Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

Hey Icedog, As far as President Clintons statement, I don't see arrogance, as long as they aren't trying to convince us that a lie is the truth. As for the Iraq war, I don't know with any certainty if it was scare tactics or otherwise, but if it was scare tactics all I can say is that two wrongs do not a right make!

First, as usual I have to agree with the properly averaged statement of my friend Jimbo. And I can go further elaborating on intelligence, training and the statistically insignificant data that he quoted, but I won't, as that may just melt the puppy.

Anyways, the percentage of scientists who signed the petition we are discussing is larger than that of the scientist in the general population, so I guess you can call that group more scientific than your average petition signers, if that makes you happy. I was just objecting the definition of 'scientist', you don't have to agree with me, but if you don't really give me any argument the chances of me taking seriously whatever point you're trying to make are zero.

Originally Posted by icedog

I gues because I have no degree at all my reasoning abilities lie somewhere between those of a large ashtray and 500ml of pond scum.

Uhmm, what can I say, I hope tha i's not the case, but your analysis of my statement is failing to demonstrate this.

Originally Posted by gugi

First, as usual I have to agree with the properly averaged statement of my friend Jimbo. And I can go further elaborating on intelligence, training and the statistically insignificant data that he quoted, but I won't, as that may just melt the puppy.

Anyways, the percentage of scientists who signed the petition we are discussing is larger than that of the scientist in the general population, so I guess you can call that group more scientific than your average petition signers, if that makes you happy. I was just objecting the definition of 'scientist', you don't have to agree with me, but if you don't really give me any argument the chances of me taking seriously whatever point you're trying to make are zero.


Uhmm, what can I say, I hope tha i's not the case, but your analysis of my statement is failing to demonstrate this.

Ouch!! And I was trying to tell him that you mean no harm Gugi.

But it's true I don't mean any harm (or if you'd rather: I don't mean no harm).
I did not call anybody charlatan, just wanted to point out that in my opinion some people do not have the training and experience to qualify as a scientist.
And you also don't need a majority in order to be right.

Originally Posted by gugi

But it's true I don't mean any harm (or if you'd rather: I don't mean no harm).
I did not call anybody charlatan, just wanted to point out that in my opinion some people do not have the training and experience to qualify as a scientist.
And you also don't need a majority in order to be right.

I agree with you, but you left no cushion for the poor guy! I guess he didn't either though.
Oh, "I don't mean no harm" is incorrect as it is a double negative! "I mean no harm" would be the proper way!

Originally Posted by gugi

To me a bachelor's degree it not a qualification for a scientist. It's got to be at least M.Sc. to count. It is not hard to be a 'lab monkey', push few knobs and get a readout. To properly interpret the data and make valid conclusions you need a lot more, hence a minimum of at least M.Sc. to qualify. If you have medical tests done I assume you wouldn't rely on the opinion of the lab technitian, but rather have a M.D. tell you what do they mean. Not that the lab technitian can't tell when it's a black/white, but usually things are rather complex and you want the training and experience of a qualified person.
Or in the case of a DNA sequencing - the data that a B.Sc. can produce by running a million dollar machines is useless. If you are looking to link a particular gene to a condition, the analysis that needs to be performed on the data requires methods that are beyond the aparatus of a B.Sc. and most M.Sc. degree holders. It requires skills that you get a Ph.D. for.


Yes there's a lot of politics and there is some science. The fact is, if you get down to it and dirty your hands, science may look rather ambiguous, especially to the novice, but over time things do get sorted out. However in our society the politics is the deciding factor, hence the push from both sides to sway the public opinion however way they can.

Just a comment, my sister does the research, not me. I'm just an enlisted helicopter rescue swimmer, and sometimes do other helicopter roles related to and involving combat. You are speaking Greek to me.
As to whatever you consider a "scientist" be my guest. She does have a masters, she is published, and has been involved in a lot of different research projects in which the majority of the actual *ideas* were hers and her teams, but the credit, of course, goes to the person managing the team-usually with a PhD, I've been told the projects, and I've heard then quickly forgot. Biology, chemistry, genetics-not my thing. They wanted to send her to the UK to do research there, but she is staying as that would put her PhD on hold. I'm hoping to attend that graduation when she achieves it prob. this year, although knowing her she will simply remain in school for another in a different field.
......anyway....



John P.

Originally Posted by gugi

But it's true I don't mean any harm (or if you'd rather: I don't mean no harm).
I did not call anybody charlatan, just wanted to point out that in my opinion some people do not have the training and experience to qualify as a scientist.
And you also don't need a majority in order to be right.

