Scientists on RF: sharing your expertise

[Flankerl]

No clue what I am supposed to write here.

MSc in Chemistry and BSc in Biochemistry.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If we're going by formal education as a mark of intelligence and knowledge, then I would be one of the dumbest posters on here since I never finished high school or got a GED. Not to rain on the parade here, but that's how the OP makes me feel. Formal education is very much a privilege in this world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No clue what I am supposed to write here.
MSc in Chemistry and BSc in Biochemistry.

Wow, I'm impressed!

 

[Quintessence]

If we're going by formal education as a mark of intelligence and knowledge, then I would be one of the dumbest posters on here since I never finished high school or got a GED. Not to rain on the parade here, but that's how the OP makes me feel. Formal education is very much a privilege in this world.

It is and it isn't at the same time. There are still support structures in place to assist those of high ability who may not have the socioeconomic background to afford higher education. There is no way I would have done what I did without these programs, because I sure as blazes don't come from a wealthy family. I'm often surprised how many students I talk with don't know that you actually get paid to do graduate school in the sciences more often than not. So once you get through the bachelor's level, you're supported during the rest of it.

For students who don't demonstrate high ability, the picture is not quite as nice, though, that's true. There are fewer support programs in place to assist those coming from households that don't encourage them to explore, excel, and be excited about education. On the whole, education isn't a high value in my country - more and more it is perceived as a means to an ends, rather than the ends in of itself. Combine that with obscenely rising costs of higher education, and eventually, something about this system is going to need to change.

I'd like to see more credit given for non-formal educational experiences. I understand the desire to weight formal education because it provides at least some sort of standard, but a self-motivated learner who grasps the basics or even deeper nuances of a field through self-study? That should be a big deal.

But all this is neither here nor there with the intention of the thread. Should probably get its own topic if we all want to discuss the problems of the system further.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is and it isn't at the same time. There are still support structures in place to assist those of high ability who may not have the socioeconomic background to afford higher education. There is no way I would have done what I did without these programs, because I sure as blazes don't come from a wealthy family. I'm often surprised how many students I talk with don't know that you actually get paid to do graduate school in the sciences more often than not. So once you get through the bachelor's level, you're supported during the rest of it.

For students who don't demonstrate high ability, the picture is not quite as nice, though, that's true. There are fewer support programs in place to assist those coming from households that don't encourage them to explore, excel, and be excited about education. On the whole, education isn't a high value in my country - more and more it is perceived as a means to an ends, rather than the ends in of itself. Combine that with obscenely rising costs of higher education, and eventually, something about this system is going to need to change.

I'd like to see more credit given for non-formal educational experiences. I understand the desire to weight formal education because it provides at least some sort of standard, but a self-motivated learner who grasps the basics or even deeper nuances of a field through self-study? That should be a big deal.

But all this is neither here nor there with the intention of the thread. Should probably get its own topic if we all want to discuss the problems of the system further.

Or when you are talented in certain areas, but have to deal with severe mental illness which prevents you from functioning and turns you into a fearful recluse, no one recognizes the problem and you're just chased out or thrown away like garbage because no one wants to help you, like what happened with me. I'm pretty bitter about this subject.

But I digress.

 

[metis]

This is thread is simply so you can makes yourselves known and share your level of education and expertise, so the non-scientists have a better idea of who to trust in threads on specialised subjects and who to ask for advice on tricky subjects (if you are open to it).

I am an anthropologist with a graduate degree who taught the subject for 30 years. My main interest at the beginning of my studies was "physical anthropology" (human evolution) but I fairly quickly gravitated to "cultural anthropology", with specialization with the Huron and Ojibwe and, later on, with Middle Eastern traditional culture.

I've been retired for 13 years now, and I still ain't caught up on my reading.

 

[MD]

I'm a high school drop out, but Naykidape's got a PhD in Stuffology.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No clue what I am supposed to write here.

MSc in Chemistry and BSc in Biochemistry.

Do you know any shortcuts for memorizing chemical formulas?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This thread is meant as an invitation for members of the forum with a background in the hard sciences (I.e.the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) to let us know who you are so we know whose expertise to trust in debates on the forum.

