How many of those who argue against science actually know anything about science?

[cladking]

By the way, I voted "kindergarten" even though I never went and wanted to see the results. I changed it to MS when I saw mostly believers had voted.

I didn't get a lot of formal training in science and was principally self taught. I took a few college courses and read Principia.

 

[cladking]

There you go again.

Welcome to my ignore list.

I might still read your posts and will respond only as a tactic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, I voted "kindergarten" even though I never went and wanted to see the results. I changed it to MS when I saw mostly believers had voted.

I didn't get a lot of formal training in science and was principally self taught. I took a few college courses and read Principia.

Do you think that you can do MSc levels of physics since you read Principia?

 

[cladking]

Do you think that you can do MSc levels of physics since you read Principia?

I'm sorry, I was not intentionally trying to mislead. I was trying to explain the changes in the vote to anyone watching.

In my prime I was almost as good as most second year physics students with strength in chemistry, experiment design, prediction, and invention. I was weak in some key areas like math so didn't take more classes. Since then I have continued to study with an emphasis on metaphysics and generalism. I have no real scientific expertise but do know the difference between my beliefs and my knowledge (for the main part). I used to do a lot of math in my head but now I use paper and pencil when needed.

It just looks like it's mostly believers in science have voted. I changed my vote again to "college level" in the interests of accuracy.

 

[oldbadger]

I tend to think of "knowledge" as that which is needed to perform tasks or to build and "science" as the means to generate knowledge but I don't really disagree with you.

I've got a mate who drives a drain clearance truck . Drainage systems for houses as well as commercial properties need his service.... It is a very complex lump of equipment and his customers are in so much muck when arrives.
Over many years he has learned and remembered one massive heap of info which means that he rarely fails to unblock a system.
He's a tradesman but he earns as much as a GP doctor, neither one being able to do the other's work.

To me the word scientist is not as important as the description of what a person actually does.

 

[oldbadger]

hi.. @Subduction Zone
Got a question .....
Members often discuss 'science' on RF, and so I read this word in all manner of varying subject matters.

Because it is sometimes used as a lever to gain credence, or respect I tend to be more cautious about any points being made. In other words I tend to avoid it myself.

My question is this, is there a job, position, employment etc where the word scientist would be more accurate than the name of the work?

For instance , 50 years ago I trained to a dendo chronologist but back then we called the work dendrology .
I wasn't a scientist, I was a dendrology trainee. Get it?

So......who is a scientist?

 

[cladking]

I've got a mate who drives a drain clearance truck . Drainage systems for houses as well as commercial properties need his service.... It is a very complex lump of equipment and his customers are in so much muck when arrives.
Over many years he has learned and remembered one massive heap of info which means that he rarely fails to unblock a system.
He's a tradesman but he earns as much as a GP doctor, neither one being able to do the other's work.

To me the word scientist is not as important as the description of what a person actually does.

True knowledge is visceral. If you read in a book that something is true it is not the same thing as having experiential knowledge of it. A doctor could be in a specialty that requires far less true knowledge than a plumber or an electrician. Of course all doctors get a great deal of instruction in order to become a doctor. We tend to find experiential knowledge far more useful and far more appropriate to application to the real world than "book learning". We tend to remember what we learn through experience our entire lives. Young professionals have lots of knowledge but no experience so often are at severe disadvantages to real "journeymen" in most cases. I'd listen to the old wizened millwright before the brash young engineer.

 

[oldbadger]

True knowledge is visceral. If you read in a book that something is true it is not the same thing as having experiential knowledge of it. A doctor could be in a specialty that requires far less true knowledge than a plumber or an electrician. Of course all doctors get a great deal of instruction in order to become a doctor. We tend to find experiential knowledge far more useful and far more appropriate to application to the real world than "book learning". We tend to remember what we learn through experience our entire lives. Young professionals have lots of knowledge but no experience so often are at severe disadvantages to real "journeymen" in most cases. I'd listen to the old wizened millwright before the brash young engineer.

So true.