How much do scientist know about science as such?

[Giliell]

I just had a kind of interesting but also very annoying discussion with my husband, my brother in law and his boyfriend. All three of them are trained in natural science. One is a chemist, a biologist and a clinical psychiartist.
I'll give the psychiatrist credit for being half a "humanities" profession, but he had to complete the first halft of the normal college courses for MDs as well.
But, in fact, they seem to understand less about the scientific method than I do, a "true" humanities profesional.
They were talking about proof for theories and such and seemed to have a pretty bad understanding about general scientific terminology.
I'll grant them that each of them know way more about their actual field of expertise than I do, of course, but why the heck don't they know the basics?
I think this may be a reason why we see quite a lot of scientists falling into the trap of creationism or other nonsense: They know the facts and they know how to apply things to their everyday professional lives, but they're lacking the basic understanding about how "we" got there in the first place.
Ideas from those of you who do science?

 

[lrkun]

The other scientists might know more about the scientific method than they do. For now, we cannot generalize the other scientists for your friend's/family's misunderstanding of the basics. Then again, it maybe because they don't apply the scientific method as much in their work, maybe they do observation and application of that which already works.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

About psychiatrists (not to be confused with psychiartists ), I do know that their methodologies are not as strict as a neurologist for instance and it is likely not to survive as a standing science in the next cetury (or at least not with a great restructuring).

The methodologies we use in science has a bit of tradition and it slowly morph to the needs and findings of the field. In particular the study of the human brain is a dificult area to actually get data, there are ethical limitations to the study of the brain, if you want good data on how the brain works you need a working brain (which generaly means that the person is still alive). Subjects are also hard to find, they are limited not only to just case studies, but also to episodic case studies.
Then we have limitations to how to trace its function, the brain is a very complicated and interconected network with very small individual structures overlayed on each other, there simply are no tools to get a fine detail of it. The chalendge is more complicated then reverse engineering an extensive micro processor while it is working by correlating information gathered from analysis of different versions of the processor.
But despite that we do not stop trying to know about, the general tools they have available in their belt are bad but sometimes they are able to produce results despite the problems. Today with the invention of MRI and brain scaners and more sofisticated tools to peer into a working brain, we are able to achieve better and more conclusive results then what we could in the past (even tough the tools of today are not as refined as one would hope).
So it doesn't surprise me that Psychiatrists does not share the same level of standards of other scientists.

About everyone else, there isn't a course that you take in University that teaches you the terminology. We generally learn from experience what the words like theory, fact and what not means (you generaly learn those things in philosophy instead, if the philosopher happens to be a scientist that is). Ofcourse it is expected from them that they do acquire the basic concepts what they supoused to mean by the time they get their degree. But the matter of fact is in academy words like theory, fact and what not simply doesn't come to play because scientists generaly know the science o their are of expertise. When trying to argue for or against some one elses explenations they do not go like "that is just a theory (or an hypothesis)", they rather go "hey you made a mistake because your model X works under the assumption (or simplification) Y which might not be true (or isn't true) in your case", or something else which I also here more often "that is totaly absurd, because the transformation that you have done has this particular quork that makes it a physical impossibility". The discutions that we have with creationists simply isn't anywhere close to the level of the discutions we have with other scientists, the 2 are absolutly nothing alike.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm guessing that some people see themselves as technicians more than anything else, and sort of do things by rote or off of a mental checklist. They aren't particularly interested in the theory behind things, and certainly aren't interested in developing anything new or interesting based on what they already know.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Of course outside teir own field of science, scientists can have the same prejudices about science as everyone else.

 

[Giliell]

Well, I agree, but it seemed puzzeling
Sure, my husband is a technician (his training was not in academia, it's kind of difficult to explain how the German system works), but his brother is a research biologist.
I'm a bit puzzled, because in the humanities, about the first class you do in college is "introduction to scientic working" and then they have the cheek to call our methods "sloppy"

 

[Pulsar]

In the curricula, there is very little attention given to the history and philosophy of science. Instead, almost every course is presented as a perfectly logical construct of laws and theories, as if handed down by God himself (or a professor with a similar ego). These courses hide the erratic way in which those theories were gradually being shaped, with all the mistakes and blind alleys along the way. It's very unfortunate that students don't learn all that. Other than that, the only way to really understand the scientific method is by actually doing science.

Science is a craft. You can learn as much as you like, but you will only become a craftsman when you get your hands dirty.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I disagree. I may not know the history of the tool, but none the less I can very well known the limits of it.
There are actualy important things to learn in science that deserve our time beter then history, there is some in introductory class but that is it. You have no idea how time consuming that would be if we learned everything in chronological order along side with false ideas and beliefs.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I disagree. I may not know the history of the tool, but none the less I can very well known the limits of it.
There are actualy important things to learn in science that deserve our time beter then history, there is some in introductory class but that is it. You have no idea how time consuming that would be if we learned everything in chronological order along side with false ideas and beliefs.

