodall living among the chimps, Collins, a professor at Cardiff University in Wales, has spent 30 years observing physicists who study gravitational wave detection—the search for faint ripples in the fabric of spacetime. He's learned the hard way about the work that goes into acquiring specialized scientific knowledge. In a recent book, Rethinking Expertise, he says that what bridges the gap—and what keeps science working—is something called "interactional expertise". Collins spoke recently with ScientificAmerican.com about his view of expertise; what follows is an edited transcript of that interview.

How did we get to the point where scientific authority is so easily challenged?
The high point of the authority of science was perhaps the 1950s. In those days one would see on the popular television programs a scientist wearing a white coat with license to speak authoritatively on almost any subject to do with science—and sometimes on subjects outside of science. But things go wrong in the progress of science and technology. If you see the space shuttle crashing, you can see that these guys in the white coats don't always get it right.

When you discover the jagged edges of science, you start to think, wait a minute—maybe scientists' views aren't quite as immaculate as we thought they were. Maybe ordinary people's views can weigh a little more. And I think there's some truth to this, but not as much as some of my colleagues think. Having studied esoteric sciences from the outside, I know that ordinary people have no chance of grasping the details of them.

What's wrong with ordinary people weighing in on scientific subjects?
It is easy to imagine all sorts of horror stories if we abandon the idea that there are some people who know what they are talking about and some who don't. Most scientific disputes that concern the public are at the cutting edge—the place where things are not completely certain. Examples are the safety of vaccines, the true importance of global warming, the effects of farming genetically modified food crops, and so forth.

Even now, in the U.K., the relatively dangerous disease of measles is becoming endemic as a result of a widespread consumer revolt against the MMR vaccine about 10 years ago. Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to throw their own judgment into the mix. Quite a few social scientists are pushing this trend hard.

Why should the average person acknowledge that scientists might know better than they do?
It is possible to make an argument from the common sense idea that scientists know what they're talking about because they've spent much more time looking at the areas of the natural sciences that we're interested in. Normally, if somebody's spent a lot of time in an area, you'd tend to take their opinion as more valuable.

We believe that you can work out whether someone has the right scientific expertise and experience to make some sensible contribution to scientific debates. It doesn't mean they're right. What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't. Because once you stop doing that, things go horribly wrong.

That seems like it cuts both ways. Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.

In our book we too criticize creationism's pretensions to be a science, but we don't treat it as a trivial problem. Our critiques of creationism are: (a) that it stops scientific progress in its tracks by answering questions in a way that closes off further research; and (b) that there is no real attempt to meld the approach with the existing methods of science. We know that the creationists say this is not true, but their hypotheses relate to books of obscure origin or to faith rather than to observation.

How do you distinguish the people who can and can't contribute to a specialized field?
The key to the whole thing is whether people have had access to the tacit knowledge of an esoteric area—tacit knowledge is know-how that you can't express in words. The standard example is knowing how to ride a bike. My view as a sociologist is that expertise is located in more or less specialized social groups. If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group. Being immersed in the discourse of the specialists is the only way to keep up with what is at the cutting edge.

Is this where interactional expertise comes into play?
Interactional expertise is one of the things that broadens the scope of who can contribute. It's a little bit wider than the old "people in the white coats" of the 1950s, but what it's not is everybody. (Within science, lots of people have interactional expertise, because science wouldn't run without it.)

You did experiments to test your theory of expertise. What did you find?
The original version we did was with color-blind people. What we were attempting to demonstrate is something we call the strong interactional hypothesis: If you have deeply immersed yourself in the talk of an esoteric group—but not immersed yourself in any way in the practices of that group—you will be indistinguishable from somebody who has immersed themself [sic] in both the talk and the practice, in a test which just involves talk.

If it's the case, then you're going to speak as fluently as someone who has been engaged in the practices. And if you can speak as fluently, then you're indistinguishable from an expert. It's what I like to call "walking the talk". You still can't do the stuff, but you can make judgments, inferences and so on, which are on a par.

We picked color-blind people because they've spent their whole lives immersed in a community talking about color. So we thought color-blind people should be indistinguishable from color-perceivers when asked questions by a color-perceiver who knew what was going on. And we demonstrated that that was in fact the case. Now we're planning to do another imitation test on the congenitally blind to see if they can perform as well as the color-blind.

You also found that gravitational wave physicists had a hard time distinguishing you from one of their own in a written test.
I thought it's my duty to put myself through this test and see if anybody can tell. I'm not claiming my interactional expertise is really good enough to pass for a physicist, so I had to put brackets around it. There were no mathematical questions allowed. But they did involve some pretty damn difficult questions, which I'd never encountered before and which really gave me a fright. And it turned out I could work out the answers.