Scientific knowledge plays a crucial role in debates on RF and that very much reflects the role science plays in society at large as the standard of knowledge. It is also under attack from a number of sources such as political, religious and corporate groups which through the power of mass media spread distortions and misinformation that find their way to the general public and to many members of RF. It is hard to overcome your ignorance on certain subjects especially if you are too ignorant to recognise our own ignorance behind the mask of certainty and conviction. It takes a certain humility to respect those with greater knowledge and expertise especially when cherished beliefs are at stake, which is why it matters to know whose posts can be deferred to on relevant areas.

I realise there are at least one or two scientists on RF and what I hope is that by making it a bit more obvious who to look out for, it will help enlighten everyone else.

For the purposes of clarification I am going to assume a minimum of either currently studying or have studied in the sciences at a graduate level. That's not very high but still higher than secondary/high school education in science the rest of us will probably have. If you have something else in mind worth sharing such as a life long hobby in one of the sciences, feel free and if your a student your voice should be included as well.

This is thread is simply so you can makes yourselves known and share your level of education and expertise, so the non-scientists have a better idea of who to trust in threads on specialised subjects and who to ask for advice on tricky subjects (if you are open to it).

scientists don't always have the answers but they often can ask better questions and that can get the rest of us at least half way there.

Go Science!

While I have long been a hobbyist in the hard sciences, especially astronomy, and studied biological sciences as an undergrad, I'm feeling kinda off-put by the limitation of this OP to "hard sciences," because there are many discussions in RF where knowledge of the methods, limitations, etc., of the social sciences ("soft sciences") are useful...

To that extent, my graduate degrees are in the social science area of public administration, which includes the study of policy and management, which are relevant to many of the discussions on RF.

 

[Laika]

While I have long been a hobbyist in the hard sciences, especially astronomy, and studied biological sciences as an undergrad, I'm feeling kinda off-put by the limitation of this OP to "hard sciences," because there are many discussions in RF where knowledge of the methods, limitations, etc., of the social sciences ("soft sciences") are useful...

To that extent, my graduate degrees are in the social science area of public administration, which includes the study of policy and management, which are relevant to many of the discussions on RF.

As a social science graduate I felt it was still better to defer to natural sciences in the OP as relatively superior in methodological rigour. That may be overly simplistic. Still been some very interesting responses in this thread

 

[illykitty]

Or when you are talented in certain areas, but have to deal with severe mental illness which prevents you from functioning and turns you into a fearful recluse, no one recognizes the problem and you're just chased out or thrown away like garbage because no one wants to help you, like what happened with me. I'm pretty bitter about this subject.

But I digress.

I'm in the same boat @Saint Frankenstein I don't even have a secondary school diploma. I dropped out because of severe depression and social anxiety (and some mild agoraphobia). I have no formal education. But don't let that make you feel dumb. I know it's easy to say and I get low about it at times. People with mental illness (and poor people, which I was growing up) are often let down by society. I wish I could have been taught at home while I was dealing with my issues and eventually re-integrate. Instead, they made me return to school many times without success, in fact, it made things worse. It's a shame because school was pretty easy for me, overall, I got marks over 90% in quite a few subjects without even studying. If they had invested in me a little, I could have given back a lot more.

We're not dumb. I'm sure you must have a similar experience, to some degree at least, of learning by yourself. I've learned a lot on my own, reading about various subjects. There's now some university subjects online for free. And even if it's not university things, there's many things you can explore by yourself by reading articles and such. But formal learning is considered to be more valuable in society... Maybe someday that will change, one can hope. I also think it's a fallacy to think that one can just go to school for a few years and then be done with learning, but I could type out a big rant on that.

I don't think it was the intention of @Laika to make you feel that way. But I know it can be frustrating and bring up some really unpleasant feelings. There are days I feel ashamed of it.

 

[Orbit]

This thread is meant as an invitation for members of the forum with a background in the hard sciences (I.e.the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) to let us know who you are so we know whose expertise to trust in debates on the forum.

