The relevance of credentials in science debates

[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)

“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?

[Jose Fly]

Define your term "lack knowledge of that subject"? lack with respect to whom? with respect to what? what knowledge specifically?

Relative to the subject itself. I don't know if you saw it, but this is precisely what I attempted to illustrate with THIS THREAD.

If you're looking for a precise amount of knowledge one must have before attempting to debate a subject....there isn't one. It's not like there's a law that says "you must pass this test before discussing evolution". If someone wants to discuss or debate it even though they know very little about it, that's totally fine. But if they make fundamental errors and basically reveal their own ignorance, people are going to notice. Some will make fun of them for being so ignorant, some will point out the problems that come with debating subjects one is ignorant in, some will see it as a waste of time and walk away, or some will try and educate the person.

So really, I'm not sure what your point is here. If you want to discuss or debate evolution even though you don't know much about the subject, go right ahead.....no one will stop you. But if you reveal a basic level of ignorance while simultaneously speaking as an authority, you probably should expect to get called out on it. And "Oh you're saying I have to have a PhD to even discuss evolution" is a pretty transparent (and weak) defense mechanism.

[The Barbarian]

I've worked with information systems for decades, I'm intimately familiar with coding systems, encryption, compression, finite state machines, complexity, data communications and much more so am I not more competent to discuss some aspects of evolution than someone with just a BSc in biology?

Barbarian suggests:
Well, that's a testable belief. Let's see you have it. Suppose that a population has two alleles for a given gene locus each with a frequency of 0.5. Then a mutation produces a new one. Over time, they eventually each have a frequency of 1/3. What was the information for that gene before and after the mutation was established?

Show your work.

I have no idea,

You have no idea how evolution adds to (or sometimes subtracts from) genetic information in a population, but you think you can discuss the issue knowledgeably?

nor do I accept that answering that question is necessary to discuss evolution.

On the elementary level you can, perhaps. Of course, anyone can discuss anything, whether or not they know anything about it. Tour, for example, discusses evolution, even though he admits that he doesn't understand it. But you don't need an advanced degree to know somethings about it. It's just a change in allele frequencies, after all. But that's like saying if you know Newton's laws, you are capable of speaking knowledgeably about physics.

Much of the way evolution works will be a mystery to you. Let's do something easier:

If you have two alleles for a given gene locus and one (A) has a frequency of 0.6 in the population, and one (a) has a frequency of 0.4, and there is negligible immigration into and emigration from the population, and there is no selective difference between them, what will be the frequencies of these genotypes in the next generation: AA, Aa, and aa?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've worked with information systems for decades, I'm intimately familiar with coding systems, encryption, compression, finite state machines, complexity, data communications and much more so am I not more competent to discuss some aspects of evolution than someone with just a BSc in biology?

Barbarian suggests:
Well, that's a testable belief. Let's see you have it. Suppose that a population has two alleles for a given gene locus each with a frequency of 0.5. Then a mutation produces a new one. Over time, they eventually each have a frequency of 1/3. What was the information for that gene before and after the mutation was established?

Show your work.

I have no idea,

You have no idea how evolution adds to (or sometimes subtracts from) genetic information in a population, but you think you can discuss the issue knowledgeably?

nor do I accept that answering that question is necessary to discuss evolution.

On the elementary level you can, perhaps. Of course, anyone can discuss anything, whether or not they know anything about it. Tour, for example, discusses evolution, even though he admits that he doesn't understand it. But you don't need an advanced degree to know somethings about it. It's just a change in allele frequencies, after all. But that's like saying if you know Newton's laws, you are capable of speaking knowledgeably about physics.

Much of the way evolution works will be a mystery to you. Let's do something easier:

If you have two alleles for a given gene locus and one (A) has a frequency of 0.6 in the population, and one (a) has a frequency of 0.4, and there is negligible immigration into and emigration from the population, and there is no selective difference between them, what will be the frequencies of these genotypes in the next generation: AA, Aa, and aa?

