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?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.”
The relevance of credentials in science debates
Moderator: Moderators
The relevance of credentials in science debates
Post #1Recently 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)
Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates
Post #41Except that isn't what Chomsky is talking about at all. He's talking about certain disciplines attract people who fuss about one's credentials before listening to what they have to say and others attract people who don't care about credentials and are eager to here the substance of what one has to say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:51 pmAgain 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.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."
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.
His quote is easy enough to understand, so the endless misunderstandings about it are a bit of a mystery.
- 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 #42Well if you want to restrict the discussion to only what Chomsky specifically spoke to, then since his comments were specifically about math and political science, that's all they're applicable to and they have no relevance to debates or discussions in any other topics.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:40 pmExcept that isn't what Chomsky is talking about at all. He's talking about certain disciplines attract people who fuss about one's credentials before listening to what they have to say and others attract people who don't care about credentials and are eager to here the substance of what one has to say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:51 pmAgain 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.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."
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.
His quote is easy enough to understand, so the endless misunderstandings about it are a bit of a mystery.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates
Post #43Really? well you're the one who repeatedly fusses about people not being "qualified" to critique evolution, so it seems to me you have something in common with the social science folks. Tell me what qualifications does one need to critique a fairy tail these days?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:48 pmWell if you want to restrict the discussion to only what Chomsky specifically spoke to, then since his comments were specifically about math and political science, that's all they're applicable to and they have no relevance to debates or discussions in any other topics.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:40 pmExcept that isn't what Chomsky is talking about at all. He's talking about certain disciplines attract people who fuss about one's credentials before listening to what they have to say and others attract people who don't care about credentials and are eager to here the substance of what one has to say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:51 pmAgain 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.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."
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.
His quote is easy enough to understand, so the endless misunderstandings about it are a bit of a mystery.
- 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 #44So now it's okay to discuss Chomsky's comments in the context of fields of science other than math and political science? Make up your mind.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:50 pm Really? well you're the one who repeatedly fusses about people not being "qualified" to critique evolution, so it seems to me you have something in common with the social science folks.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates
Post #45Well if you had read what Chomsky wrote you'd see he also mentions physics.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:52 pmSo now it's okay to discuss Chomsky's comments in the context of fields of science other than math and political science? Make up your mind.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:50 pm Really? well you're the one who repeatedly fusses about people not being "qualified" to critique evolution, so it seems to me you have something in common with the social science folks.
What qualifies one to critique evolution in your world? or do you agree with Chomsky that fussing over credentials is unnecessary in an intellectually well founded subject like mathematics or physics?
- 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 #46At the very least, a basic understanding of the subject.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:03 pm What qualifies one to critique evolution in your world?
I can't say, since I don't know what "intellectually well founded" refers to.or do you agree with Chomsky that fussing over credentials is unnecessary in an intellectually well founded subject like mathematics or physics?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates
Post #47So no formal qualifications or certification then, is that what you're saying?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:10 pmAt the very least, a basic understanding of the subject.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:03 pm What qualifies one to critique evolution in your world?
Why am I not surprised to hear that.
- 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 #48Yes, I've said that all along. Everyone is free to say whatever they like, critique whatever they want...no one will stop them. But if in doing so they reveal a fundamental ignorance of the subject they're speaking about, no one will take them seriously.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:16 pmSo no formal qualifications or certification then, is that what you're saying?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:10 pmAt the very least, a basic understanding of the subject.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:03 pm What qualifies one to critique evolution in your world?
Again, it's the difference between "I want to be able to speak about evolution" and "I want folks to take my claims about evolution seriously".....two very different things (and not unique to evolution).
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates
Post #49And by "fundamental ignorance" you mean avoid suggesting that life on earth did not evolve on the basis of common ancestry? That is to question a fundamental evolution belief is tantamount to fundamental ignorance, yes?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:22 pmYes, I've said that all along. Everyone is free to say whatever they like, critique whatever they want...no one will stop them. But if in doing so they reveal a fundamental ignorance of the subject they're speaking about, no one will take them seriously.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:16 pmSo no formal qualifications or certification then, is that what you're saying?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:10 pmAt the very least, a basic understanding of the subject.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:03 pm What qualifies one to critique evolution in your world?
Again, it's the difference between "I want to be able to speak about evolution" and "I want folks to take my claims about evolution seriously".....two very different things (and not unique to evolution).
- 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 #50No, I mean not knowing things they teach in middle school biology, like that bacteria are a Domain and thinking that "but they're still bacteria" is a valid argument.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:37 pm And by "fundamental ignorance" you mean avoid suggesting that life on earth did not evolve on the basis of common ancestry?
Nope. As I said before, if a person's denial of evolution really were based in a good understanding of the subject, you'd expect that to come through in their arguments, such as properly using terminology, showing knowledge of the current state of the science, citations to and in-depth discussions of published literature, citations to and in-depth discussions of the data, showing understanding and competence in how data is analyzed, etc.That is to question a fundamental evolution belief is tantamount to fundamental ignorance, yes?
When you don't see any of that and instead see lots of empty rhetoric about being "silenced", arguments about credentials, argumentation via quotes, grousing about peer review, egregious use of inapt analogies, etc., it's a good bet the person's denial isn't at all based in science.
Further, behavior provides additional insight. When the same person habitually ignores scientific information people provide and refuses to back up their assertions, that's more confirmation that their denial isn't based in science.
Then for the cherry on the sundae, when the same person often discusses the subject in religious terms it's a good bet that their denial is rooted in religion/theology and not science.
IOW, it's like the jigsaw puzzle analogy.....when all the pieces are put together, a very clear and obvious picture emerges that only the staunchest denialists can refuse to acknowledge.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.