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]

There we have it, as predictable as the sun rise, even hinting that evolution rests upon assumptions just won't be tolerated!

LOL...yes, the entirety of evolutionary science rests upon the assumption of the non-existence of mechanisms that no one has defined, described, shown evidence for, or presented to evolutionary biologists.

Which biology book did you read that in? or is it another example of attempted rhetoric?

Oh they all say that Sherlock. Every one of them starts off with "Evolutionary scientists assume the non-existence of mechanisms for which there are no definitions, descriptions, or evidence".

So tell me....do you think evolutionary biology is the only field of science where the non-existence of undefined, undescribed, and unevidenced mechanisms is assumed?

[Sherlock Holmes]

There we have it, as predictable as the sun rise, even hinting that evolution rests upon assumptions just won't be tolerated!

LOL...yes, the entirety of evolutionary science rests upon the assumption of the non-existence of mechanisms that no one has defined, described, shown evidence for, or presented to evolutionary biologists.

Which biology book did you read that in? or is it another example of attempted rhetoric?

Oh they all say that Sherlock. Every one of them starts off with "Evolutionary scientists assume the non-existence of mechanisms for which there are no definitions, descriptions, or evidence".

So tell me....do you think evolutionary biology is the only field of science where the non-existence of undefined, undescribed, and unevidenced mechanisms is assumed?

You really don't want a serious discussion do you. I mention the FACT that there are assumptions all through evolution, many of then questionable and you react with sarcasm rather than admit what is an obvious fact.

[Jose Fly]

You really don't want a serious discussion do you. I mention the FACT that there are assumptions all through evolution, many of then questionable and you react with sarcasm rather than admit what is an obvious fact.

So you really do think you've scored a win here, by getting an "evolutionist" to admit that evolutionary science assumes the non-existence of undescribed, undefined, and unevidenced mechanisms.

Why do you think that's significant?

And again, do you think this assumption is unique to evolutionary biology?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You really don't want a serious discussion do you. I mention the FACT that there are assumptions all through evolution, many of then questionable and you react with sarcasm rather than admit what is an obvious fact.

So you really do think you've scored a win here, by getting an "evolutionist" to admit that evolutionary science assumes the non-existence of undescribed, undefined, and unevidenced mechanisms.

Why do you think that's significant?

And again, do you think this assumption is unique to evolutionary biology?

Sorry if you see this as a contest Jose, that speaks volumes to me.

[Jose Fly]

You really don't want a serious discussion do you. I mention the FACT that there are assumptions all through evolution, many of then questionable and you react with sarcasm rather than admit what is an obvious fact.

So you really do think you've scored a win here, by getting an "evolutionist" to admit that evolutionary science assumes the non-existence of undescribed, undefined, and unevidenced mechanisms.

Why do you think that's significant?

And again, do you think this assumption is unique to evolutionary biology?

Sorry if you see this as a contest Jose, that speaks volumes to me.

And once again you make up excuses so you don't have to answer questions.....just after complaining that others don't answer your questions.

Creationists, if nothing else, certainly are entertaining.

[The Barbarian]

Occam's Razor remains the bête noir of creationists. With observed phenomena being sufficient to account for evolution, there's no reason to imagine that God needed anything more than the very nature He created.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Locking the thread due to multiple rule violations.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.