MIB Posted May 21, 2017 Moderator Posted May 21, 2017 Something is bothering me: in discussion of bigfoot we often lament the participation of "scientists." Is that really true? What do you consider to be the defining characteristics of a "scientist"? What attributes separate them from "non-scientists"? What is it about being a "scientist" or not that makes one person's comments on bigfoot more relevant or weighty than others'? Thoughts, please? MIB 1
7.62 Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 Text book is a person with a degree in biology when dealing with animals . As much as we like to think that our or the common layman's sighting holds the same weight it just doesn't . Example would be my self and 3 of my hunting buddies witness a close encounter of a bigfoot . Then 4 biology professors from Harvard university while out backpacking encounter the same thing and report it. What would hold more weight ?
Incorrigible1 Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 Educational awards, doctorates, etc. Degrees count for many things. I'd start there.
Twist Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 Clearly it's someone with a white lab coat and a clip board. Extra scientist points are awarded if it's an attractive female in a white lab coat, hair up in a slightly messy bun, black rimmed glasses and she is chewing on the end of her pencil as she ponders the BF mystery..... 3
norseman Posted May 21, 2017 Admin Posted May 21, 2017 13 hours ago, MIB said: Something is bothering me: in discussion of bigfoot we often lament the participation of "scientists." Is that really true? What do you consider to be the defining characteristics of a "scientist"? What attributes separate them from "non-scientists"? What is it about being a "scientist" or not that makes one person's comments on bigfoot more relevant or weighty than others'? Thoughts, please? MIB They are experts in their field of study. Boiled down to brass tacks? If you had a brain tumor that needed to be removed? Would you want me to attempt removing it in my shop? Or would you rather contact a brain surgeon about your procedure? I can guarantee you that I have the power tools to get it out of your head. It's just the small detail of you living through the procedure, that I cannot guarantee! I think what people miss with science is the nuances.
Popular Post JDL Posted May 21, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) Technically, a scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method when investigating a hypothesis. There were scientists long before there were scientific organizations, degrees, and scientific awards. Is an amateur astronomer who discovers an asteroid barreling toward Earth any less an astronomer than someone with a PhD in the science? The amateur is probably using a better telescope than Galileo had. On the other hand, is Bill Nye, the "Science Guy", really a climate scientist? After all, he only has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The real question is: "What does society currently accept as reasonable qualifications for a "Scientist"? And the answer may vary from field to field, subject to subject, and political viewpoint to political viewpoint. Unfortunately; advanced degrees, experience, and resources are accompanied by a healthy portion of hubris. Edited May 21, 2017 by JDL 10
Branco Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 9 hours ago, norseman said: They are experts in their field of study. Boiled down to brass tacks? If you had a brain tumor that needed to be removed? Would you want me to attempt removing it in my shop? Or would you rather contact a brain surgeon about your procedure? I can guarantee you that I have the power tools to get it out of your head. It's just the small detail of you living through the procedure, that I cannot guarantee! I think what people miss with science is the nuances. A science degree doth not an expert make. That degree is based on the knowledge and expertise of others that was passed down to a student. As JDL stated, laymen who study subjects in the natural field in a scientific manner can, by definition, qualify as being a scientists; even experts in specific fields. 2
Old Dog Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 According to Wikipedia (for what it's worth) : A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. My take is that basically people want someone with a relevant degree to agree with their findings because it carries more weight with the general public.
norseman Posted May 22, 2017 Admin Posted May 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, Branco said: A science degree doth not an expert make. That degree is based on the knowledge and expertise of others that was passed down to a student. As JDL stated, laymen who study subjects in the natural field in a scientific manner can, by definition, qualify as being a scientists; even experts in specific fields. So you would let a self proclaimed "expert" operate on your skull!??? You evidently have a lot more faith in how people represent themselves than I do.
