I'm Not a Scientist

[lawrocket 3]

This seems to be the latest big thing among the left. When a person says, "I'm not a scientist" that person should be ridiculed.

Well, actually. Not quite. If a person is not a scientist, but agrees with political policies designed to tax carbon, then there seems to be no problem. For example, Barbara Boxer (not a scientists) can write a manifesto on climate change and be free from challenge of the mainstream technoligical-politicl elite. Sure, the President can blame drought in California on anthropogenic climate change (despite the science that says Cali will get more rainfall), that non-scientist doesn't face problems.

But if a person readily admits, "I am not a scientist" then that person is scorned.

Back in Feb, I made this post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4595753#4595753

I think that the hole blasting of the "I am not a scientist" admission is to strike a blow to a scientifically literate population. I had quoted an NGO that talked about "scientific literacy." It involves by its nature making judgments on the matters and on arguments about it.

I stated a fear that it would be wielded as a weapon: the group of scientists in power (and those who support their position); and everyone else. To disagree is to face the wrath.

Anyone else think that it's at all useful to clobber a person who says, "I am not a scientist?" You don't have to be. You don't have to be a lawyer to call a law unjust. Or a doctor to decline to smoke marijuana, even if you are nauseous.

Or a scientists to question the conclusions and political policies (being put out as "science'). I fear that there is an effort to marginalize those who ask questions. If Inhofe is asked a question, should he not answer it? If Colbert is asked, "Are you a scientist?" Then should he say, "I am not a scientist?"

I'm struggling here to see what a non-scientist should do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 236]

I'm not a scientist, but I play one on TV.

[champu 1]

I'm only a scientist if my creations inadvertently become experiments by blowing up or flying apart. On good days I learn absolutely nothing.

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

But if a person readily admits, "I am not a scientist" then that person is scorned.

it's the combination of that statement and a refusal to address the argument that results in scorn.

'I am not a scientist but I read on Facebook that the eye is far too complex to have developed by chance.' Or the great one I saw last night 'that vaccines given to women in Africa is lace with HGC so that they will become sterile.' Or the fear mongering around radiation from Japan leading to deaths of fish and sea lions in California ... even those demoic acid poisonings have been happening for decades.

These people put out the defense 'i am not a scientist' to somehow defend not providing citations or proper data or their deliberate misreading of other articles. Somehow only scientists have to do those things. I AM PROUD OF MY IGNORANCE!

So yeah, I fart in their direction.

[kallend 2,027]

lawrocket

I'm struggling here to see what a non-scientist should do.

Flip burgers comes to mind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rick 67]

kallend

***

I'm struggling here to see what a non-scientist should do.

Flip burgers comes to mind.

not until the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[lawrocket 3]

Thanks. You've explained it.

So if some leader is asked, "what do you plan on doing about Ebola?" Then "I'm not an infectious disease specialist" doesn't work.

So ith climate change, "I'm not a scientist" is being used as a cop out. Kinda, "you know what happened at Hiroshima?" "I wasn't there so..."

Again, thanks.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

lawrocket

Thanks. You've explained it.

So if some leader is asked, "what do you plan on doing about Ebola?" Then "I'm not an infectious disease specialist" doesn't work.

So ith climate change, "I'm not a scientist" is being used as a cop out. Kinda, "you know what happened at Hiroshima?" "I wasn't there so..."

Again, thanks.

I"m not a scientist, but I am alittle lost as to what you are trying to say here.

I agree with kelpdiver. The ridicule comes when people just repeat things they have read on some obscure website, or on facebook, or heard on some talk show and repeat it as "gospel".

I don't think ridicule should be involved with people who have a discussion about things they have read or experienced etc. Some of your posts on climate issues come to mind with that. You explain what leads you to the believe/thoughts you have. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as ridiculing those who aren't scientists...this world would be a boring place if only scientists lived on it. I am very happy we have people flipping burgers, entrepeneurs, taxi drivers, hair dressers, etc. etc. etc.

[BIGUN 1,317]

I am not a scientist; but, I am well-educated, well-read and not only have the right, but the responsibility to ask questions. Usually, I will read about those things of which I am ignorant and if I ask those questions of a scientist; that is their opportunity to educate me, not ridicule me.

If they choose to ridicule me, then they lose credibility. Not me. If I cite sources and you have others that are disparate to what I've presented; then again - take that opportunity to enlighten me with additional reading.

Snarky comments from the aloof self-annointed, you should take my word for it "because I said so" crowd does nothing to help me want to learn more about their position and why.

One of my degrees is in communications - the social science. One of the most important things I've learned is - the best thing we can tell people is, "Why."

Some years ago; Billvon told me the "whys" about climate change and I embarked on a year long exploration into global warming. My position on the matter changed albeit not as deeply vested as "We're in crisis; we must act yesterday or we face doom tomorrow." More along the lines of, "You know, we might want to start working towards a solution that does not only affect the possibility/probability called global warming, but the world's environment as a whole."

And for those who recommend "Flippin burgers" as a direction, they should know that, "The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles."

SOURCE: Scientific American

Sorry, that was a comment; not a question.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,027]

Veggie burgers are the comfort food of the future!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

Thanks. You've explained it.

So if some leader is asked, "what do you plan on doing about Ebola?" Then "I'm not an infectious disease specialist" doesn't work.

like Skydekker, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to read this literally, or if there was a snark explosion.

A leader who answers - 'I'm not a disease expert, so I rely on the CDC's recommendation' is good, not great. This risk bureaucratic takeover - you trust them for the science, but still should be evaluating the policy conclusion.

But a leader who answers, 'I'm not a disease expert, but I think the CDC are a bunch of quacks and are trying to kill Americans' had better put out some facts based foundation for the claim. Else they deserve scorn and replacement.