You've spent the past 30 years studying gravitational wave physicists. What do you like about them?
They're my ideal kind of academic. They're doing a slightly crazy, almost impossible project, and they're doing it for purely academic reasons with no economic payoff. I consider myself an academic who's made the bargain that I want to have an interesting life, and I'm prepared to have a little less status and a little less money as a result.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Why fallible expertise trumps armchair science—a Q&A with sociologist of science Harry Collins
By JR Minkel for Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you


If you take scientists at their word, human-induced climate change is well underway, evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth and vaccines do not cause autism. But the collective expertise of thousands of researchers barely registers with global warming skeptics, creationist movie producers and distrustful parents. Why is scientific authority under fire from so many corners? Sociologist Harry Collins thinks part of the answer lies in a misunderstanding of expertise itself. Like Jane Goodall living among the chimps, Collins, a professor at Cardiff University in Wales, has spent 30 years observing physicists who study gravitational wave detection—the search for faint ripples in the fabric of spacetime. He's learned the hard way about the work that goes into acquiring specialized scientific knowledge. In a recent book, Rethinking Expertise, he says that what bridges the gap—and what keeps science working—is something called "interactional expertise". Collins spoke recently with ScientificAmerican.com about his view of expertise; what follows is an edited transcript of that interview.

How did we get to the point where scientific authority is so easily challenged?
The high point of the authority of science was perhaps the 1950s. In those days one would see on the popular television programs a scientist wearing a white coat with license to speak authoritatively on almost any subject to do with science—and sometimes on subjects outside of science. But things go wrong in the progress of science and technology. If you see the space shuttle crashing, you can see that these guys in the white coats don't always get it right.

When you discover the jagged edges of science, you start to think, wait a minute—maybe scientists' views aren't quite as immaculate as we thought they were. Maybe ordinary people's views can weigh a little more. And I think there's some truth to this, but not as much as some of my colleagues think. Having studied esoteric sciences from the outside, I know that ordinary people have no chance of grasping the details of them.

What's wrong with ordinary people weighing in on scientific subjects?
It is easy to imagine all sorts of horror stories if we abandon the idea that there are some people who know what they are talking about and some who don't. Most scientific disputes that concern the public are at the cutting edge—the place where things are not completely certain. Examples are the safety of vaccines, the true importance of global warming, the effects of farming genetically modified food crops, and so forth.

Even now, in the U.K., the relatively dangerous disease of measles is becoming endemic as a result of a widespread consumer revolt against the MMR vaccine about 10 years ago. Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to throw their own judgment into the mix. Quite a few social scientists are pushing this trend hard.

Why should the average person acknowledge that scientists might know better than they do?
It is possible to make an argument from the common sense idea that scientists know what they're talking about because they've spent much more time looking at the areas of the natural sciences that we're interested in. Normally, if somebody's spent a lot of time in an area, you'd tend to take their opinion as more valuable.

We believe that you can work out whether someone has the right scientific expertise and experience to make some sensible contribution to scientific debates. It doesn't mean they're right. What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't. Because once you stop doing that, things go horribly wrong.

That seems like it cuts both ways. Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.

In our book we too criticize creationism's pretensions to be a science, but we don't treat it as a trivial problem. Our critiques of creationism are: (a) that it stops scientific progress in its tracks by answering questions in a way that closes off further research; and (b) that there is no real attempt to meld the approach with the existing methods of science. We know that the creationists say this is not true, but their hypotheses relate to books of obscure origin or to faith rather than to observation.

How do you distinguish the people who can and can't contribute to a specialized field?
The key to the whole thing is whether people have had access to the tacit knowledge of an esoteric area—tacit knowledge is know-how that you can't express in words. The standard example is knowing how to ride a bike. My view as a sociologist is that expertise is located in more or less specialized social groups. If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group. Being immersed in the discourse of the specialists is the only way to keep up with what is at the cutting edge.

Is this where interactional expertise comes into play?
Interactional expertise is one of the things that broadens the scope of who can contribute. It's a little bit wider than the old "people in the white coats" of the 1950s, but what it's not is everybody. (Within science, lots of people have interactional expertise, because science wouldn't run without it.)

You did experiments to test your theory of expertise. What did you find?
The original version we did was with color-blind people. What we were attempting to demonstrate is something we call the strong interactional hypothesis: If you have deeply immersed yourself in the talk of an esoteric group—but not immersed yourself in any way in the practices of that group—you will be indistinguishable from somebody who has immersed themself [sic] in both the talk and the practice, in a test which just involves talk.

If it's the case, then you're going to speak as fluently as someone who has been engaged in the practices. And if you can speak as fluently, then you're indistinguishable from an expert. It's what I like to call "walking the talk". You still can't do the stuff, but you can make judgments, inferences and so on, which are on a par.

We picked color-blind people because they've spent their whole lives immersed in a community talking about color. So we thought color-blind people should be indistinguishable from color-perceivers when asked questions by a color-perceiver who knew what was going on. And we demonstrated that that was in fact the case. Now we're planning to do another imitation test on the congenitally blind to see if they can perform as well as the color-blind.

