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?

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

Maybe I read me more into it than what ya said.

I offer all necessary underplowings.

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?

I wouldn't debate The Barbarian if I got to poke me him in the eye before I did.

His post history indicates he'll be right often as the pretty thing says I didn't tote me out the trash - as she sits there apointing right there at it.

[The Barbarian]

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?

Suppose a man falls from an airplane four miles up. No parachute or other devices to save him. Does he die?

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

You know better. I told you otherwise. It's not nice to misrepresent other people. My point was that yes, you can speak of evolution, even if you don't understand much of it (as you demonstrated). I'm merely showing you that having a middle-school knowledge of evolution will often mislead you, if you assume that is adequate understanding for many real-life issues in evolutionary science.

I noticed earlier you didn't even understand all of Darwin's four points. How could you possibly understand how new information comes about by evolution?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

Maybe I read me more into it than what ya said.

I offer all necessary underplowings.

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?

I wouldn't debate The Barbarian if I got to poke me him in the eye before I did.

His post history indicates he'll be right often as the pretty thing says I didn't tote me out the trash - as she sits there apointing right there at it.

He's a person like you or me, nothing to fear but fear itself.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

Suppose a man falls from an airplane four miles up. No parachute or other devices to save him. Does he die?

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

You know better. I told you otherwise. It's not nice to misrepresent other people. My point was that yes, you can speak of evolution, even if you don't understand much of it (as you demonstrated). I'm merely showing you that having a middle-school knowledge of evolution will often mislead you, if you assume that is adequate understanding for many real-life issues in evolutionary science.

I noticed earlier you didn't even understand all of Darwin's four points. How could you possibly understand how new information comes about by evolution?

No, you totally missed the point. The whole point of my distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative analysis is that they each embody understanding. They are different forms of knowledge but equally full of meaning in their own way.

So please do not assert that I do not "understand" something simply because you are able to answer a question that I cannot, this does really seem to be the gist of your argument and I wanted to show you where you erred.

The dynamics of a ballet dancer or martial artist are no doubt hideously complex mathematically, perhaps beyond any prospect of feasible numerical analysis yet does that mean the dancer and the fighter do not understand what they are doing? is it not they who understand better than those who observe them?

How can one who does not understand any of what I say, possibly comment on my understanding?

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

Maybe I read me more into it than what ya said.

I offer all necessary underplowings.

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?

I wouldn't debate The Barbarian if I got to poke me him in the eye before I did.

His post history indicates he'll be right often as the pretty thing says I didn't tote me out the trash - as she sits there apointing right there at it.

He's a person like you or me, nothing to fear but fear itself.

In debate, the fear ain't it so much of fear, but the being exposed for having it wrong.

Then again, some folks don't fear em the being wrong, no matter how much ya show they are.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

Maybe I read me more into it than what ya said.

I offer all necessary underplowings.

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?

I wouldn't debate The Barbarian if I got to poke me him in the eye before I did.

His post history indicates he'll be right often as the pretty thing says I didn't tote me out the trash - as she sits there apointing right there at it.

He's a person like you or me, nothing to fear but fear itself.

In debate, the fear ain't it so much of fear, but the being exposed for having it wrong.

Then again, some folks don't fear em the being wrong, no matter how much ya show they are.

Everyone of us believes something that's false but only some of us ever discover the fact.

[The Barbarian]

He's a person like you or me, nothing to fear but fear itself.

I know the secret of appearing to know everything.

Only talk about things you know. So simple. And yet so very hard to do.

[Sherlock Holmes]

He's a person like you or me, nothing to fear but fear itself.

I know the secret of appearing to know everything.

Only talk about things you know. So simple. And yet so very hard to do.

Yes, but you don't appear to me to know everything so perhaps time to review this "secret".

[The Barbarian]

I know the secret of appearing to know everything.

Only talk about things you know. So simple. And yet so very hard to do.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑
Yes, but you don't appear to me to know everything so perhaps time to review this "secret".[/quote]

We are all ignorant in some aspects. You're just more careless about exposing it here.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #29]

You quoted yourself again!