"Beware of Amateur Scientists"

jh79 · 07-07-2011 10:35am #1

Good article, reminded me of this forum

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0707/1224300202341.html

Joshua Jones · 07-07-2011 2:08pm

jh79 wrote: »

Good article, reminded me of this forum

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0707/1224300202341.html

Tl;dr Do not question, big daddy is always right.

What a crock!.

He goes on about the benefits of GM food and I'd agree with somethings that he says but to blindly accept so called "expert" opinion on an ethically questionable practice is absurd.

A lot of people on this forum would be against Monsantos attempt to corner the market with their terminator seed and use of Monsanto specific Round up. Neither of which he mentions. Also, he blithly mentions incorporating vaccines in crops. WTF, who do scientists think they are. They're vital for propress but not the most ethical or conciencous, some anyway. Think Oppenheimer. Great scientist, crap human being.

studiorat · 07-07-2011 2:47pm

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Tl;dr Do not question, big daddy is always right.

Damn Straight!!

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:19pm

the article was a bit Skewed alright, he focuses on the ''percieved' benefits of GM Food and more intensive agricultural processes without mentioning the tangible physical problems it causes like excessive nitrogen Runoff, land exhaustion, Natures inate ability to develop resistances to our pesticides leading to much hardier weeds and parasites, forced dependance on a small number of suppliers for seed, the homogonisation of crops to the detriment of Biodiversity....

for someone decrying amatuer Analysis the author really should have researched his position a bit better

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:22pm

also You've got Oppenheimer wrong, he was an average to good Scientist, but it was his Humainty and ability to relate to people, to unify them to a single purpose that made him a great person

read
an American Prometheus for a more indepth look at him

jh79 · 07-07-2011 3:22pm

studiorat wrote: »

Damn Straight!!

CT's are just like WWF (wwe? these days), 99% know its not real, 1% convince themselves it is real, but all in all its just a bit of fun

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:24pm

so what do you Know is not Real, how do you come to these conclusions????

I'm genuinley curious as to how people come to that conclusion

ETA, anyone else look at that photo and think
Jaysus Mairt/Makikomi has REALLY Let himself go recently

:D:D

Joshua Jones · 07-07-2011 3:32pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also You've got Oppenheimer wrong, he was an average to good Scientist, but it was his Humainty and ability to relate to people, to unify them to a single purpose that made him a great person

read
an American Prometheus for a more indepth look at him

In fairness you would know more about him than I do but in saying that he must have known what he was developing and its future use. I would call his humanity into question for that reason.

Also my main point was that some scientists push the boundries of what we can do but fail to ask should we do it.

hooradiation · 07-07-2011 3:46pm

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Tl;dr Do not question, big daddy is always right.

What a crock!.

Your link must lead to a different article than it did for me.

He's got a point, questioning things is good, but as he points out when it comes down to something I don't understand and two differing opinions are being presented, one from a "professional" and one from an "amateur" then I am going to listen to the former over the latter.

Though i will say that the middle part is mostly a scattergun listing of what the author considers to be the negative impact of amateur being given more credibility than he feels they deserve, and is a poor way to argue the core point.

studiorat · 07-07-2011 3:49pm

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Also my main point was that some scientists push the boundries of what we can do but fail to ask should we do it.

Who should they have to ask?

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:53pm

link borked studiorat, what was it???

oh and ME, they should have to ask me:D:D:D thers no way I would have alowed some of the more monstorous inventions of the 20th century, like Furbies or poptarts or FWD Cars

:D:D

tricky D · 07-07-2011 3:57pm

The MMR bit is funny. He neglects to mention the flawed study was from a professional scientific expert, not some amateur.

His GM negative issues are also narrowed down to merely the ingestion of synthetic herbicide. There's more to the issue than that.

studiorat · 07-07-2011 4:01pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

link borked studiorat, what was it???

oh and ME, they should have to ask me:D:D:D thers no way I would have alowed some of the more monstorous inventions of the 20th century, like Furbies or poptarts or FWD Cars :D:D

It was to Copehagen Fall Out about Bohr and Heisenberg's discussions and the ethics of the atom bomb. And then I though, what's the point why waste it on the flying saucer brigade.:pac:

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 4:09pm

this??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3325831859220140461#

thanks I'll watch it tonight

and hey, We have feelings too

the Nom de jour for our ilk is
TinfoilHat Brigade not Flying Saucer brigade

those Flying Saucer folk are a right bunch of wierdos

:D:D

hooradiation · 07-07-2011 4:23pm

tricky D wrote: »

The MMR bit is funny. He neglects to mention the flawed study was from a professional scientific expert, not some amateur.