One who says 'I'm a politician, not a doctor, but the inconsistencies in the stories from the CDC troubles me. And I wish they had arranged a private transport for that nurse in Cleveland' - this works fine for me. Politicians in general know better the importance of consistent messaging, particularly in a crisis.

[BIGUN 1,317]

kallend

Veggie burgers are the comfort food of the future!

Ya know, they're not half bad with some bacon grease.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

I'm struggling here to see what a non-scientist should do.

no struggle at all. allow the science to speak, which it has, soundly, without dissent other than the sparse 2-3% and then as a politician, you should be making sound political decisions based on that science, not denying the science even exists. TO do anything else is purely political negligence and a disservice to your country and your constituents.

these people state that the science is faulty, that there is solid dissent, that the science is not in agreement. which is complete bullshit. They are scorned because they are full of shit, not because they say things like 'I am not a scientist.'

the least they could do is listen to the science. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the them have. they have listened only to the money that comes their way.

[billvon 2,998]

>Ya know, they're not half bad with some bacon grease.

There's a burger place down here (Slater's) that does a "50/50" - 50% beef and 50% bacon. Maybe they could add a 50% garden burger with 50% bacon. It might appeal to people who are habitually indecisive.

[lawrocket 3]

No snark. You let me know what the hubbub was about.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BIGUN 1,317]

billvon

>Ya know, they're not half bad with some bacon grease.

There's a burger place down here (Slater's) that does a "50/50" - 50% beef and 50% bacon. Maybe they could add a 50% garden burger with 50% bacon. It might appeal to people who are habitually indecisive.

Throw an over-easy egg on the top of it and you've got the perfect breakfast.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 23]

tkhayes

Quote

I'm struggling here to see what a non-scientist should do.

no struggle at all. allow the science to speak, which it has, soundly, without dissent other than the sparse 2-3% and then as a politician, you should be making sound political decisions based on that science, not denying the science even exists. TO do anything else is purely political negligence and a disservice to your country and your constituents.

these people state that the science is faulty, that there is solid dissent, that the science is not in agreement. which is complete bullshit. They are scorned because they are full of shit, not because they say things like 'I am not a scientist.'

the least they could do is listen to the science. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the them have. they have listened only to the money that comes their way.

Wow
with your eyes that tightly closed I can only wonder how you do not trip every other step

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

***

Quote

the least they could do is listen to the science. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the them have. they have listened only to the money that comes their way.

Wow
with your eyes that tightly closed I can only wonder how you do not trip every other step

And your salary comes from......?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply] allow the science to speak, which it has, soundly, without dissent other than the sparse 2-3% and then as a politician, you should be making sound political decisions based on that science, not denying the science even exists.

[kallend 2,027]

lawrocket

(4) There is more certainty about the Higgs boson than there is about ctastrophic climate change.

.

"Catastrophic" is a value judgement, not science.

There is plenty of certainty about climate change.

Science encourages its practitioners to challenge their beliefs. This is what separates science from religion, which discourages its practitioners from challenging their beliefs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***

(4) There is more certainty about the Higgs boson than there is about ctastrophic climate change.

.

"Catastrophic" is a value judgement, not science.
But alarmism is thrown in to try and spark a feeling of urgency(which is not needed)

There is plenty of certainty about climate change.
agreed, the climate changes as this is what climate does. There is howerver, much disagreement about whether or not man has any significant impact to this change
Science encourages its practitioners to challenge their beliefs. This is what separates science from religion, which discourages its practitioners from challenging their beliefs.Does not seem to be the case with AWG. Too much fed money and gov power at stake

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******

Quote

the least they could do is listen to the science. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the them have. they have listened only to the money that comes their way.

Wow
with your eyes that tightly closed I can only wonder how you do not trip every other step

And your salary comes from......?

Providing consurmers like you with reliable cost effective electricity so you can get your hanger door open when you want to take your plane out for a spin

My job requires someone providing that elecricity

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

If science spoke, that'd be easy. Only scientists do that. And scientists are human.

I suppose the scientists should just shut up, and publish their findings in technical journals no-one except other scientists ever read.

We can leave all the policy decisions to the lawyers, because (as they are apparently taught upon admission to law school) lawyers are actually superhuman and are capable of perfect understanding of any subject, no matter how complex, often without needing to read anything produced by those pointy-headed scientists.

Perhaps the next time I notice someone with their chest strap undone I should not say anything, as I am not an AFFI and therefor unqualified to have an opinion about what is dangerous. If I am lucky there may be a lawyer on the load, in which case I could quickly write up my findings (Bob's chest strap appears to be misrouted) and pass it to them to read and make a policy decision.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

*********

Quote

the least they could do is listen to the science. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the them have. they have listened only to the money that comes their way.

Wow
with your eyes that tightly closed I can only wonder how you do not trip every other step

And your salary comes from......?

Providing consurmers like you with reliable cost effective electricity so you can get your hanger door open when you want to take your plane out for a spin

My job requires someone providing that elecricity

And over 10 MILLION tons of CO2 emitted every year according to your employer's web site. Funny you failed to mention that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

******

(4) There is more certainty about the Higgs boson than there is about ctastrophic climate change.

.

"Catastrophic" is a value judgement, not science.
But alarmism is thrown in to try and spark a feeling of urgency(which is not needed)

There is plenty of certainty about climate change.
agreed, the climate changes as this is what climate does. There is howerver, much disagreement about whether or not man has any significant impact to this change

INCORRECT


Science encourages its practitioners to challenge their beliefs. This is what separates science from religion, which discourages its practitioners from challenging their beliefs.Does not seem to be the case with AWG. Too much fed money and gov power at stake

The money spent by the feds pales in comparison with the money spent by big energy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.