Scientists Are Not Created Equal
Does calling someone a "scientist" mean that he knows anything at all?
Filed under General Science, Logic & Persuasion
| Skeptoid #25 February 05, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
You hear on the news all the time that scientists say this, scientists say that. For example, some friend of mine will try to convince me that the Earth is only 6000 years old because there are some scientists now supporting it. I often reply with something like "Sure, it's easy to find some whack-job who will say just about anything."
"No, no; not whack-jobs," they'll quickly say. "Scientists."
Oh. Well there are no whack-job scientists. News flash: Wherever you go, you'll find all kinds of people. All kinds of people, in every group. As if bearing the arbitrary, unsupported label of "scientist" means that you automatically know your ass from a hole in the ground. Does it?
What exactly is a "scientist", anyway? Is it someone with a degree in a scientific field? Is it someone who works in a scientific field? Is it someone who's won awards, or written articles in a scientific journal? Can it be a guy in his basement who has taught himself a great deal about a given subject? Can it be anyone who applies critical thinking to the world around him? Do you have to have the word "scientist" in your job title? Can someone simply call himself a scientist? Whatever it is, it seems that your word is cast in gold as absolute truth if someone refers to you as a scientist. Many people accept that too readily. If the 6:00 Action News team reports that a scientist says it, it must be true.
Not all scientists are people that we should listen to at all. Even the Nazi doctors who performed experiments on living humans during World War II were, by any practical definition, scientists. Would you want any of those guys telling you what's right and what's wrong? Nevertheless they held advanced degrees and were among Germany's top medical experts. It's weird to say it, and it's politically incorrect, but you can't disqualify Nazi doctors as valid scientists just because they were evil. Now go to the other end of the spectrum. Most people in the world — and thus, by extension, most people in the world with post graduate scientific degrees — attend religious services. The only thing that tells us is that those scientists do not apply skeptical critical thinking to the theological aspect of their lives. Beyond that, many of them are top experts in their scientific fields, Nobel laureates among them. You can't necessarily disqualify a scientist only because of certain aspects of what he does. Many detractors try to, but it's often not right. I'm considered a top expert in my professional field, and I absolutely have differences with most of my colleagues. Should I be cast out, or is it healthy to have diverse viewpoints within a community?
I submit that we shouldn't give any weight to someone's statements just because some person calls him a scientist. So then, what quality must a scientist have to be authoritative?
Maybe we should accept the word of a scientist if he has an advanced degree. Have you ever known an idiot with a degree? The fact is that practically any motivated person can eventually get any degree they want, if they're willing to put in the years. I'm sure that if James Randi wanted to, he could work hard and get a Ph.D. in Divinity from Oral Roberts University. The reverse is also true: A staunch Creationist could no doubt become a doctor of astrophysics — indeed, many astrophysicists out there undoubtedly are Creationists. Thus, when you hear a Creationist defend his position by quoting from a scientist (name any astrophysicist) who believes in it, that hardly means that the entire science of astrophysics has concluded that the universe was created by a magician. Not only is the fact that someone holds a particular degree not a reliable indicator that he is an expert in that field, many degrees are themselves pretty worthless as indicators that the holder has a scientific mind. Legitimate accredited Ph.D.s are available in many fields not associated with science, such as divinity, philosophy, dance, or fiction. Many people can go around rightly calling themselves a doctor, but having no scientific background at all. Really the only thing a degree tells you about someone is where they drank themselves into a stupor when they were 19. I refer you to my own Ph.D. on ThunderwoodCollege.com. Is a scientist automatically qualified because he has an advanced degree? No.
Maybe we should accept the word of a scientist if he works in a certain industry. Have you ever had a boss who didn't know as much as you? Have you ever worked with someone who hated his job or didn't care about it? Think about the company where you work right now, and think of that one guy in the office that everyone thinks is a kook. Is he a kook for a reason? There may be people at your company who would make good representatives of your work if you put them in front of a group to speak. Are there also people at your company that no way would you want them representing what you do? Is a scientist automatically qualified because he works in a certain industry? No.
