People who pretend to be scientists are aggrivating.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have a question about people beating their chests and proclaiming to have science degrees so make themselves seem correct, when they obviously seem bullshitting.

I looked up the definition of science and I corroborated it with various other sources, including Talk.origins, Randi's website, and then an article published in a compendium by the National Academy of Science. They all seem to say the following:

According to the National Academy of the Sciences:

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention [...] are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.

This makes me believe that appeals to "God did it" or "supernatural metaphysical" explainations are not in fact science, because the definitions of science I am finding state that it is a systemantic means of analysing the natural world and naturalistically explaining phenomena in. Also, it must be based on utlimtely testable, falsifiable premise to be science. Above, Intelligent Designers, magical bunny rabbits, and invisible ear unicornes that are undetectable are not valid in explainations, as they are, in concept, not testable, no? Superntural is metaphysical, thus non-natural


Now, has anyone come across people pretending to be scientists before? I cannot really tell, aside from looking at what they say and trying to match it up to what I think real scienstists would say and have said. Is it safe to be skeptical or call bullshit on someone's "scientific degree ego stroking" if he seems unable to understand or get correct the basic definition and nature of science?

For example, someone I am talking to claims he's a "physicist" yet he consistantly makes remarks like the following:

According to the National Academy of the Sciences:


It seems a bit odd to me that a real "scientist" would say the following:

"Get off the extreme science kick and open your closed mind to other possibilities. Hardcore science does not exclude the supernatural.

That seems a bit odd for a "scientist" to say. since it seems not only to contradict what I find on talk.origins, but also according to the NAS. Is there something about science I am misunderstanding? Is there some other "possibility" other than logic and science which makes me closed-minded?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Oops, can someone please delete the former post. I would appreciate that. Big typo, and I hit the enter key by mistake.




Edit:

I have a question about people beating their chests and proclaiming to have science degrees so make themselves seem correct, when they obviously seem bullshitting.

I looked up the definition of science and I corroborated it with various other sources, including Talk.origins, Randi's website, and then an article published in a compendium by the National Academy of Science. They all seem to say the following:

According to the National Academy of the Sciences:

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention [...] are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.

This makes me believe that appeals to "God did it" or "supernatural metaphysical" explainations are not in fact science, because the definitions of science I am finding state that it is a systemantic means of analysing the natural world and naturalistically explaining phenomena in. Also, it must be based on utlimtely testable, falsifiable premise to be science. Above, Intelligent Designers, magical bunny rabbits, and invisible ear unicornes that are undetectable are not valid in explainations, as they are, in concept, not testable, no? Superntural is metaphysical, thus non-natural


Now, has anyone come across people pretending to be scientists before? I cannot really tell, aside from looking at what they say and trying to match it up to what I think real scienstists would say and have said. Is it safe to be skeptical or call bullshit on someone's "scientific degree ego stroking" if he seems unable to understand or get correct the basic definition and nature of science?

For example, someone I am talking to claims he's a "physicist" yet he consistantly makes remarks like the following:

"Get off the extreme science kick and open your closed mind to other possibilities. Hardcore science does not exclude the supernatural.

That seems a bit odd for a "scientist" to say. since it seems not only to contradict what I find on talk.origins, but also according to the NAS. Is there something about science I am misunderstanding? Is there some other "possibility" other than logic and science which makes me closed-minded?

[Ravencrow]

There are scientists who fail at separating what is really just their own personal beliefs from real science.

[Darth Wong]

Let's put it this way: even if we very generously assume they're not simply bullshitting, someone had to graduate at the bottom of the class. And science does not have a post-graduate licensing scheme which allows review and expulsion of people who are misbehaving, unlike medicine and engineering. Its internal disciplinary system relies on exposure and embarrassment of scientists who commit gaffes or fraud: something that only applies to those scientists who are trying to publish research.

[Admiral Valdemar]

By itself, that system is effective anyway. A scientist who hasn't been published speaking on a topic of great importance is a sure fire way of setting off alarm bells in any rational mind. Gullible people will believe whatever they like without any amount of certification or ridicule, but at least a scientist cannot wield any real power without the rest of the community accepting him.

[Setesh]

Let's put it this way: even if we very generously assume they're not simply bullshitting, someone had to graduate at the bottom of the class.

Let's not forget the 'diploma mill' graduates like the ever annoying Hovind. Some of these places churn out 200-800 'diplomas' on various subjects. Then there begs the question:

'I'm a scientist.'

'Well what's your degree in?'

