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
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 #2

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm So when debating science in these kinds of forums...
After yesterday I was under the impression that you aren't here to debate. I concluded that you would prefer to have exchanges of opinions that conclude with "agree to disagree" (or similar).
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #3

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm 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?
Does it matter to me whether or not my doctor has graduated from a medical school and has the requisite certifications?

Yes, it does.

When someone replaces the breaker box in my house, does it matter to me whether or not he's been certified as an electrician?

Yes, it does. For the obvious reasons.

When all the doctors I see, agree that I should have a certain procedure, and my accountant says that there's no reason to do so, am I inclined to listen to the consensus of people who actually have demonstrated that they know what they are talking about?

Yes, I am. Why would that seem odd to anyone?

Years ago, in the AF, I ran an immunology clinic. One of the things our techs did, was give immunizations. An officer came to the clinic, because a certain immunization needed for his mobility status was due. Because that immunization was a live-virus vaccine, the technician asked him some questions (my policy), and it turned out he was on a medication that might lower his immunity to infection. So they referred him to the flight surgeon for evaluation.

His commander called, all bent out of shape. I took the call.

"Are you a doctor?"

"No sir."

"Then why did you take it on yourself to refuse to give him his immunization?"

"Because he's taking (medication) the vaccine could make him very ill if he took it. This is why the flight surgeon was asked to evaluate him."

"Now the flight surgeon won't let him take the shot and we need him to be qualified!" (there was a routine inspection coming and it was going to be a headache to deal with the problem)

Most likely, there wouldn't have been serious consequences. But there have been people who died in those circumstances. I had taken graduate work in immunology, but I was far from an expert. The regulation for immunizations did not require us to ask about immune system issues, but it should have. I had some understanding of the hazards, but only a physician was qualified to make a decision like that.

Sometimes knowing what one is talking about, is important.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #4

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 12:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm 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?
Does it matter to me whether or not my doctor has graduated from a medical school and has the requisite certifications?

Yes, it does.

When someone replaces the breaker box in my house, does it matter to me whether or not he's been certified as an electrician?

Yes, it does. For the obvious reasons.

When all the doctors I see, agree that I should have a certain procedure, and my accountant says that there's no reason to do so, am I inclined to listen to the consensus of people who actually have demonstrated that they know what they are talking about?

Yes, I am. Why would that seem odd to anyone?

Years ago, in the AF, I ran an immunology clinic. One of the things our techs did, was give immunizations. An officer came to the clinic, because a certain immunization needed for his mobility status was due. Because that immunization was a live-virus vaccine, the technician asked him some questions (my policy), and it turned out he was on a medication that might lower his immunity to infection. So they referred him to the flight surgeon for evaluation.

His commander called, all bent out of shape. I took the call.

"Are you a doctor?"

"No sir."

"Then why did you take it on yourself to refuse to give him his immunization?"

"Because he's taking (medication) the vaccine could make him very ill if he took it. This is why the flight surgeon was asked to evaluate him."

"Now the flight surgeon won't let him take the shot and we need him to be qualified!" (there was a routine inspection coming and it was going to be a headache to deal with the problem)

Most likely, there wouldn't have been serious consequences. But there have been people who died in those circumstances. I had taken graduate work in immunology, but I was far from an expert. The regulation for immunizations did not require us to ask about immune system issues, but it should have. I had some understanding of the hazards, but only a physician was qualified to make a decision like that.

Sometimes knowing what one is talking about, is important.
Then what of Chomsky's remarks? do you dismiss what he says? or agree, even partially?

My mother was a nurse in England for many years, reaching the "rank" of matron, this was during the late 1960s and 1970s. There were at least two occasions she has told me, where she disagreed with a senior surgeon but had to remain silent (it was/is a male dominated profession) and one of these led to the death of an elderly patient, something she foresaw but was powerless to prevent. This is what can happen when qualifications are the basis for evaluating opinions, it can lead to inflated egos, a disdain for anyone daring to disagree who is not "qualified".

To this day surgeons in Britain are referred to as "Mr." and never "Dr.", surgeons back then were not allowed to be called "Dr.".

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #5

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 12:20 pm Years ago, in the AF, I ran an immunology clinic. One of the things our techs did, was give immunizations. An officer came to the clinic, because a certain immunization needed for his mobility status was due. Because that immunization was a live-virus vaccine, the technician asked him some questions (my policy), and it turned out he was on a medication that might lower his immunity to infection. So they referred him to the flight surgeon for evaluation.