You also found that gravitational wave physicists had a hard time distinguishing you from one of their own in a written test.
I thought it's my duty to put myself through this test and see if anybody can tell. I'm not claiming my interactional expertise is really good enough to pass for a physicist, so I had to put brackets around it. There were no mathematical questions allowed. But they did involve some pretty damn difficult questions, which I'd never encountered before and which really gave me a fright. And it turned out I could work out the answers.

You've spent the past 30 years studying gravitational wave physicists. What do you like about them?
They're my ideal kind of academic. They're doing a slightly crazy, almost impossible project, and they're doing it for purely academic reasons with no economic payoff. I consider myself an academic who's made the bargain that I want to have an interesting life, and I'm prepared to have a little less status and a little less money as a result.

Fields of study have their own philosophies. Talk to an artist about their field of study and they will discuss it philosophically. Philosophy itself is considered an art by the way. While art rejects being ruled by any particular methodology, the skills of the art itself are developed by schooling the artists in the many different sciences of their field of study.
In contrast, scientists have a tendency to reject their own philosophy, as they feel their field of study is superior in truth to that of art and the other metaphysical fields of study.
Paradoxically, this arrogance leaves science poorly controlled by its own philosophy.

[yongrel]

bump

[PatriotOne]

Too bad real science doesn't have anything to do with decision making anymore.

Survey Finds Bush Administration Interfering with EPA Scientists
By J.R. Pegg

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-24-10.asp

WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2008 (ENS) - The Bush administration has frequently meddled with scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a survey released today by a scientific advocacy group. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that nearly two-thirds of the 1,586 staff EPA scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained of recent political interference with their work.

The reported interference is greatest in offices where scientists write regulations and conduct risk assessments.

Francesca Grifo (Photo courtesy Sunshine Week)
"Our investigation found an agency in crisis," said Francesca Grifo, director of Union of Concerned Scientists's Scientific Integrity Program, who contends the report reflects an effort by the administration to distort science to "accommodate a narrow political agenda."

The investigation shows that researchers "are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

The report is the latest addition to a long list of complaints by scientists across the federal government who say the Bush administration has inappropriately interfered with their work and frequently manipulated science for the benefit of industry.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, has conducted similar surveys with staff at the Food and Drug Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and found comparable allegations of political meddling.

The advocacy group also published a report on climate science last year, detailing significant interference by the Bush administration with climate scientists at seven federal agencies.

This latest report contains complaints that political appointees have manipulated EPA scientific findings and analyses. Agency scientists reported inappropriate editing of documents, pressure from political appointees to scientific methods and findings, and needless delays of scientific reports.


EPA scientists in the field verify environmental sampling, monitoring, and measurement technologies. (Photo courtesy EPA)
The survey reports concern by agency scientists over political meddling with EPA's scientific assessments of climate change and with the science supporting regulation of mercury and other air pollutants.

Agency scientists also complained of interference with EPA's assessment of toxic chemicals and pesticides and with its oversight of groundwater contamination.

UCS sent its survey to more than 5,400 EPA scientists at the agency's headquarters, research laboratories and 10 regional offices.

Of the 1,586 who responded, 60 percent reported they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in the past five years.

More than 500 EPA scientists knew of "many" or "some" cases "where EPA political appointees had inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions," according to the study.

Nearly 400 scientists, some 31 percent, reported misstatements by EPA officials that misrepresented scientists' findings, UCS said.

The report said 22 percent complained of political appointees using selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.

Scientists also reported concerns about being able to openly discuss their work and about half said agency policy often fails to make proper use of its scientific judgements.

The report highlighted concern about the influence of the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB, which has broad power to review regulations.

"Currently, OMB is allowed to force or make changes as they want, and rules are held hostage until this happens," said a scientist at the agency's Office of Air and Radiation who wishes to be unidentified criticizing the administration. "OMB's power needs to be checked as time after time they weaken rulemakings and policy decisions to favor industry."

EPA officials could not be reached for comment by press time, but agency statements indicate the Bush administration is not overly concerned about the report.


EPA scientist prepares to test sensors for detecting changes in water quality that would result from the intentional release of contaminants. (Photo courtesy OMB)
The agency carefully values its scientists and carefully weighs their assessments along with other concerns when forming policy, according to an EPA spokesman, who pointed out that agency chief Stephen Johnson is a career EPA scientist with nearly three decades of experience at the agency.

But Johnson has been under fire for much of his three-year tenure as head of the EPA, most recently for a decision regarding federal air quality standards for smog-forming ozone.

In March, Johnson announced a tightening of the ozone rules, but he did not go as far as the agency's science advisory board recommended.