Do you know how to calculate the square root of pi by hand? likely not, but would that stop you doing mathematics that involve pi or square roots?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Define your term "lack knowledge of that subject"? lack with respect to whom? with respect to what? what knowledge specifically?

Relative to the subject itself. I don't know if you saw it, but this is precisely what I attempted to illustrate with THIS THREAD.

If you're looking for a precise amount of knowledge one must have before attempting to debate a subject....there isn't one. It's not like there's a law that says "you must pass this test before discussing evolution". If someone wants to discuss or debate it even though they know very little about it, that's totally fine. But if they make fundamental errors and basically reveal their own ignorance, people are going to notice. Some will make fun of them for being so ignorant, some will point out the problems that come with debating subjects one is ignorant in, some will see it as a waste of time and walk away, or some will try and educate the person.

So really, I'm not sure what your point is here. If you want to discuss or debate evolution even though you don't know much about the subject, go right ahead.....no one will stop you. But if you reveal a basic level of ignorance while simultaneously speaking as an authority, you probably should expect to get called out on it. And "Oh you're saying I have to have a PhD to even discuss evolution" is a pretty transparent (and weak) defense mechanism.

My point is to discuss the OP which is what we're doing, curiously too we can see that Jose thinks qualifications don't matter, knowledge does yet Barbarian insists that qualifications are essential - which of you is right?

[Jose Fly]

My point is to discuss the OP which is what we're doing, curiously too we can see that Jose thinks qualifications don't matter, knowledge does

You missed the point. Qualifications can matter, depending on the context. For example, qualifications certainly matter in court, whereas here they don't.

yet Barbarian insists that qualifications are essential - which of you is right?

We're both right. You should avoid simplistic black/white thinking as much as you can.

[The Barbarian]

I've worked with information systems for decades, I'm intimately familiar with coding systems, encryption, compression, finite state machines, complexity, data communications and much more so am I not more competent to discuss some aspects of evolution than someone with just a BSc in biology?

I have no idea,

You have no idea how evolution adds to (or sometimes subtracts from) genetic information in a population, but you think you can discuss the issue knowledgeably?

nor do I accept that answering that question is necessary to discuss evolution.

On the elementary level you can, perhaps. Of course, anyone can discuss anything, whether or not they know anything about it. Tour, for example, discusses evolution, even though he admits that he doesn't understand it. But you don't need an advanced degree to know somethings about it. It's just a change in allele frequencies, after all. But that's like saying if you know Newton's laws, you are capable of speaking knowledgeably about physics.

Much of the way evolution works will be a mystery to you. Let's do something easier:

If you have two alleles for a given gene locus and one (A) has a frequency of 0.6 in the population, and one (a) has a frequency of 0.4, and there is negligible immigration into and emigration from the population, and there is no selective difference between them, what will be the frequencies of these genotypes in the next generation: AA, Aa, and aa?

(Still too tough)

Do you know how to calculate the square root of pi by hand?

The middle school algebra method of rooting large numbers is clumsy, but gets you to whatever precision you want. If I don't have a calculator (which is mostly never, given my phone), I can use that. Works kinda like long division, but a bit different. There may be more elegant ways, but that's the one I know. Or I could line up the cursor to Pi on the A scale of my Keuffel and Esser rule, and then read off the value of um... 1.77(1?) on the C scale. That works out, too. Yes, I'm really old.

likely not, but would that stop you doing mathematics that involve pi or square roots?

Notice that two key issues in evolution are mysteries to you, because you don't know information theory and you don't know how to predict genotypes for a next generation (which actually is most useful for identifying selective pressure when it doesn't work).

So let's go to something even easier. Why is fixation or extinction always the ultimate fate of any given allele? Explain your reasoning.

Notice you don't need a degree in biology or population genetics to do these problems. But you do have to know what you're talking about. Does that help?

[JoeyKnothead]

I know me how to build stuff.