Scientific knowledge plays a crucial role in debates on RF and that very much reflects the role science plays in society at large as the standard of knowledge. It is also under attack from a number of sources such as political, religious and corporate groups which through the power of mass media spread distortions and misinformation that find their way to the general public and to many members of RF. It is hard to overcome your ignorance on certain subjects especially if you are too ignorant to recognise our own ignorance behind the mask of certainty and conviction. It takes a certain humility to respect those with greater knowledge and expertise especially when cherished beliefs are at stake, which is why it matters to know whose posts can be deferred to on relevant areas.

I realise there are at least one or two scientists on RF and what I hope is that by making it a bit more obvious who to look out for, it will help enlighten everyone else.

For the purposes of clarification I am going to assume a minimum of either currently studying or have studied in the sciences at a graduate level. That's not very high but still higher than secondary/high school education in science the rest of us will probably have. If you have something else in mind worth sharing such as a life long hobby in one of the sciences, feel free and if your a student your voice should be included as well.

This is thread is simply so you can makes yourselves known and share your level of education and expertise, so the non-scientists have a better idea of who to trust in threads on specialised subjects and who to ask for advice on tricky subjects (if you are open to it).

scientists don't always have the answers but they often can ask better questions and that can get the rest of us at least half way there.

Go Science!

So social science involves no useful expertise when discussing religion/mythology?

 

[Old Scratch]

A PhD in Temptation & Corruption Sciences I have.
Only a Masters degree in Torment Studies though.

 

[Orbit]

As a social science graduate I felt it was still better to defer to natural sciences in the OP as relatively superior in methodological rigour. That may be overly simplistic. Still been some very interesting responses in this thread

The methods are not superior. They are simply different, because the matters under examination are different.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If only there were a greater correlation between having a scientific education and having a scientific mind.

 

[Laika]

I'm in the same boat @Saint Frankenstein I don't even have a secondary school diploma. I dropped out because of severe depression and social anxiety (and some mild agoraphobia). I have no formal education. But don't let that make you feel dumb. I know it's easy to say and I get low about it at times. People with mental illness (and poor people, which I was growing up) are often let down by society. I wish I could have been taught at home while I was dealing with my issues and eventually re-integrate. Instead, they made me return to school many times without success, in fact, it made things worse. It's a shame because school was pretty easy for me, overall, I got marks over 90% in quite a few subjects without even studying. If they had invested in me a little, I could have given back a lot more.

We're not dumb. I'm sure you must have a similar experience, to some degree at least, of learning by yourself. I've learned a lot on my own, reading about various subjects. There's now some university subjects online for free. And even if it's not university things, there's many things you can explore by yourself by reading articles and such. But formal learning is considered to be more valuable in society... Maybe someday that will change, one can hope. I also think it's a fallacy to think that one can just go to school for a few years and then be done with learning, but I could type out a big rant on that.

I don't think it was the intention of @Laika to make you feel that way. But I know it can be frustrating and bring up some really unpleasant feelings. There are days I feel ashamed of it.

I have depression and most of my "education" has occurred outside of school or university though I have been to both. I feel I have learned more outside of the system than within it and appreciate that formal learning is often inadequate, overly abstract or impractical than it necessarily needs to be. It tends to reflect the specialisation in knowledge rather than its applications.

So no, this was not meant in terms of one group of people being intrinsically superior or inferior, but that a certain group of people had spent more time asking a set of questions and using a particular method to find a set of answers meaning they have developed abilities which are useful to everyone else.

I am a big supporter of the view of science as a potentially democratic force for enlightenment and my hope is this thread will let us know who to ask or to defer to for those who don't know as much to develop their knowledge. its about finding out who is in the best position to share what they know. If there is superiority it is due to knowledge, rather than a title. knowledge does take a great deal of time to spread around and no amount of Google or Wikipedia searches in the course of a thread will be as useful as hearing someone with years of experience. If anything I'm hoping it will give people the self confidence to make mistakes and learn from them by working those with a background to help us to understand and achieve more.

The methods are not superior. They are simply different, because the matters under examination are different.

I've hit a nerve haven't I?

Natural sciences are clearly superior in terms of prediction and therefore in the practical application of knowledge. This does not mean social sciences aren't useful but that they are much more uncertain and untested. Marxists treated the USSR as a giant laboratory and its citizens as lab rats who must act as moving targets in order to survive the maze- so I am not opposed to the idea that a science of society is possible. I'll let you decide if I am the sort of person who would let something as ridiculous as ethics against a little harmless human experimentation and social engineering stand in the way of progress by using science to build a better world and mould the "new man".