Democrats - along with environmentalists, public health advocacy groups and state air officials - widely criticized Johnson's decision. The chair of the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee has summoned the EPA chief to explain himself at a hearing early next month.

In a letter sent today, Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, told Johnson to expect additional questions about the Union of Concerned Scientists survey.

Waxman called the findings of the survey "disturbing" said they suggest "a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science in EPA's decisionmaking."

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, echoed that concern and said he would push for an investigation by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The survey "is a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's repeated efforts to twist, misuse, and ignore scientific facts in favor of special interests," Whitehouse said.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.





Farm Bill conference Report Called "Mixed Bag" EPA Misusing Science, Jeopardizing Children’s Health, Testifies EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee Member “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008" Ford Earns Award for Turning Brownfield Green International, National, Local Experts Gather at Chicago Botanic Garden for International Climate Change Forum Hundreds of Carbon Reducing Ideas Displayed at Chicago Botanic Garden’s “Knowledge and Action Marketplace” National Coatings Announces Support of Los Angeles Private Sector Green Building Law CERES Ranks Ford's Sustainability Report Among the "Best" in the World Amazon Bestselling Book "The Noble Wilds" Offers a Practical and Spiritual Approach to Preserve Our Beautiful Planet Fighting Food Crisis and Climate Change with Knives and Forks Startech Environmental to Have Three Plasma Converters in Former Pharmaceutical Industry Facility in Puerto Rico





Ear of Wind
By Leroy Dejolie, Navajo Nation Parks



License ENS News
for websites and newsletters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send a news story to ENS editors

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upload environmental news videos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share ENS stories with the world

[amy31416]

It's true. Scientists do know better than you, even when they're wrong. They just often have numerous issues interacting with people and expressing what they're saying in ordinary language.

For instance, the creationist thread--it irritates the shit out of me to see people bandying about words like theory, law, entropy, free energy or even an equation here and there when they've never once had to use it in a scientific context. Entropy is not simply a messy room, it is quantifiable and is used in thermodynamics equations. If you've never calculated something using it, are you really an expert? I've used in in so many equations, and I don't consider myself anything close to an expert. If I may quote:


Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension.--Willard Gibbs.

Which brings me to free energy: conspiracy theorists use that phrase to mean some wacky stuff about perpetual motion machines and energy appearing out of thin air that is available to be harnessed without doing work. Free Energy (as in Gibbs Free Energy, which is the definition I used most) is simply, the energy available in a system that can be converted into work with extraneous factors remaining constant.

You want to prove intelligent design? You're willing to argue it for 100 pages on a thread on the 'net--go take some classes and point out these fallacies to the professors that teach it and live and breathe it.

If I had a new philosophical viewpoint that I thought was superior to all others out there, I'd damn well get a degree in it and know my shit.

/end rant. Just saw someone use entropy again in that ID thread and I'm using this thread to vent. :)

[pinkmandy]

Scientists disagree amongst each other, sometimes vehemently. So then who do we believe? Oh, I have it. Always believe the ones on the federal payroll, are dependent on govt subsidies or have financial interests in supporting certain theories while ignoring others.

[yongrel]

/end rant. Just saw someone use entropy again in that ID thread and I'm using this thread to vent. :)

Yeah. I'm done with that thread. I'm no scientist by any stretch. I just am a science enthusiast. When someone tells me that a harlequin baby is God punishing mankind for being sinful, I stop wasting my time.

[Truth Warrior]

I really enjoy watching "appeal to authority" logical fallacies. Also known as "shepherds". :D

[amy31416]

I really enjoy watching "appeal to authority" logical fallacies. Also known as "shepherds". :D

Go take some classes in thermodynamics and come back when you've done the required math. Strangely enough, it really does help in understanding the three laws.

By the way, of all the science courses, it is considered the most difficult on the undergrad level--it's included in the course Physical Chemistry I. Second only to it's next course: Physical Chemistry II--try it!

I triple dog dare you.

P.S. prerequisites for the class are advanced physics 1 & 2, calc 1 & 2 (not the algebra-based calc either), general chem 1 &2 and usually organic 1 & 2.

Bring your calculator.

P.S. If I wanted to learn more and better argue religion, I'd study under theologians who know their shit. I don't argue religion without usually giving the disclaimer that I am not a religious scholar, nor am I even religious. If you want to argue science and be perceived and understood as someone who knows what he is talking about, you gotta do the homework. If you consider that an "appeal to authority," so be it. I like it when people know what they're talking about.

[PatriotOne]

Go take some classes in thermodynamics and come back when you've done the required math. Strangely enough, it really does help in understanding the three laws.

By the way, of all the science courses, it is considered the most difficult on the undergrad level--it's included in the course Physical Chemistry I. Second only to it's next course: Physical Chemistry II--try it!

I triple dog dare you.