Any y'all need a new tooth?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've worked with information systems for decades, I'm intimately familiar with coding systems, encryption, compression, finite state machines, complexity, data communications and much more so am I not more competent to discuss some aspects of evolution than someone with just a BSc in biology?

I have no idea,

You have no idea how evolution adds to (or sometimes subtracts from) genetic information in a population, but you think you can discuss the issue knowledgeably?

nor do I accept that answering that question is necessary to discuss evolution.

On the elementary level you can, perhaps. Of course, anyone can discuss anything, whether or not they know anything about it. Tour, for example, discusses evolution, even though he admits that he doesn't understand it. But you don't need an advanced degree to know somethings about it. It's just a change in allele frequencies, after all. But that's like saying if you know Newton's laws, you are capable of speaking knowledgeably about physics.

Much of the way evolution works will be a mystery to you. Let's do something easier:

If you have two alleles for a given gene locus and one (A) has a frequency of 0.6 in the population, and one (a) has a frequency of 0.4, and there is negligible immigration into and emigration from the population, and there is no selective difference between them, what will be the frequencies of these genotypes in the next generation: AA, Aa, and aa?

(Still too tough)

Do you know how to calculate the square root of pi by hand?

The middle school algebra method of rooting large numbers is clumsy, but gets you to whatever precision you want. If I don't have a calculator (which is mostly never, given my phone), I can use that. Works kinda like long division, but a bit different. There may be more elegant ways, but that's the one I know. Or I could line up the cursor to Pi on the A scale of my Keuffel and Esser rule, and then read off the value of um... 1.77(1?) on the C scale. That works out, too. Yes, I'm really old.

likely not, but would that stop you doing mathematics that involve pi or square roots?

Notice that two key issues in evolution are mysteries to you, because you don't know information theory and you don't know how to predict genotypes for a next generation (which actually is most useful for identifying selective pressure when it doesn't work).

So let's go to something even easier. Why is fixation or extinction always the ultimate fate of any given allele? Explain your reasoning.

Notice you don't need a degree in biology or population genetics to do these problems. But you do have to know what you're talking about. Does that help?

No mystery at all. You are conflating quantitative and qualitative aspects of the subject. Not being equipped to answer a quantitative question does not mean one is not equipped to comment on qualitative aspects, this is a common error I've seen when discussing science with people. Science isn't about mathematics or numbers, these are just part of a language that lends itself well to nature.

I do not need to calculate the acceleration and trajectory a person will follow if they jump from the roof of a building, in order to make the decision that to jump will kill them (this also touches on the other thread about AI and morality), perhaps you do, but that only proves my point about how you are conflating very different things.

My (Sherlock Holmes) reply is in red as you seem to frequently mess up the quoting in these posts.

[JoeyKnothead]

I do not need to calculate the acceleration and trajectory a person will follow if they jump from the roof of a building, in order to make the decision that to jump will kill them (this also touches on the other thread about AI and morality), perhaps you do, but that only proves my point about how you are conflating very different things.

Such depends on from how high, landing strategy, and various other factors.

So to say a jump "will" kill is a bit off. (As I note your comment implies a desire to end it all.)

[Sherlock Holmes]

I do not need to calculate the acceleration and trajectory a person will follow if they jump from the roof of a building, in order to make the decision that to jump will kill them (this also touches on the other thread about AI and morality), perhaps you do, but that only proves my point about how you are conflating very different things.

Such depends on from how high, landing strategy, and various other factors.

So to say a jump "will" kill is a bit off. (As I note your comment implies a desire to end it all.)

Some jumps will lead to death and some won't the point is one can make such a prediction in many cases without doing acceleration, trajectory, air resistance, viscosity, humidity, wind and other calculations, at least I can, what would you have predicted here, death or a sprained ankle?

Or would you need to do a bunch of calculations before positing an opinion? Can you see now? the difference between quantitative analysis and qualitative?

Barbarian's line of argument is that being unable to perform those calculations means any opinion as to the outcome, is worthless, absolutely no value, has no place in the discussion - do you agree with him?