Guest DWA Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, JDL said: Technically, a scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method when investigating a hypothesis. There were scientists long before there were scientific organizations, degrees, and scientific awards. Is an amateur astronomer who discovers an asteroid barreling toward Earth any less an astronomer than someone with a PhD in the science? The amateur is probably using a better telescope than Galileo had. On the other hand, is Bill Nye, the "Science Guy", really a climate scientist? After all, he only has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The real question is: "What does society currently accept as reasonable qualifications for a "Scientist"? And the answer may vary from field to field, subject to subject, and political viewpoint to political viewpoint. Unfortunately; advanced degrees, experience, and resources are accompanied by a healthy portion of hubris. Best answer I have seen so far. In my opinion, advanced degrees do quite a techie make. But do they make a scientist? Not, in my opinion, unless that person views every single topic that person comes in contact with in the way a scientist does: evaluating and sifting evidence and coming to conclusions based only on evidence. That would rule out, as being scientists, anyone who pronounces negatively on this topic, as the very things they say are things a scientist just shouldn't. 22 hours ago, 7.62 said: Text book is a person with a degree in biology when dealing with animals . As much as we like to think that our or the common layman's sighting holds the same weight it just doesn't . Example would be my self and 3 of my hunting buddies witness a close encounter of a bigfoot . Then 4 biology professors from Harvard university while out backpacking encounter the same thing and report it. What would hold more weight ? This speaks more to the society's misconceptions than it does to the expertise of the people making the observation. The weight one puts on a pronouncement says more about that person than it does about the one making the pronouncement. We often give science degrees too much credit; that is the biggest reason we're stuck where we are on the bigfoot question. Personally? I would see no reason to assign different weights to the two observations, unless the Harvard biologists risked their reputations by making their observation public, something I would expect of a true scientist at a bare minimum, particularly with multiple witnesses. 1 hour ago, norseman said: So you would let a self proclaimed "expert" operate on your skull!??? You evidently have a lot more faith in how people represent themselves than I do. I wouldn't let someone who didn't know crap about computers operate on my company's network either. But I'd trust my IT guy, who is in no way a scientist. A lawyer isn't a scientist either, but I'm gonna let him handle things I probably wouldn't let most scientists touch. It's not whether you let a person work on something or not. It's how that person views the world and comes to conclusions about it. Edited May 22, 2017 by DWA
norseman Posted May 22, 2017 Admin Posted May 22, 2017 1 hour ago, DWA said: Best answer I have seen so far. In my opinion, advanced degrees do quite a techie make. But do they make a scientist? Not, in my opinion, unless that person views every single topic that person comes in contact with in the way a scientist does: evaluating and sifting evidence and coming to conclusions based only on evidence. That would rule out, as being scientists, anyone who pronounces negatively on this topic, as the very things they say are things a scientist just shouldn't. This speaks more to the society's misconceptions than it does to the expertise of the people making the observation. The weight one puts on a pronouncement says more about that person than it does about the one making the pronouncement. We often give science degrees too much credit; that is the biggest reason we're stuck where we are on the bigfoot question. Personally? I would see no reason to assign different weights to the two observations, unless the Harvard biologists risked their reputations by making their observation public, something I would expect of a true scientist at a bare minimum, particularly with multiple witnesses. I wouldn't let someone who didn't know crap about computers operate on my company's network either. But I'd trust my IT guy, who is in no way a scientist. A lawyer isn't a scientist either, but I'm gonna let him handle things I probably wouldn't let most scientists touch. It's not whether you let a person work on something or not. It's how that person views the world and comes to conclusions about it. A lawyer has to pass a bar exam on top of his law degree....your making my point for me. Boiled down to brass tacks? You do not like the answer the experts are giving you, so you seek to discredit them. 1
Old Dog Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 13 hours ago, norseman said: So you would let a self proclaimed "expert" operate on your skull!??? You evidently have a lot more faith in how people represent themselves than I do. Remember, at one time surgeons were just a bunch of guys cutting on folks, trying to figure things out, and you went to the barber for dental work. How times change, dragging society with it, kicking and screaming, into the future. Oddly, or maybe not, we are quickly getting to the point where we don't even have people performing highly technical tasks, such as brain surgery. We relegate that duty to robots and computers. If society continues to progress as it is, we will have only engineering and robotics scientists left, the others supplanted by machines. Doing things by hand will be considered a lost art. Not sure if that is for the better or not.
1980squatch Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 14 hours ago, JDL said: Technically, a scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method when investigating a hypothesis. We have a winner. I have an advanced degree in the Physical Sciences, but I am not a scientist unless I'm engaged in the above.
Guest DWA Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, norseman said: A lawyer has to pass a bar exam on top of his law degree....your making my point for me. Boiled down to brass tacks? You do not like the answer the experts are giving you, so you seek to discredit them. No. Most definitely not, as I have taken great pains to point out in hundreds of posts here. I don't like the answer "the experts" are giving me - and I discredit most of them, utterly and wholly justifiably, when it comes to this topic - because any scientist would be able to demonstrate that they used the opposite of the scientific method to come to their conclusions on this. I put my money on the scientists who have done that. (We have specific reasons for requiring lawyers to do what they do, and as I pointed out, there's good reason for that. Being one who thinks like a scientist, I am not going with "I am a lawyer, trust me." Your work is how you show me you might actually be one.) I back science. All the way. Science says hairy hominoids are real, period exclamation point. People who say they aren't? Irrational blind belief, which I reject. Edited May 22, 2017 by DWA
Branco Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 14 hours ago, norseman said: So you would let a self proclaimed "expert" operate on your skull!??? You evidently have a lot more faith in how people represent themselves than I do. Your mule threw a shoe. This discussion was about scientist, not "experts". "Self proclaimed experts" were not part of the topic. A person who walks out with a new science degree is far from being an expert in his chosen field of study, and - if truthful - would admit that. He/she has simply been educated by people who have more knowledge and experience than he/she in their chosen field.. The opinions of graduates in any field of science are absolutely worth no more than that of a layman or self-educated scientist during a discussion about Bigfoot/Sasquatch simple because that graduate has never been taught about them. In their minds, those animals do not exist, because none of their biology professors even mentioned the subject. A modern brain surgeon is unquestionably an expert in his/her field, but you and your equine tools probably would fare as well in your shop at that chore as a newly graduated biologist (scientist) intending to study South American fruit bats. 3
Recommended Posts