P.S. prerequisites for the class are advanced physics 1 & 2, calc 1 & 2 (not the algebra-based calc either), general chem 1 &2 and usually organic 1 & 2.

Bring your calculator.

P.S. If I wanted to learn more and better argue religion, I'd study under theologians who know their shit. I don't argue religion without usually giving the disclaimer that I am not a religious scholar, nor am I even religious. If you want to argue science and be perceived and understood as someone who knows what he is talking about, you gotta do the homework. If you consider that an "appeal to authority," so be it. I like it when people know what they're talking about.

Barrack Obama went to Columbia and Harvard. I rest my case :D

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

[sophocles07]

Philosophy itself is considered an art by the way.

This could be said of anything.

[amy31416]

This could be said of anything.

Every undergrad and grad class I've taken in science has been in the "School of Arts and Sciences" of the university.

[yongrel]

Barrack Obama went to Columbia and Harvard. I rest my case :D

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Congratulations on saying nothing.

Obama knows what he is talking about. He's no dummy. The man taught Constitutional Law courses at the University of Chicago too. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them dumb.

But are you claiming that you are more intelligent than Obama? Because I find that hard to believe.

This is just another example of the antiintellectualism present in America.

[PatriotOne]

Congratulations on saying nothing.

Obama knows what he is talking about. He's no dummy. The man taught Constitutional Law courses at the University of Chicago too. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them dumb.

But are you claiming that you are more intelligent than Obama? Because I find that hard to believe.

This is just another example of the antiintellectualism present in America.

Apparently I am smarter than you and Obama both since you saw no problem with the statement implying there were 57 plus states in the U.S.

[LibertyOfOne]

Even now, in the U.K., the relatively dangerous disease of measles is becoming endemic as a result of a widespread consumer revolt against the MMR vaccine about 10 years ago. Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to throw their own judgment into the mix. Quite a few social scientists are pushing this trend hard.

Science forbid one owns their own body.

[amy31416]

Science forbid one owns their own body.

I don't want to get into this debate, but there's a difference when what you do with your body could possibly cause an outbreak of infectious disease that affects many, many more people than just you.

[LibertyOfOne]

I don't want to get into this debate, but there's a difference when what you do with your body could possibly cause an outbreak of infectious disease that affects many, many more people than just you.

No one has a higher claim to my body than myself. That in its self is an axiom that can't be denied.

[forsmant]

If you are vaccinated what are the chances of contracting the disease? Those who don't get vaccinated will suffer the consequences.

[angelatc]

I don't want to get into this debate, but there's a difference when what you do with your body could possibly cause an outbreak of infectious disease that affects many, many more people than just you.


Not getting a MMR shot means you might get M,M or R. It also means you might infect other people who didn't get the shot. But does that mean everybody should be forced to get the shot?

Science can be wrong. Eggs were "evil" for 20 years. Ulcers were caused by stress. There's probably more...

I liked this quote though:
You've spent the past 30 years studying gravitational wave physicists. What do you like about them?
They're my ideal kind of academic. They're doing a slightly crazy, almost impossible project, and they're doing it for purely academic reasons with no economic payoff.


It reaffirms my belief that if a cure for a terminal disease was discovered, people would release it even if it meant the money for the treatments suffered.

[forsmant]

Science has continually changed its foundations of belief. It is called learning.

[lucius]

Nice to see that you are reinforcing, yet again, the collective hive mind; this is an antiquated Fabian Socialist control technique.

From Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920, p. 290-291, in the chapter Liberty, Equality, Fraternity Reconsidered by James T. Kloppeanberg:

“Webbs’ writings exhibit a similar tendency to compromise democracy by relying on experts to advance the public interest. In his contribution to Fabian Essays in Socialism, Sidney Webb endorsed the ideal of social solidarity in words quite similar to Ely’s…

Hardy individualism no longer sufficed in an interdependent world…

To its elected representatives and trained Civil Service is entrusted the duty of perpetually considering the permanent interest of the State as a whole.

There is a difference between the dissemination of new knowledge and the manipulation of a public necessarily dependent on those responsible for informing it."

Ваш молодой и сдуру камрад

[LibertyOfOne]

Science has continually changed its foundations of belief. It is called learning.

It's not about questing the science behind it. It's more about the social and political implications of forced vaccinations and drugging.

[Theocrat]

Yeah. I'm done with that thread. I'm no scientist by any stretch. I just am a science enthusiast. When someone tells me that a harlequin baby is God punishing mankind for being sinful, I stop wasting my time.

You still haven't explained how you justify the alternative to such a notion by assuming harlequin babies are the random, natural results of evolution. Instead, you just run away from the issue like you always do. It's okay, though. I understand. The truth hurts. You may be a science enthusiast, but you definitely aren't a scientist, at least one who can deal with the implications and conclusions of his own hypothesis in an objective and rational manner. Your faith in macroevolution is blind.