There are Bachelor of Science degrees for a lot of things that don't really require much scientific thinking. For example:

Bachelor of Science in Aviation Managment
Program Description:The aviation management major provides students with the skills needed for careers as managers or senior administrators for an airport, airline, government agency dealing with air commerce, or aviation-related business. The program develops expertise in business management with emphasis on administration of various aviation enterprises.

While the degree says Bachelor of Science its a managment course with some very basic aeronautics added(at least on that course listing).

[Sun Wukung]

At least those people you mentioned have a diploma from a college. The worse people are the ones who think that if you can Google it, you can talk like you have a PhD in it. If you Google quantum physics you get pages and pages of info. The information may or may not be relevent, due to the nature of Google. Many people use it as if it's a One Stop Shop for all their science needs. They are the real idiots. Just look at Google on Creation Theory Note that on the first page there is no reference to Creationtheory.org and is probably on the following pages. The fact is when one wants to just Google for somthing they only look on the first page. That means that a lot of wishy washy sites are what they use for their information.

[Superman]

If anyone has ever debated fundies, they've come across the idiots who claim to have doctorates in every scientific subject under the sun. They're easy to spot, though, because they usually can't spell "science;" forget about discussing it.

If being a fundamentalist twat were to become a psychiatric mental disorder, lying about education and experience would probably be a common symptom.

[Darth Wong]

Often times, when dealing with a faker, it's good to ask for details. What university did they graduate from, and in what year? If they claim a doctorate, what was the subject of their doctoral thesis?

Identifying fakers is easy, but destroying their credibility in front of an audience which can't smell their deception is not necessarily quite so easy. However, if you can make him hem and haw about the details of his education, that tends to do the trick.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Yes, that's actually a good idea. I never thought of asking that. I tried that, but they are "afraid" that will give away personal information.

They got a real good gig going. Backdoor for every contingency.

[wolveraptor]

Well as long as he doesn' t use his professed degree as an argument in and of itself, I don't see what the problem is. However, if he should ever post something to the effect of, "I'm a physicist, I know what I'm talking about," point out that if he's too afraid to give any confirming information for that claim, he shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

[Cecelia5578]

Slightly off topic, but when many creationists do brag about their degrees, its usually in something like engineering, or the physical sciences. Of course I'm not denigrating mathematicians, engineers, and the like, but you rarely see people who are geologists (as opposed to geological engineers) paloanthropolgists, paleontologists, evolutionary biologists (as opposed to some notorious biochemists, etc. who are strenuously opposed to evolution.

My take is that majoring in something like engineering allows people who are pretty smart from having to study something that would violently conflict with their own worldview, but is at the same time intellectually demanding.

[K. A. Pital]

Slightly off topic, but when many creationists do brag about their degrees, its usually in something like engineering, or the physical sciences.

No, worse; usually it's BOGUS degrees.

Of course I'm not denigrating mathematicians, engineers, and the like, but you rarely see people who are geologists

Isn't Kurt Wise one? Well, for instance, at least he's honest - he admits that Creationism is but junk science and he only "converted' because he fervently believed the Bible and understood that he'd had to throw it away because of science...

[Tasoth]

If scientists believe in it, then it no longer falls under the supernatural. But in order for a proper scientist to believe something, it has to have the ability to be test repeatedly and reliably.

[Spin Echo]

Let's put it this way: even if we very generously assume they're not simply bullshitting, someone had to graduate at the bottom of the class. And science does not have a post-graduate licensing scheme which allows review and expulsion of people who are misbehaving, unlike medicine and engineering. Its internal disciplinary system relies on exposure and embarrassment of scientists who commit gaffes or fraud: something that only applies to those scientists who are trying to publish research.

Reminds me of an anecdote. When I was a high school student, I had an internship in a research lab. One of my coworkers decided that she wanted to go back to school, so she ended up enroling to do her master's degree at Johns Hopkins. In the first lecture of one of her chemistry classes, another woman puts her hand up and asks if they have to believe in electrons for this class. The lecturer stares at her dumbfounded for a minute before telling her, no, she doesn't have to believe in them, but she better damn well know how they work if she intended to pass the class.

It's like the doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control or the morning after pill to their patients because they believe they cause abortions. Even though they've obviously had a lot of education and gotten their degree from somewhere, people still believe stupid things in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Setesh]

Reminds me of an anecdote. *snip* Even though they've obviously had a lot of education and gotten their degree from somewhere, people still believe stupid things in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Think that's bad? There's a professor at a medical school who swore in a copy of RN that the first day of class every year he brought a male and female skeleton in. Asks the class how many ribs each has without counting, they write the answer on a peice of paper.