Muhahahahahahaha!

clearly the philosophical problems in finding a predictive method for human behaviour mean that social science either cannot make such predictions (due to free will being inherently unpredictable) or that we would have to take a long road which bridges the gap between physiology and psychology. This involves a tonne of philosophical problems including overcoming the "hard problem of consciousness" finding out how human behaviour is determined, by what and how that determination translates from individual to social behaviour given there are differences both in scale and across historical and cultural contexts, etc. we need MAJOR intellectual changes until social sciences will be worthy of the name.

Am I being unfair?

 

[Orbit]

I have depression and most of my "education" has occurred outside of school or university though I have been to both. I feel I have learned more outside of the system than within it and appreciate that formal learning is often inadequate, overly abstract or impractical than it necessarily needs to be. It tends to reflect the specialisation in knowledge rather than its applications.

So no, this was not meant in terms of one group of people being intrinsically superior or inferior, but that a certain group of people had spent more time asking a set of questions and using a particular method to find a set of answers meaning they have developed abilities which are useful to everyone else.

I am a big supporter of the view of science as a potentially democratic force for enlightenment and my hope is this thread will let us know who to ask or to defer to for those who don't know as much to develop their knowledge. its about finding out who is in the best position to share what they know. If there is superiority it is due to knowledge, rather than a title. knowledge does take a great deal of time to spread around and no amount of Google or Wikipedia searches in the course of a thread will be as useful as hearing someone with years of experience. If anything I'm hoping it will give people the self confidence to make mistakes and learn from them by working those with a background to help us to understand and achieve more.



I've hit a nerve haven't I?

Natural sciences are clearly superior in terms of prediction and therefore in the practical application of knowledge. This does not mean social sciences aren't useful but that they are much more uncertain and untested. Marxists treated the USSR as a giant laboratory and its citizens as lab rats who must act as moving targets in order to survive the maze- so I am not opposed to the idea that a science of society is possible. I'll let you decide if I am the sort of person who would let something as ridiculous as ethics against a little harmless human experimentation and social engineering stand in the way of progress by using science to build a better world and mould the "new man".

Muhahahahahahaha!

clearly the philosophical problems in finding a predictive method for human behaviour mean that social science either cannot make such predictions (due to free will being inherently unpredictable) or that we would have to take a long road which bridges the gap between physiology and psychology. This involves a tonne of philosophical problems including overcoming the "hard problem of consciousness" finding out how human behaviour is determined, by what and how that determination translates from individual to social behaviour given there are differences both in scale and across historical and cultural contexts, etc. we need MAJOR intellectual changes until social sciences will be worthy of the name.

Am I being unfair?

This is nonsense and betrays your lack of knowledge about the philosophy of science and methodology. Religion is not a natural phenomenon subject to physical laws; it is a wholly social one. Applying the methods of natural science to religion is the worst kind of reductionism. Any philosopher of science will agree to that. The most science can do is give facts about evolution or the Earth's age to counter religious explanations. It cannot explain the rise of religion, how religion functions, or what it means in the lives of people.

In case you are wondering about my qualifications, they are:
BA Anthropology UCLA
MA Comparative Culture UC Irvine
PhD Sociology UC Irvine

 

[Flankerl]

Wow, I'm impressed!

Well everyone has something he/she can do. I've always been good with chemistry.

Do you know any shortcuts for memorizing chemical formulas?

Well when I learned them I made a quadrillion copies of them and left them everywhere in the house, had them always with me and so forth. They were everywhere so I couldn't miss them.

I guess that is the idiot way of doing it.


Another way would be through allegories or perhaps even rhymes but then again I didn't learn them in English so I can't help with that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If only there were a greater correlation between having a scientific education and having a scientific mind.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think a "scientific mind" is. And any data that shows that there is not much correlation between a "scientific education" and said kind of mind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

IFormal education is very much a privilege in this world.

Yes, you're right. I used to be a social worker so I understand this better than most. The education people get depends mostly on their social class and status. On the other hand I got my degree through part-time study later on, it wasn't easy but it felt a bigger achievement.