[PatriotOne]

Science has continually changed its foundations of belief. It is called learning.

Try telling that to someone who just spent 100-200k getting their degree. They think they know it all and will defend their idiocy to the death using big words. They don't know what they aren't allowed to be taught. I worked 2 jobs, was a single parent, and came out of college with a 3.64 gpa. It took 2 decades after that to find out I didn't know shit but I sure spent alot of money being brainwashed, misinformed, and that the most important science and information that would actually benefit humanity is ignored. We are in the business of reducing the worlds population with our weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons. Oh wait. Creating biological weapons is fact but using them is a conspiracy theory...LOL. WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT! We just like to have them as pets ;).

[Theocrat]

Try telling that to someone who just spent 100-200k getting their degree. They think they know it all and will defend their idiocy to the death using big words. They don't know what they aren't allowed to be taught.

For some reason, this causes me to think of Richard Dawkins. He's such an ignorant, hateful bitch (Excuse my vulgarity, but there's no other way to describe him.). Anyway, check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw) out!

[LibertyOfOne]

For some reason, this causes me to think of Richard Dawkins. He's such an ignorant, hateful bitch (Excuse my vulgarity, but there's no other way to describe him.). Anyway, check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw) out!

Is this you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MHfUBGSIXc&NR=1 ?

[Theocrat]

Is this you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MHfUBGSIXc&NR=1 ?

No.

[amy31416]

For some reason, this causes me to think of Richard Dawkins. He's such an ignorant, hateful bitch (Excuse my vulgarity, but there's no other way to describe him.). Anyway, check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw) out!

Why? Because he mocks religious people?

Aren't there plenty of religious people who mock atheists and agnostics?

Can you think of many other scientists who even bother themselves with mocking anyone? Most don't care, are indifferent or know that it's a worthless endeavor. I don't know what religion any of my professors or colleagues were, it's just almost never relevant. I don't even know what some of my favorite scientists really believe about spirituality, it just doesn't matter.

Perhaps that's inconceivable to you. Not sure.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This could be said of anything.

I took a lot of philosophy of science courses at the University of Houston. The philosophy of science is considered an art when compared to the field of science although the philosophy school had a policy of concentrating on the rational aspects of science. While science focuses on conclusions and anomalies in experiments, the philosophy of science focuses on conclusions and anomalies in the different sciences and their theories.
While scientists read Darwin to learn his theory, our professor had us reading his book to judge the strengths and weaknesses of his argument. There are a lot of scientists who would think it abhorent the idea that Darwin had weaknesses in his argument. But he did in that he was poor in math and he was considered poor in logic.
The irony in Darwin's poor logic is that he is often considered the greatest scientist to ever live outside of Aristotle himself.
My philosopher of science professor mused that while philosopher Plato was belittling the artistic poets for their filth and pornographic depictions, he was at the same time writing what some think were the greatest expressions of art ever produced.
As Plato's argument went: As art is an informal expression of man, man in turn is an informal expression of God. So, the virtue in art is at least 2 steps away from the truth.

[Theocrat]

Why? Because he mocks religious people?

Aren't there plenty of religious people who mock atheists and agnostics?

Can you think of many other scientists who even bother themselves with mocking anyone? Most don't care, are indifferent or know that it's a worthless endeavor. I don't know what religion any of my professors or colleagues were, it's just almost never relevant. I don't even know what some of my favorite scientists really believe about spirituality, it just doesn't matter.

Perhaps that's inconceivable to you. Not sure.

He's a freakin' joke! He has spent his whole life trying to disprove something he doesn't even believe in! How ridiculous is that?! I don't believe in marshmallow men, but I'm not going to write books, give seminars, participate in debates, produce TV programs, and form organizations about why marshmallow men don't exist.

As a pseudo-scientist, Dawkins tries to use science to disprove something which is supernatural by nature, using induction. That's his first mistake as a scientist. I could go on and on with the countless mistakes, logical fallacies, contradictions, and foolish questions and comments Dawkins has made in his career as a so-called scientist and philosopher, but I don't have the time nor space to do such a thing. Richard Dawkins is an utter disgrace to intelligent people everywhere, and his name really suits him because he truly is a dick.

[Mongoose470]

Go take some classes in thermodynamics and come back when you've done the required math. Strangely enough, it really does help in understanding the three laws.

Yep, that damnable second law is the most misundercomprehended and misabused Law in Physics. Entropy and those accursed closed and open systems.

Forgive my Bushisms but sadly it isn't beyond the Shrub's vocabulamary.

[amy31416]

He's a freakin' joke! He has spent his whole life trying to disprove something he doesn't even believe in! How ridiculous is that?! I don't believe in marshmallow men, but I'm not going to write books, give seminars, participate in debates, produce TV programs, and form organizations about why marshmallow men don't exist.