His commander called, all bent out of shape. I took the call.

"Are you a doctor?"

"No sir."

"Then why did you take it on yourself to refuse to give him his immunization?"

"Because he's taking (medication) the vaccine could make him very ill if he took it. This is why the flight surgeon was asked to evaluate him."

"Now the flight surgeon won't let him take the shot and we need him to be qualified!" (there was a routine inspection coming and it was going to be a headache to deal with the problem)

Most likely, there wouldn't have been serious consequences. But there have been people who died in those circumstances. I had taken graduate work in immunology, but I was far from an expert. The regulation for immunizations did not require us to ask about immune system issues, but it should have. I had some understanding of the hazards, but only a physician was qualified to make a decision like that.

Sometimes knowing what one is talking about, is important.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm Then what of Chomsky's remarks? do you dismiss what he says? or agree, even partially?
When he talks about philosophy, linguistics, even cognitive science, I pay attention. Why would I think he knows better than I do about anything else?
My mother was a nurse in England for many years, reaching the "rank" of matron, this was during the late 1960s and 1970s. There were at least two occasions she has told me, where she disagreed with a senior surgeon but had to remain silent (it was/is a male dominated profession) and one of these led to the death of an elderly patient, something she foresaw but was powerless to prevent. This is what can happen when qualifications are the basis for evaluating opinions, it can lead to inflated egos, a disdain for anyone daring to disagree who is not "qualified".
In the U.S. we have Nurse practitioners, who are RNs with training in diagnosis and treatment. And they are often amazingly good, particularly those with ER experience. One may have saved my life. She saw something that bothered her about my (apparently minor) injury, and referred me to an E.R. physician. Lucky for me, she did. It was easily handled, but could have killed me. But an RN is not qualified to be a physician, any more than a physician is qualified to do nursing. They are distinct (and equally honorable) professions.
To this day surgeons in Britain are referred to as "Mr." and never "Dr.", surgeons back then were not allowed to be called "Dr.".
Surgeons evolved from barbers in medieval Europe. Because they had sharp instruments, they were often used when cutting was necessary. They did not generally have the education of a physician. And physicians usually lacked the skill to be surgeons. In the U.S., one must be a physician in order to be a surgeon. There's a similar case in England between solicitors and barristers. In the U.S. they are all lawyers. Most law firms have since turned over the soliciter's work to paralegals, who do the research and preparation work, which is then reviewed by a lawyer for presentation in court or to a client.

Still, knowing what one is talking about is a huge advantage, and things like certifications are a very good way to handle it. There are exceptions. In a former life, I was an ergonomist for an insurance company, working with insureds to reduce musculoskeletal injuries. People at the level of senior specialists were required to have a CSP. A senior VP waived the rule for me, since I was in a very specialized area, and he was confident in my abilities. Before I left the company, I did sit for the exam, because I was going to need it for my next employer.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #6

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:13 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 12:20 pm Years ago, in the AF, I ran an immunology clinic. One of the things our techs did, was give immunizations. An officer came to the clinic, because a certain immunization needed for his mobility status was due. Because that immunization was a live-virus vaccine, the technician asked him some questions (my policy), and it turned out he was on a medication that might lower his immunity to infection. So they referred him to the flight surgeon for evaluation.

His commander called, all bent out of shape. I took the call.

"Are you a doctor?"

"No sir."

"Then why did you take it on yourself to refuse to give him his immunization?"

"Because he's taking (medication) the vaccine could make him very ill if he took it. This is why the flight surgeon was asked to evaluate him."

"Now the flight surgeon won't let him take the shot and we need him to be qualified!" (there was a routine inspection coming and it was going to be a headache to deal with the problem)

Most likely, there wouldn't have been serious consequences. But there have been people who died in those circumstances. I had taken graduate work in immunology, but I was far from an expert. The regulation for immunizations did not require us to ask about immune system issues, but it should have. I had some understanding of the hazards, but only a physician was qualified to make a decision like that.