The fact is that calling someone a scientist doesn't mean that he's smart, that he's right, that he thinks scientifically, or that he's anything more than a waste of space. You can't easily qualify someone just because they're called a scientist, and you can't easily disqualify a scientist because of some stuff that he does. All of this means that the label of "scientist" is pretty darn worthless by itself. When you hear any claim validated by the fact that some "scientists" support it, be skeptical. You need to know who they are, what their interest is, and especially what the preponderance of opinion in the scientific community is. You need to know if the scientist being quoted actually has anything to do with this particular subject, or if his specialty is in an unrelated field. Look to see if this scientist has authored a good number of publications on the subject in legitimate peer-reviewed journals. Find out what other published scientists in his field say about him. Determine whether his views are generally in line with the preponderance of opinion among his peers in his discipline. Fringe opinions are on the fringe for a reason: they're usually wrong.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Barden, Laura; Frase, Priscilla; Kovac, Jeffrey. "Teaching Scientific Ethics: A Case Studies Approach." The American Biology Teacher. 1 Jan. 1997, Volume 59, Number 1: 12-14.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being A Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
Dyson, Freeman. The Scientist As Rebel. New York: The New York Review of Books, 2006.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Scheitle, Christopher P. "Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics." Social Problems. 1 May 2007, Volume 54, Number 2: 289-307.
Latour, Bruno; Woolgar, Steve. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Scientists Are Not Created Equal." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
5 Feb 2007. Web.
2 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4025>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 21 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
This reminds me of that guy raising hell about the LHC destroying the world. News reports named him a dissenting "scientist," and you might think that he would be a physicist or some such. Nope- he was a botanist. I guess the nuance escapes some people.
Casey K., Riverside, CA
May 29, 2009 1:56pm
How convenient, now this 'website' is trying to lay the ground work for discrediting scientists with actually expertise and training that can supply objective evidence that contradicts much of the nay saying & self-righteous suppositions propagated on this "site". This smacks of a form of religious fanaticism whereby you engage in FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) to attack anyone whose views materially contradict your world view (like what the ridiculous and fanatical catholic church did to Galileo and Da-Vinci). No matter; irrespective of this site's attempts at attacking ideas that contradict the conventional views propagated here, the majority of people will and should continue to think out of the box and not take conventional orthodoxy as sacrosanct (like some religious or atheist fanatic that can't handle their world view being challenged).
A Scientist, Toronto, Canada
January 04, 2010 3:35pm
So, Mr. A Scientist. Did you produce something non-repeatable or do you have a pine cone up your butt?
Read the web posting instead of listening to the pod-cast.
Look at the silly pop belief in "scientists" and calm down.
Carl Holm, Rochester NY
January 04, 2010 11:48pm
Well, I think that about proves that anybody can call themselves a scientist with offering proof of credential.
Tom H, Kent, UK
September 02, 2010 3:52am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
This is a bit of a tangent, but I hate how someone can be defined solely as a, "scientist" and then immediately be considered an expert on all things "scientific". That is analogous to saying that everyone who works in a school is a "teacher" and is equally qualified to teach any subject matter regardless. Or, on a more personal note, as someone can be solely described as an "engineer" and it is assumed that they are an expert on all things mechanical. I'm soon to graduate with a degree in Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics looking for a job (crappy timing, I know) and my skill-set is distintely different than a mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or an electrical engineer. Similarly, a partical physicist is different than an organic chemist and a palaeontologist. They're all "scientists" but with different specialties. A partical physicist cannot deduce the heredity of a fossil any more than I could explain why an explosion didn't cause the World Trade Center to fall (btw, a civil engineer is truely the expert on that, not a mechanical engineer). While cross-catagorical skills exist, it's important recognize that simply being a "scientist" isn't specific enough to bestow the amount of authority that is usually given to it. As this eposide is titled, "Not all scientists are created equal".
Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 05, 2009 8:09pm