As a pseudo-scientist, Dawkins tries to use science to disprove something which is supernatural by nature, using induction. That's his first mistake as a scientist. I could go on and on with the countless mistakes, logical fallacies, contradictions, and foolish questions and comments Dawkins has made in his career as a so-called scientist and philosopher, but I don't have the time nor space to do such a thing. Dawkins is an utter disgrace to intelligent people everywhere, and his name really suits him because he truly is a dick.

Plenty of religious people are dicks too, and often in bigger and more egregious ways than the occasional fanatic scientist.

How many "religious" people have bilked old ladies out of their retirement? How many have cheated on their wives with prostitutes, all the while saying something completely different to the masses? How many have cheated, lied and swindled, pushing snake oil and fake faith healings just for money and power? Giant egos, sociopaths--the whole lot of those Hagee/Jim Bakker/Copeland/Falwell types. Even MLK cheated on his wife. I can't think of another scientist who pimps their bullshit asking for money from the gullible and fearful masses.

If you should be disgusted by anything it should be your fellow "theologists" who bilk people. What's more repulsive? Those pastors or one lousy scientist who's on a weird crusade to make fun of religion?

[yongrel]

Can't we all just agree that people have an amazing capacity to be fuckers and move on?

[Theocrat]

Plenty of religious people are dicks too, and often in bigger and more egregious ways than the occasional fanatic scientist.

How many "religious" people have bilked old ladies out of their retirement? How many have cheated on their wives with prostitutes, all the while saying something completely different to the masses? How many have cheated, lied and swindled, pushing snake oil and fake faith healings just for money and power? Giant egos, sociopaths--the whole lot of those Hagee/Jim Bakker/Copeland/Falwell types. Even MLK cheated on his wife. I can't think of another scientist who pimps their bullshit asking for money from the gullible and fearful masses.

If you should be disgusted by anything it should be your fellow "theologists" who bilk people. What's more repulsive? Those pastors or one lousy scientist who's on a weird crusade to make fun of religion?

We're not talking about theologians in this thread. We're discussing scientists who think they know better than us, even when they're wrong. Richard "The Dick" Dawkins is the epitome of that. If you want to bash hypocritical theologians and Christian leaders, then create another thread, and I'll join you in that.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is a religious person, superstitious to be exact. He believes that man is God.

[amy31416]

The irony in Darwin's poor logic is that he is often considered the greatest scientist to ever live outside of Aristotle himself.


This is one aspect where I have to disagree. Maybe I'm weird, but I don't and never have learned about Darwin as much more than someone who speculatedl relatively wildly sometimes and occasionally hit on some good stuff.

When I think of great scientists, the following names come to mind: Bohr, Feynman, Einstein, Galileo, Fermi, Heisenberg, Meitner, Newton, Curie, even da Vinci over Darwin.

[amy31416]

We're not talking about theologians in this thread. We're discussing scientists who think they know better than us, even when they're wrong. Richard "The Dick" Dawkins is the epitome of that. If you want to bash hypocritical theologians and Christian leaders, then create another thread, and I'll join you in that.

Naw. Not interested. Not sure why you're so interested in one scientist who happens to be a douchebag. If he was truly so brilliant, he wouldn't waste his time, in my opinion.

[yongrel]

This is one aspect where I have to disagree. Maybe I'm weird, but I don't and never have learned about Darwin as much more than someone who speculatedl relatively wildly sometimes and occasionally hit on some good stuff.

When I think of great scientists, the following names come to mind: Bohr, Feynman, Einstein, Galileo, Fermi, Heisenberg, Meitner, Newton, Curie, even da Vinci over Darwin.

When someone says "great scientist," I immediately think of Gell-Mann

[amy31416]

Can't we all just agree that people have an amazing capacity to be fuckers and move on?

Yeah, alright. Moving along. . .

[amy31416]

When someone says "great scientist," I immediately think of Gell-Mann

Ohhhh, good one. Should be on the list, I have no excuse except that it wasn't meant to be comprehensive. There's plenty others I'm missing also, I'm sure.

[Theocrat]

When I think of great scientists, the following names come to mind: Bohr, Feynman, Einstein, Galileo, Fermi, Heisenberg, Meitner, Newton, Curie, even da Vinci over Darwin.

I think of these great scientists: Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and Blaise Pascal. All of these scientists were way better than Charles Darwin, in my opinion. :D

[yongrel]

Let's just forget to mention that Theocrat's idol, Gregor Mendel, laid the groundwork for modern evolutionary theory and genetics.

[amy31416]

I think of these great scientists: Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and Blaise Pascal. All of these scientists were way better than Charles Darwin, in my opinion. :D

There ya go, we're mostly agreeing here. Isn't this neat?

Though, I"m suspicious of you, these guys were probably all creationists or something (certainly Mendel was a monk, other than that, I don't know.) Still doesn't matter. I don't give a rat's ass about somebody's religion.