Sometimes knowing what one is talking about, is important.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:06 pm Then what of Chomsky's remarks? do you dismiss what he says? or agree, even partially?
When he talks about philosophy, linguistics, even cognitive science, I pay attention. Why would I think he knows better than I do about anything else?
My mother was a nurse in England for many years, reaching the "rank" of matron, this was during the late 1960s and 1970s. There were at least two occasions she has told me, where she disagreed with a senior surgeon but had to remain silent (it was/is a male dominated profession) and one of these led to the death of an elderly patient, something she foresaw but was powerless to prevent. This is what can happen when qualifications are the basis for evaluating opinions, it can lead to inflated egos, a disdain for anyone daring to disagree who is not "qualified".
In the U.S. we have Nurse practitioners, who are RNs with training in diagnosis and treatment. And they are often amazingly good, particularly those with ER experience. One may have saved my life. She saw something that bothered her about my (apparently minor) injury, and referred me to an E.R. physician. Lucky for me, she did. It was easily handled, but could have killed me. But an RN is not qualified to be a physician, any more than a physician is qualified to do nursing. They are distinct (and equally honorable) professions.
To this day surgeons in Britain are referred to as "Mr." and never "Dr.", surgeons back then were not allowed to be called "Dr.".
Surgeons evolved from barbers in medieval Europe. Because they had sharp instruments, they were often used when cutting was necessary. They did not generally have the education of a physician. And physicians usually lacked the skill to be surgeons. In the U.S., one must be a physician in order to be a surgeon. There's a similar case in England between solicitors and barristers. In the U.S. they are all lawyers. Most law firms have since turned over the soliciter's work to paralegals, who do the research and preparation work, which is then reviewed by a lawyer for presentation in court or to a client.

Still, knowing what one is talking about is a huge advantage, and things like certifications are a very good way to handle it. There are exceptions. In a former life, I was an ergonomist for an insurance company, working with insureds to reduce musculoskeletal injuries. People at the level of senior specialists were required to have a CSP. A senior VP waived the rule for me, since I was in a very specialized area, and he was confident in my abilities. Before I left the company, I did sit for the exam, because I was going to need it for my next employer.
You seem to be claiming that one can only "know what one is talking about" if one has some formal qualification, but that's patently and rather obviously untrue. Chomsky is stating exactly that, the mathematicians he refers to are uninterested in his qualifications, they focus solely on the subject matter and reasoning. I asked you what you think of that yet you said only "When he talks about philosophy, linguistics, even cognitive science, I pay attention" ignoring the fact that mathematicians pay attention when speaks about mathematical linguistics despite him having zero qualifications in mathematics.

Clearly these mathematicians do not share your opinion of the necessity of qualifications.

Besides when we talk of evolution who are you to set the intellectual boundaries of what that comprises? The scope of the subject today includes mathematics, organic chemistry, information science and so on, yet you seem to feel a "degree in biology" is absolutely necessary Surely by your reasoning one needs a degree in umpteen subjects in order to even begin to discuss it. 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?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #7

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:52 am You seem to be claiming that one can only "know what one is talking about" if one has some formal qualification,
No. I'm pointing out that people who have put in the study and effort to become certified are more reliable about the things in which they are certified.
I asked you what you think of that yet you said only "When he talks about philosophy, linguistics, even cognitive science, I pay attention"
Yes. Why would being an expert in something make him an expert in everything?
Besides when we talk of evolution who are you to set the intellectual boundaries of what that comprises?
The people actually working in the field do that. Hence population genetics brought math into it, DNA brought molecular biology into it. Information theory brought entropy into it, and so on.
The scope of the subject today includes mathematics, organic chemistry, information science and so on, yet you seem to feel a "degree in biology" is absolutely necessary
Seeing as I never said that, your imagination is taking you away again. One does need to have learned biology, of course. Darwin had no degree in biology, but of course, his studies made him a major biologist, for which he was made a member of the Royal Society.
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?
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.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #8

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:15 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:52 am You seem to be claiming that one can only "know what one is talking about" if one has some formal qualification,
No. I'm pointing out that people who have put in the study and effort to become certified are more reliable about the things in which they are certified.
Very well, so you agree one can know what one is talking about without holding some formal qualification.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:15 pm
I asked you what you think of that yet you said only "When he talks about philosophy, linguistics, even cognitive science, I pay attention"
Yes. Why would being an expert in something make him an expert in everything?
That's a strawman fallacy, at no point did I say he was an expert in everything. I did ask (and you've refused to answer) what do you think of the fact that mathematicians care not for Chomsky's credentials, they assess what he says on the strength of his argument, but fine don't answer, I can draw my own conclusions from your silence.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:15 pm
Besides when we talk of evolution who are you to set the intellectual boundaries of what that comprises?
The people actually working in the field do that. Hence population genetics brought math into it, DNA brought molecular biology into it. Information theory brought entropy into it, and so on.
So its no longer what qualifications they hold but what their job is now?
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:15 pm
The scope of the subject today includes mathematics, organic chemistry, information science and so on, yet you seem to feel a "degree in biology" is absolutely necessary
Seeing as I never said that, your imagination is taking you away again. One does need to have learned biology, of course. Darwin had no degree in biology, but of course, his studies made him a major biologist, for which he was made a member of the Royal Society.
Right, so tell me, to discuss evolution, how many degrees must one have and in what subjects?
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:15 pm
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?
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, nor do I accept that answering that question is necessary to discuss evolution.