Of course some people don't have the training nor experience to "qualify as a scientist". That doesn't need to be said. However you didn't allow for experience as a teacher. You said that people who don't have a phd are not qualified implying everyone who has a phd is. I disagree. I don't think that a degree equates to qualifications. I believe that many years of experience in a field is much more valuable than the assignment of a few letters after one's name based upon some predetermined course of study. Your dismissive attitude sounds like something a person in Human Resources has been trained to blurt out.

Originally Posted by icedog

Manipultae, manipulate dance to the music!

The arrogance in Clinton's statement is in the supposition that it was his place to assume superiority and inform the people of the danger of Global Warming rather than acting as the people agent in settling the concerns they actually had. That is a hallmark of his presidency, he created his own issues while ignoring those of interest to his constituents.

Many of the explanations we were given as to the causes of the Iraq war were very Arrogant, its a conflict we should possibly have created but probably not, and one where certainly we entered into it under false pretenses either at the decision making level or because that level was given false or skewed information, it willbe fifty years before we know where the true arrogance lyes.

John, I think it's obvious that I was not arguing against your statements, as I agree with them. I just used them as an opening to say what I wanted to say. Science these days is (or can be) rather expensive and there are different parts in the process, some require a lot less analytical and quantitative skills than others, so they are done by less qualified people (undergraduate, graduate students, or just career lab technicians), and some require a rather deep understanding and experience that are done by Ph.D. holders (choosing, competing for funding and then directing a project, making sure that the whole process from data acquisition, to analysis and interpretation of the results is rigorous and objective...).

Clearly I'm talking about the mainstream, not the exceptions, so training and experience is absolutely necessary and for the most part it does correlate rather strongly with ability. Yes, coarse graining by 4 letters after one's name (nothing, B.Sc., M.Sc, Ph.D) is a rather broad brush. If you ask your sister if she feels that fulfilling the qualifications for M.Sc. and Ph.D. has been useful to her in developing her as a scientist, I suspect that she would say 'yes, very much so'.

Obtaining an advanced degree does take some time and effort, just as any other highly skilled training, not everybody who goes through it ends up the same, but as a rule they do better than not trained people and the opposite cases are a rather rare exception. Yes the letters don't mean anything else except that the person has successfully gone through a certain process which is there for a reason.

In fact I would probably argue that the better measurements of a qualification is final the product, so for a scientist in a non-classified research it would be the independent peer reviewed papers.

Icedog, I have to again disagree with you with regard of "You said that people who don't have a phd are not qualified implying everyone who has a phd is." Actually this is not true. Let me prove it to you with a high school (that's where I learned it) math:

Code:

$A \equiv advanced degree$
$B \equiv scientist$

My original statement is

Code:

$B \in A$

from which you correctly derived

Code:

$\not A \in \not B$

however it does not follow that

Code:

$A \in B$

, that you claim is my implication.

I am sorry if I am getting a bit technical, but if you are more visual person I can draw a picture to illustrate it. Of course, many years in a field is very valuable, but I am sure you know how hierarchical science is - it doesn't matter how you feel about it, the rules of the game, as they are, do not treat many years of experience even remotely the same as formal training. In fact if you look around new scientific hirings you'll probably notice that the younger (less experienced) a person is by the time they have obtained PhD, the more desirable they are. Last time you could go without an advanced training in science was in 1950s. Nowadays it's just impossible. I really would love for you to prove me wrong on this - please show me at least one example of a scientists under 60 (even better under 40 if you can) who does not have an advanced degree, yet he is sucessfully competing for research funding (in not a niche, politically driven area, please) and producing scientific research. Any field of science.

I wouldn't call my attitude dismissive, but if you are perceiving it as such I would be happy to elaborate on any statement I make (perhaps in a separate thread) to show you it's actually something that I am convinced in and not just shooting the breeze. (I'm not in HR nor have I any HR training whatsoever, I just have enough first hand experience with science to form an opinion of my own.)

Originally Posted by Wildtim

The arrogance in Clinton's statement is in the supposition that it was his place to assume superiority and inform the people of the danger of Global Warming rather than acting as the people agent in settling the concerns they actually had. That is a hallmark of his presidency, he created his own issues while ignoring those of interest to his constituents.

Many of the explanations we were given as to the causes of the Iraq war were very Arrogant, its a conflict we should possibly have created but probably not, and one where certainly we entered into it under false pretenses either at the decision making level or because that level was given false or skewed information, it willbe fifty years before we know where the true arrogance lyes.

Some people would argue that sometimes leadership is to actually lead others in areas they wouldn't go by themselves, by which standard both of these decisions are rather similar. I do not see arrogance in this statement of Clinton.

arrogant |ˈarəgənt|
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities : he's arrogant and opinionated | a typically arrogant assumption.