[amy31416]

Let's just forget to mention that Theocrat's idol, Gregor Mendel, laid the groundwork for modern evolutionary theory and genetics.

Yep. I learned Mendelian genetics prior to learning anything about Darwin.

Oh, if only everything were as simple as Punnet squares....gads.

[yongrel]

Yep. I learned Mendelian genetics prior to learning anything about Darwin.

Oh, if only everything were as simple as Punnet squares....gads.

I am so glad that Punnet squares are behind me. For years, i thought they were "Pundit" squares, which just made me think of Hollywood Squares. And that, folks, it how you get sent to the principle's office for shouting out "Bruce Vilanche for the Win" in the middle of Bio class.

[amy31416]

I am so glad that Punnet squares are behind me. For years, i thought they were "Pundit" squares, which just made me think of Hollywood Squares. And that, folks, it how you get sent to the principle's office for shouting out "Bruce Vilanche for the Win" in the middle of Bio class.

Where's that facepalm emoticon I requested over a half-hour ago?

Okay, it's funny, but I'm also overly tired and should be asleep.

[Mesogen]

The problem is that creationists see evolution as "Darwin's Theory" when it really isn't and it never really was. People had the notion that life evolves slowly over time long before Darwin. Creationists just like to attack Darwin, thinking that if they discredit the man enough, the theory of evolution will be discredited. It's ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_education

[amy31416]

The problem is that creationists see evolution as "Darwin's Theory" when it really isn't and it never really was. People had the notion that life evolves slowly over time long before Darwin. Creationists just like to attack Darwin, thinking that if they discredit the man enough, the theory of evolution will be discredited. It's ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_education

There was another dude, Wallace, who submitted a similar theory at about the same time. I think Darwin won the credit because he had more money. If only things worked the way Lamarck said they did--that'd be fun!

[Mesogen]

I think there was some other guy who came up with a hypothesis of natural selection as a major mechanism of evolution, Blyth? .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth

It wasn't the same though. Darwin took the ball of natural selection and ran with it. He made detailed observations and really fleshed out the theory first.

Before then, people were speculating on how life evolved. Lamarck had some idea that somehow the acclimation of individuals caused an acquired trait and that was passed on somehow to offspring.
Others had other ideas. Linnaeus came up with the hierarchical classification system and to many this screamed common descent. But no one had a good mechanism for this and supported it scientifically.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The problem is that creationists see evolution as "Darwin's Theory" when it really isn't and it never really was. People had the notion that life evolves slowly over time long before Darwin. Creationists just like to attack Darwin, thinking that if they discredit the man enough, the theory of evolution will be discredited. It's ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_education

Not all Christians are creationists or evolutionists. Some believe that Christ lived as the only evidence disputing evolution while He insisted contrary to those who believe in a physical manifastion that life is spoken into being. This is substantiated in Genesis when in the verse it says "and God said . . ." and in the book of John when in the verse it says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God . . .."
Darwin was great because he didn't broach a theory unless he had all the evidence necessary to do so. An example of this was his fascination with the little wings on flying insects. This anomaly just killed Darwin because he couldn't make sense of it. So, he didn't address it like he didn't address a lot of problems he confronted.
It was later found out that insects first developed the little wings to scoot across the water. There was something about insects not having the ability to evolve to take off directly from the water into the air. Mosquitos do take off from the water but use the shell they are hatched from to do so. As the insects later adapted to land from scooting across the water, they evolved to further fly in the sky.

[hypnagogue]

It's threads like this that make me wonder why I still come to these forums...

[rpfan2008]

If you are vaccinated what are the chances of contracting the disease? Those who don't get vaccinated will suffer the consequences.

http://www.whale.to/

wikipedia doesn't allow citing this site

[thuja]

http://www.whale.to/

wikipedia doesn't allow citing this site
;) interesting.

[phixion]

http://www.whale.to/

wikipedia doesn't allow citing this site

With good reason. Have you looked at it? It's a joke and has no place in any encyclopedia or source that's trying to retain some credibility.

http://www.whale.to/y/er.html

Pete

[lucius]

Experts Recommending:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/PopularScience/3-1946/med_camel_doctors.jpg

It is interesting that extremely competent Fabian Socialists formulated techniques to set policy agenda over 100 years ago. One such technique was to rely on the appearance of 'experts recommending' to manipulate the masses. Makes individuals passive, 'no need to investigate that, experts are involved.' More farming of the goyim, social engineering, EL Bernay said it best in his landmark 1928 book 'Propaganda':

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systemically."

[yongrel]

With good reason. Have you looked at it? It's a joke and has no place in any encyclopedia or source that's trying to retain some credibility.

http://www.whale.to/y/er.html

Pete

Hmm. That should be cited on every wikipedia article. That's need-to-know stuff. :rolleyes:

[yongrel]

bump