"Alright before I look at these I want anyone who answered the male has one fewer rib than the female because eve was created from adam's rib to take this moment to count the ribs. Afterward I want you to think hard about becoming a doctor. We have to deal with real world 'facts', these facts will come into conflict the biblical 'truths'. I have sad news for you. The Facts always win."

[Setesh]

Ghetto edit- he said he always gets at least 5 who insist men have one fewer rib tham women

[PainRack]

Ghetto edit- he said he always gets at least 5 who insist men have one fewer rib tham women

I still receive emails purporting that "its true" based on this little fact.... that somehow, men have one less rib than women.


Its shocking what some people will believe. For example, I once knew an amateur photographer claim that the Moon landing was fake because there was no stars in the shot. I immediately pointed to the photos that he was looking at of a night scenery on Earth and asked him where were the stars..........

[Superman]

Ghetto edit- he said he always gets at least 5 who insist men have one fewer rib tham women

The stupid thing about this is how simple it would be to disprove it. If they really cared, they could look up a male and female skeleton online and count the damn ribs. They don't care, they just want to be blow hards.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, that's actually a good idea. I never thought of asking that. I tried that, but they are "afraid" that will give away personal information.

That's when you dismiss them with "Hah, nice excuse". They may try to weasel out but they know and you know that you just punched a pretty big hole in their credibility, especially if you reveal your own alma mater and name for verification purposes. The "I showed you mine, why won't you show me yours" argument makes them look bad, every time.

[Junghalli]

Reminds me of an anecdote. When I was a high school student, I had an internship in a research lab. One of my coworkers decided that she wanted to go back to school, so she ended up enroling to do her master's degree at Johns Hopkins. In the first lecture of one of her chemistry classes, another woman puts her hand up and asks if they have to believe in electrons for this class. The lecturer stares at her dumbfounded for a minute before telling her, no, she doesn't have to believe in them, but she better damn well know how they work if she intended to pass the class.

I suspect that's how a lot of fundies who hold science degrees passed their classes. Doublethink. They hold one set of "real" beliefs and another set that they use when they write papers and take tests, and go through mental gymnastics to avoid having to face the implications of holding two mutually incompatible belief systems in their brain like that.
It's something the human mind is suprisingly good at that.

[Wyrm]

Ghetto edit- he said he always gets at least 5 who insist men have one fewer rib tham women

The stupid thing about this is how simple it would be to disprove it. If they really cared, they could look up a male and female skeleton online and count the damn ribs. They don't care, they just want to be blow hards.

Not being a medical doctor, I don't encounter this misinformation often, but when I do, I have the following ready counterargument: "If I chop off your leg, does that mean your future children will be born hopping on the only foot they have?" The point being is, even if it were true that Adam had one fewer rib than Eve (assuming such people existed), that doesn't mean Cain, Abel, Bob and George (their kids and decendents), inherited Adam's defect.

They tend to accept this explanation more readily. It does mean not confronting their silly belief of Adam's missing rib directly, so it's a bit of a cop-out.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Ghetto edit- he said he always gets at least 5 who insist men have one fewer rib tham women

The stupid thing about this is how simple it would be to disprove it. If they really cared, they could look up a male and female skeleton online and count the damn ribs. They don't care, they just want to be blow hards.

Not being a medical doctor, I don't encounter this misinformation often, but when I do, I have the following ready counterargument: "If I chop off your leg, does that mean your future children will be born hopping on the only foot they have?" The point being is, even if it were true that Adam had one fewer rib than Eve (assuming such people existed), that doesn't mean Cain, Abel, Bob and George (their kids and decendents), inherited Adam's defect.

They tend to accept this explanation more readily. It does mean not confronting their silly belief of Adam's missing rib directly, so it's a bit of a cop-out.

That's just it though- even if you believed a literal interpretation of Genesis, there is no reason for males to have one less rib than females. It's obvious to anyone if they actually stop and think about it for a moment- but of course, thinking is dangerous.

[Darth Wong]

After all this time, it still boggles the mind that there are people out there who laugh at evolution because they think it's improbable, and then are completely serious about a story in which a woman is created out of a man's rib.

[PainRack]

Not being a medical doctor, I don't encounter this misinformation often, but when I do, I have the following ready counterargument: "If I chop off your leg, does that mean your future children will be born hopping on the only foot they have?" The point being is, even if it were true that Adam had one fewer rib than Eve (assuming such people existed), that doesn't mean Cain, Abel, Bob and George (their kids and decendents), inherited Adam's defect.

They tend to accept this explanation more readily. It does mean not confronting their silly belief of Adam's missing rib directly, so it's a bit of a cop-out.

But how on earth do you actually go around claiming that the male has one less rib?

Its staggers the mind that highly educated people can believe that.