The relevance of credentials in science debates

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Sherlock Holmes

The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Recently the question of the overall relevance of educational qualifications and other "credentials" when discussing or commenting on various subjects, came up, I pointed out Noam Chomsky's well know position on this (one which I share) and I quoted him. Well here's the full quotation: (added emphasis mine)
Noam Chomsky wrote: “In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia.

No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor’s degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds.

They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible… the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.
But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy….

The issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I’ve repeatedly been challenged on grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do I have that entitles you to speak on these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional viewpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.

Compare mathematics and the political sciences… it’s quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.”
So when debating science in these kinds of forums, should we insist on certain qualifications before considering someone's argument or should we evaluate arguments purely on the strength of the case the make? If we disagree with someone's opinion and they are not "qualified" does that fact justify us in dismissing what they have to say?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #31

Post by Diogenes »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm Recently the question of the overall relevance of educational qualifications and other "credentials" when discussing or commenting on various subjects, came up, I pointed out Noam Chomsky's well know position on this (one which I share) and I quoted him. Well here's the full quotation: (added emphasis mine)
Noam Chomsky wrote: “In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia.

No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say."
....

So when debating science in these kinds of forums, should we insist on certain qualifications before considering someone's argument or should we evaluate arguments purely on the strength of the case the make? If we disagree with someone's opinion and they are not "qualified" does that fact justify us in dismissing what they have to say?
Taking this quote from Chomsky out of the context of his own credentials and education to mean that the opinions of totally unqualified people should be taken as authoritative is absurd and turns the value of education on its head. Chomsky is such a well known expert in his field, that he is invited to lecture on various subjects without his credentials being questioned:

"Avram Noam Chomsky[a] (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historical essayist,[c] social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics",[d] Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and an Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and is the author of more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media."
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chom ... %93present

There is something almost sinisterly misleading to use Chomsky to argue against having expertise, education, and legitimate credentials as qualifying one as an expert, compared to any person on the street being used as an 'expert.' You might as well claim the uncredentialed and gullible proponents of flat Earth 'theory' are qualified to opine on astronomy.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #32

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:12 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm Recently the question of the overall relevance of educational qualifications and other "credentials" when discussing or commenting on various subjects, came up, I pointed out Noam Chomsky's well know position on this (one which I share) and I quoted him. Well here's the full quotation: (added emphasis mine)
Noam Chomsky wrote: “In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia.

No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say."
....

So when debating science in these kinds of forums, should we insist on certain qualifications before considering someone's argument or should we evaluate arguments purely on the strength of the case the make? If we disagree with someone's opinion and they are not "qualified" does that fact justify us in dismissing what they have to say?
Taking this quote from Chomsky out of the context of his own credentials and education to mean that the opinions of totally unqualified people should be taken as authoritative is absurd and turns the value of education on its head. Chomsky is such a well known expert in his field, that he is invited to lecture on various subjects without his credentials being questioned:

"Avram Noam Chomsky[a] (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historical essayist,[c] social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics",[d] Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and an Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and is the author of more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media."
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chom ... %93present

There is something almost sinisterly misleading to use Chomsky to argue against having expertise, education, and legitimate credentials as qualifying one as an expert, compared to any person on the street being used as an 'expert.' You might as well claim the credentialed and gullible proponents of flat Earth 'theory' are qualified to opine on astronomy.
You forgot to read it all the way through:
The issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I’ve repeatedly been challenged on grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do I have that entitles you to speak on these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional viewpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #33

Post by Diogenes »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:46 pm
You forgot to read it all the way through:
The issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I’ve repeatedly been challenged on grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do I have that entitles you to speak on these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional viewpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.
Your post misses the point. Chomsky is not claiming to be an expert in any field he does not speak on. One is not automatically disqualified on some topic simply because he is not credentialed; however, that is the way to bet. You are using the example of Chomsky, who IS acknowledged as an expert in many fields, to attempt to justify ANY person who has no credentials.

There are exceptions, such as Vivien Thomas, who pioneered cardiac surgical techniques, despite not having an education past high school (because of racism and poverty).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Thomas

His work was popularized by films like Partners of the Heart and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_the_Lord_Made

Thomas was VERY WELL 'credentialed,' tho' not in the way of formal academics. Your post attempts to take the exception and make it the rule. This is sophistry of the lowest order and completely misrepresents the very concept of "credentials."
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #34

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:47 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:46 pm
You forgot to read it all the way through:
The issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I’ve repeatedly been challenged on grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do I have that entitles you to speak on these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional viewpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.
Your post misses the point. Chomsky is not claiming to be an expert in any field he does not speak on. One is not automatically disqualified on some topic simply because he is not credentialed; however, that is the way to bet. You are using the example of Chomsky, who IS acknowledged as an expert in many fields, to attempt to justify ANY person who has no credentials.