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 #9

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 2:08 pm so tell me, to discuss evolution, how many degrees must one have and in what subjects?
Again I see you grant "evolutionists" expansive powers that in the real world they just don't have. Before you seemed to think they have the power to stop creationists from doing their own investigations and studies, or creating and publishing in their own journals. Now apparently they have the power to stop people from even discussing evolution unless they have the proper credentials. Weird.

The reality is, pretty much anyone can discuss evolution. Recently Republican Senate candidate Hershel Walker discussed it when he wondered why apes still exist if humans evolved from apes. He (rightfully) got a lot of blowback for such an ignorant statement, but no "evolutionist" did anything to stop him from talking.

However, it's always been my view that if you want to discuss a topic in-depth, or even debate it, you should at least have a good understanding of the topic. To be clear, you don't need degrees to acquire that level of understanding....you can get it via other means.

Do you get what I'm saying here? It's not a matter of credentials, it's a matter of knowledge. And when someone tries to discuss or debate a subject and in doing so clearly demonstrates that they lack knowledge of that subject, the people they're trying to debate who do know the subject are going to call them out on it.

And trying to hide behind cries of "ad hominem" and "you're saying only people with PhD's can debate evolution" doesn't work....most folks will see that for exactly what it is....a weak attempt to mask the person's ignorance.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The relevance of credentials in science debates

Post #10

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 3:05 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 2:08 pm so tell me, to discuss evolution, how many degrees must one have and in what subjects?
Again I see you grant "evolutionists" expansive powers that in the real world they just don't have. Before you seemed to think they have the power to stop creationists from doing their own investigations and studies, or creating and publishing in their own journals. Now apparently they have the power to stop people from even discussing evolution unless they have the proper credentials. Weird.

The reality is, pretty much anyone can discuss evolution. Recently Republican Senate candidate Hershel Walker discussed it when he wondered why apes still exist if humans evolved from apes. He (rightfully) got a lot of blowback for such an ignorant statement, but no "evolutionist" did anything to stop him from talking.

However, it's always been my view that if you want to discuss a topic in-depth, or even debate it, you should at least have a good understanding of the topic. To be clear, you don't need degrees to acquire that level of understanding....you can get it via other means.

Do you get what I'm saying here? It's not a matter of credentials, it's a matter of knowledge. And when someone tries to discuss or debate a subject and in doing so clearly demonstrates that they lack knowledge of that subject, the people they're trying to debate who do know the subject are going to call them out on it.

And trying to hide behind cries of "ad hominem" and "you're saying only people with PhD's can debate evolution" doesn't work....most folks will see that for exactly what it is....a weak attempt to mask the person's ignorance.
Define your term "lack knowledge of that subject"? lack with respect to whom? with respect to what? what knowledge specifically? in my experience, certain aspects of problems can become evident even with a relatively little knowledge sometimes. For example I can write pretty capable software that demonstrates pretty deep concepts in a programming language that I might have only a very basic minimal knowledge of.

Frankly, evolution is a pretty simple idea to grasp, I used to read extensively about it and considered it almost self evident once. It's hardly some profound intellectual mountain like quantum physics or general relativity or learning to be a concert pianist. One doesn't need a degree in mechanical engineering with expertise in metallurgy and thermodynamics, to build a working steam engine.

So lets not exaggerate the role of certain specific in depth technicalities, one can often get a very decent grasp of a subject with minimal study. I'm an experienced speed reader myself and although I know it carries dangers of sometimes overlooking something critical, most of the time I do it I can get to the core issues pretty quickly.

I've been a project manager in my past and was pretty good. Often my job involved sitting with experts on the team - all of whom knew much more than me - and resolving disputes or arguments in order to make decisions and maintain progress, I'm pretty good at that, getting each side to weed out the core issues they face and see exactly why people on the team were in conflict. I'd resolved many such problems and did not have the same expertise in say network topologies or relational database design as my team members, but nor did I need that to get the dispute resolved.

So please don't presume all humans are the same when it comes to knowledge, study, research and so on, just because you'd not work in some way doesn't mean someone else can't or shouldn't.

Locked