Essay talk:We don't need no stinkin' scientists

From PitchBlackMind

I enjoyed reading this, thanks for writing it. Adding a quote from one a Poe story is always nice addition. Since I don't know you at all (still pretty new here), what field of science you work in?--PitchBlackMind 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have remained silent on that point for reasons of anonymity, and shall continue to do so. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You left me out

Granted I haven't been active for very long and all I seem to do is talk, talk, talk, I self-identify as a(n amateur) scientist and the history on my user page will show that has been the case since I activated my account.

Thanks for listening. The Foxhole Atheist 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not count in amateurs. If I by accident listed another amateur, I will remove them. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Having graduated in two sciences I would count myself as a "scientist", I just don't feel the need to shout it from a user box. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the user box I prefer not to do much either; I dislike "appeals to authority" and hope that any of my arguments can stand on their own merits. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

Brings to mind the line I'll often hear our disillusioned science majors muttering: "Science isn't a complete worldview, it's a model that works say 95-98% of the time and that we accept as true based on the information available." That's mainly written with a view to your final point as to what science is. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mithaeron / talk / contribs}

Good point

You make a good point actually. It's been long noted that you can't reason with the unreasonable, so we then reduce ourselves to arguing from ridicule. Though, creatards will complain that we're just ridiculing them rather than addressing them; they seem to have not bothered reading the reasoning part where we were so busy smacking heads on desks after hearding "but Darwin inspired Hitler" for the 80th time. As the ad hom article notes, calling someone an idiot not a personal attack if they've proved that they're an idiot.

It's also interesting to see that I'm the second lowest ranking boffin here! :P ^narchist 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Snark is good, but I was also saying that if you have to make a serious argument the reductio is better than using science, since they cannot pull the old "you're presupposing an anti-biblical world-view" card. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong

Repudiating pseudoscience should be a serious concern for the scientific community, especially when faced with large politicized movements such as creationism & global warming denialism, which are in danger of gaining even more ground if reputable scientists & leaders don't speak out in opposition to them. & Having a few more expert voices within RationalWiki would be an asset to the site & its missions. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe you missed the point of the essay; battling pseudoscience is not a job for the scientific community; they're too busy doing real science. Rather, it's a PR battle, one lay-people can fight. Z3ro^talk 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A straightforward "PR battle" will tend to be won by whichever side has the most political clout, media influence & financial resources. As often as not, that may be those with interests in promoting a pseudoscience agenda for one reason or another. Therefore it should be important for the public to recognise the difference between what real scientists believe & practice, & all the other kinds of crap that are passed off as science. How can the public get that message if both sides of this debate speak with no recognised & respected scientific grounding? They'll just be listening to different lay-persons saying conflicting things & won't know who to believe. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is to some degree a PR battle and the antiscience crowd love to use argumentum ad populum. However, science must speak with authority because DeMyer v Dawkins is basically a lost cause for the anti-evolutionists. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationists are cranks and have very little actual clout; the best they will ever get out of anyone who counts is politicians being politically-correct and saying they back the teaching of intelligent-design in the schools so as not to lose the crank vote. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationist teachings actually have a lot of clout in a lot of cultures. Something like 50% of the American population does not accept the theory of evolution. This is not something trivial to be ignored by the scientific community, & neither is the possibility of ID being given equal weight in schools to proven theories which rest on the scientific method. Anyone who works within science should have an interest in how children & the public are being educated (or misinformed) about science. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) I said anyone who counts. That does not include hicks who are just spouting what Lay-Leader Eliyahu said in church the other day right before he had an epileptic seizure and started Speaking In Tongues. (2) The question of teaching intelligent-design in schools is one of constitutional law, not science. (3) Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The only way the "IDiots," etc., manage to sound reasonable to anyone but avid supporters is when they are whining about the "Darwinist orthodoxy." ListenerX^TalkerX 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for just now jumping in on this, I read it awhile ago but didn't bother to jump in. Weaseloid has a point. Most funds for scientific research come from public funds (where major research is occurring). It's downright scary that the public disbelieves the fact of evolution in favor of magic. The same goes for global warming. I only hope other scientists catch on to this before 50% becomes 95% and their funds dry up. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Public, schmublic; the people handing out money to scientists hardly listen to "the public," which is what I was trying to get across. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But it won't be long before this idiotic breed is in every office (ex: George cutting off stem cell research). δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bush actually expanded what was permitted in that area (allowing funding for research on stem-cell lines that were already in existence). But in any case, no facts were in dispute there, it being solely an ethical concern. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

World-view

I do like the fact you have attacked the idea of a scientific world-view. This has been a terrible piece of creationist speak that has been slipping in recently, even around here people talk about a scientific world-view. This is is something that needs to be addressed. It is creationist that use a post-modern approach to science, not scientist. - π 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The dangers of trusting user pages

SHahB was just playing a game. ħuman 03:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)