There are exceptions, such as Vivien Thomas, who pioneered cardiac surgical techniques, despite not having an education past high school (because of racism and poverty).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Thomas

His work was popularized by films like Partners of the Heart and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_the_Lord_Made

Thomas was VERY WELL 'credentialed,' tho' not in the way of formal academics. Your post attempts to take the exception and make it the rule. This is sophistry of the lowest order and completely misrepresents the very concept of "credentials."
Nope, you are confused. Tell me please, which statement of mine from the OP do you disagree with? What did I actually say that you disagree with? If you disagree with me what do you disagree with?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #35

Post by otseng »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm Nope, you are confused.
:warning: Moderator Warning


Please debate without making personal comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #36

Post by brunumb »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Diogenes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:47 pm Your post misses the point. Chomsky is not claiming to be an expert in any field he does not speak on. One is not automatically disqualified on some topic simply because he is not credentialed; however, that is the way to bet. You are using the example of Chomsky, who IS acknowledged as an expert in many fields, to attempt to justify ANY person who has no credentials.

There are exceptions, such as Vivien Thomas, who pioneered cardiac surgical techniques, despite not having an education past high school (because of racism and poverty).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Thomas

His work was popularized by films like Partners of the Heart and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_the_Lord_Made

Thomas was VERY WELL 'credentialed,' tho' not in the way of formal academics. Your post attempts to take the exception and make it the rule. This is sophistry of the lowest order and completely misrepresents the very concept of "credentials."
Nope, you are confused.
Could you please clarify your response by explaining which part of the post from Diogenes speaks to that confusion.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #37

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

brunumb wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Diogenes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:47 pm Your post misses the point. Chomsky is not claiming to be an expert in any field he does not speak on. One is not automatically disqualified on some topic simply because he is not credentialed; however, that is the way to bet. You are using the example of Chomsky, who IS acknowledged as an expert in many fields, to attempt to justify ANY person who has no credentials.

There are exceptions, such as Vivien Thomas, who pioneered cardiac surgical techniques, despite not having an education past high school (because of racism and poverty).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Thomas

His work was popularized by films like Partners of the Heart and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_the_Lord_Made

Thomas was VERY WELL 'credentialed,' tho' not in the way of formal academics. Your post attempts to take the exception and make it the rule. This is sophistry of the lowest order and completely misrepresents the very concept of "credentials."
Nope, you are confused.
Could you please clarify your response by explaining which part of the post from Diogenes speaks to that confusion.
Yes, what you claim the Chomsky quote says is the exact opposite of what it does say.

You: "One is not automatically disqualified on some topic simply because he is not credentialed"
Noam: "people like me, who are outsiders from a professional viewpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #38

Post by Bust Nak »

Noam Chomsky wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm Compare mathematics and the political sciences… it’s quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.”
I think it is better to say, the fewer people giving out their uninformed opinion in a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:So when debating science in these kinds of forums, should we insist on certain qualifications before considering someone's argument or should we evaluate arguments purely on the strength of the case the make?
In a debate context, the argument is the only consideration.
If we disagree with someone's opinion and they are not "qualified" does that fact justify us in dismissing what they have to say?
Yes, since here we are talking about a person's opinion, not their argument.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #39

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:02 pm
Noam Chomsky wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm Compare mathematics and the political sciences… it’s quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.”
I think it is better to say, the fewer people giving out their uninformed opinion in a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:So when debating science in these kinds of forums, should we insist on certain qualifications before considering someone's argument or should we evaluate arguments purely on the strength of the case the make?
In a debate context, the argument is the only consideration.
If we disagree with someone's opinion and they are not "qualified" does that fact justify us in dismissing what they have to say?
Yes, since here we are talking about a person's opinion, not their argument.
Well all such arguments are ultimately opinions because they are rooted in assumptions and the choice of assumptions is often a matter of opinion.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #40

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:32 am Noam: "people like me, who are outsiders from a professional viewpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things."
Again I have to point out how odd this sentiment is. Some folks act as if there's some sort of law against speaking outside of one's expertise and a police force that enforces it. However in the real world, you can speak all you want and for the most part no one will stop you. You can shout all sorts of nonsense from the rooftops, like "evolution has been falsified" and no evolution speech police will tase you and take you away with a black hood over your head.

It seems what really bothers some people isn't that they're not allowed to speak, it's that when they do speak no one cares or takes them at all seriously. So if say someone goes around declaring "evolution is falsified" but also demonstrates that they don't know much of anything about evolutionary biology, very few (if any) people will see that declaration as credible. But no one will actually try and stop the person from making the declaration in the first place.

The point is, it's important to not confuse "your assertions carry no weight because you don't know what you're talking about" with "you're not allowed to speak because you're not qualified". The two are not at all the same.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Locked