Not really though, because while wakefield was, at the time, a professional, by the time his work became news we had people like Carol Vorderman giving their opinion and that opinion being given the same consideration as anyone other professional scientific expert.
And while i have no doubt that Ms Vorderman is a bright person, she's still an amateur in that area.

Brown Bomber · 07-07-2011 4:24pm

jh79 wrote: »

Good article, reminded me of this forum

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0707/1224300202341.html

Beware of trolls.

jh79 · 07-07-2011 4:29pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Beware of trolls.

How does linking that article make me a troll? Its a pretty apt article for this forum where a bit of perspective is sometimes needed.

Brown Bomber · 07-07-2011 5:11pm

jh79 wrote: »

How does linking that article make me a troll? Its a pretty apt article for this forum where a bit of perspective is sometimes needed.

Well perhaps you should elaborate on what the talking points actually are and how they are specifically related to this forum.

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 5:56pm

jh79 wrote: »

How does linking that article make me a troll? Its a pretty apt article for this forum where a bit of perspective is sometimes needed.

whilst this thread in itself wouldnt make you a Troll, your 99% statement would raise a few eyebrows

My name is URL · 07-07-2011 6:01pm

Since we're listing off those who should not be taken seriously, perhaps scientists who regularly write columns for religious publications should be included

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/search/node/william%20reville

studiorat · 07-07-2011 6:09pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3325831859220140461#

thanks I'll watch it tonight

and hey, We have feelings too the Nom de jour for our ilk is
TinfoilHat Brigade not Flying Saucer brigade

those Flying Saucer folk are a right bunch of wierdos :D:D

That's the one, hope it's not too mainstream for ya.

Enjoy.

My name is URL wrote: »

Since we're listing off those who should not be taken seriously, perhaps scientists who regularly write columns for religious publications should be included

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/search/node/william%20reville

It's true, I know a man in Enniscorthy, goes to mass everyday, 94 years old!
Atheists have the shortest lifespan of all of the preponderant doctrines of religious and philosophical thought.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0117/full

fontanalis · 07-07-2011 6:56pm

studiorat wrote: »

That's the one, hope it's not too mainstream for ya.

Enjoy.

It's true, I know a man in Enniscorthy, goes to mass everyday, 94 years old!
Atheists have the shortest lifespan of all of the preponderant doctrines of religious and philosophical thought.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0117/full

Proof of god?

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 7:04pm

Does that Aulfella ya know live somewhere up near Vinegar hill????????

if its ther same aulfella I'm thinkin of the Mass aint doin the Miserable aul b****x any good, I think the only reason he's still here is that God cant face the Prospect of an eternity with the Whingin Fecker

:D:D

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 8:04pm

tricky D wrote: »

The MMR bit is funny. He neglects to mention the flawed study was from a professional scientific expert, not some amateur.

But the study was proved to be flawed, and the people who ran with its faulty conclusions were amateurs. Scientists can be wrong or corrupt too - the scientific method relies on the community finding out the charlatans.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 10:20am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well perhaps you should elaborate on what the talking points actually are and how they are specifically related to this forum.

Well on this forum there has been threads on cures for cancer and stuff about AIDS and GM food. The GERSON therapy thing is especially bad from a scientific stand point and colloidal silver also, but because it can be percieved to be some sort of "big pharma" conspiracy the obvious scientific flaws are ignored because the narrative is so appealing.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 10:29am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

whilst this thread in itself wouldnt make you a Troll, your 99% statement would raise a few eyebrows

Fair enough, but CT are generally pretty outlandish so odds are only a small minority will turn out to be true, which CT's that have featured on this forum do you believe to be accurate?

Even for the most ardent CT'er it doesn't make sense for all of them to be true so how do you which ones have legs?

espinolman · 08-07-2011 11:26am

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

hooradiation · 08-07-2011 11:45am

espinolman wrote: »

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

This assumes that there is such a thing as having a person with absolutely zero vested interest, which given your amazingly wide definition of vested interest, is an impossibility.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 11:47am

espinolman wrote: »

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

Science is one of the worst paid professions in Ireland for the level of qualifications needed, if you want to get rich don't become a scientist.

So you expect people to find cures for various illnesses but do it for free?

Also the majority of stuff that gets published has no commercial value, if a drug has commercial potential the findings are held back until the intellectual property is protected by a patent.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 11:56am

espinolman wrote: »

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

The term amateur scientist in the original article refers to people spouting scientific information without actually having any sort of sciene education. How can you have strong opinions on something that you couldn't possible understand?

You are either a scientist or your not

jackiebaron · 08-07-2011 1:03pm

jh79 wrote: »

CT's are just like WWF (wwe? these days), 99% know its not real, 1% convince themselves it is real, but all in all its just a bit of fun

Stupid statement.

"Beware of Amateur Scientists"

Comments