I don't think it is necessary to go anywhere near as far as you suggest. One of the interesting things that happened in my chemistry class last semester is that the labs were done in a way that each lab built on the next, and several of the lab sessions related to each other like a big puzzle. It wasn't just "mix chemical A, B, and C and record the results", there was a level of interpretation and experimentation of the real sort where you had to take the information you started with and make observations and decisions that would lead to an answer to a question as opposed to simply doing rote chemical mixing. You can mix in some of the physics I've taken where a few of the lessons are explained by describing the situation that led scientists to come up with new ideas, and giving a brief history of the science behind the equations.

 

[Ad Initium]

Before going into it, I looked up scientific method on wiki as a reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Needless to say -as all can see for themselves- is that this wiki page is huge, which should tell you something about the subject dicussed.

There is a difference between being a practical scientist and a researcher. But ... even the researcher could very well be not up to speed on the scientific method, as in ... how research, through the methods, confim theories that lead to actual new -by the science community- accepted theories.

Why? Because that is not his job. He is not the controller of the method, he is one of the smaller digits in the whole process.

I think the only scientists that would NEED to be totally up to speed on scientific method are theoretical scientists (Hawking comes to mind). Because these deal in idea's that can only be confirmed through scientific method. For them the method is a tool. For all other scientists this will be less so, unless you are working on a level of research that has to deal with the confirmation of a theory or new discovery, so basically high up the ladder of the confirmation of a theory.

Note too ... most scientists actually do not work alone. They have collegeau's or work for big(ger) companies, that will often take away alot of the administrative duties for the scientists, so these can focus on the actual research themselves. So some scientists do not even have to be up to speed on the methods.

You find Theoretical Scientists often discuss with eachother, how a new idea can be worked out, to confirm a theory. They will be discussing the methods, in all of the stages of the process, to proof and confirm.

A great example of idea working it's way through method, may be the Large Hadron Collider. This found it's way from idea and thought all the way through the scientific method, and they are still at it, for decades now. The scientists that work on the making of the thing itself, have to know less about the method then the scientists that will be doing the research and confirmation's of the idea's itself.

----

Not sure if what I wanted to tell came over clear.

Was my point clear?

---

P.S.
To answer the OP ... Perhaps they need to know less about it, because for their direct work, it is not that important. A more basic understanding will not stand in the way of their own work. I think.

 

[Giliell]

There is a difference between being a practical scientist and a researcher. But ... even the researcher could very well be not up to speed on the scientific method, as in ... how research, through the methods, confim theories that lead to actual new -by the science community- accepted theories.

Yes, but shouldn't you get the general idea?
To compare it again to the humanities: I got that class about scientific working. I even got it twice because I'm doing two languages. But I'm not going into research myself, I'm going to be a teacher, so I would say I'm more on the technician side. Still, I think it was absolutely necessary to know these things.

 

[Ad Initium]

There is a difference between being a practical scientist and a researcher. But ... even the researcher could very well be not up to speed on the scientific method, as in ... how research, through the methods, confim theories that lead to actual new -by the science community- accepted theories.

Yes, but shouldn't you get the general idea?
To compare it again to the humanities: I got that class about scientific working. I even got it twice because I'm doing two languages. But I'm not going into research myself, I'm going to be a teacher, so I would say I'm more on the technician side. Still, I think it was absolutely necessary to know these things.

Well to answer that I would need to know -in this case- what they actually lacked in knowledge about the methods. So I cannot give a fair answer other then state something about it.

If they totally lacked the knowledge, I would require to know what the work is they actually do on a daily basis and where they work exactly. Because if I was to support my own post on this, I can only answer it if I knew if they would be in a field of science and in an environment that has colleagues or a overlapping organisation that takes away alot of the scientific method for them.

Perhaps ... not sure if it will be a great comparison ... you could see it as patent's. The fieldwork is done by scientists and/or inventor's. They put in a patent, either themselves or they will leave it to their company, industry and/or organisation to put in the patent for them. If you do alot of work that bring's in a lot of patents, it may be benificial to have a specialist that does the patenting for you. It would not need to have the scientist/inventor to have knowledge of the actual patent process. Even further up, the organisation that tests the patent against all the other patents, will be working not so much with the actual fieldwork, but more so with comparison to other known patents and testing the validation. So all these people will be workng on the same thing, but may not need to have the same knowledge on the subject in order to approve or disapprove the new patent.

If your family members would be compared to the example scientists/inventor's, and their working environment does require them to have knowledge of the process in order to get a patent validated (working in a smaller organisation perhaps), ... and they do not ... then yes I would agree the missing of this knowledge is a bad thing. Getting patent's approved is a slow and long process. If you do the patenting yourself, but do it wrong, the patent will go bust and you will have to start all over again. Writing down in the patent application what you are actually trying to patent is very very important. Because their is alot of money involved, and it will protect you in the future against competition patents. If you fail to actually write down in the application, a very important part of your invention, you may get a patent of the whole, but your competition will patent the part you missed to add yourself. In that case you are in serious trouble. So the need for a specialist for these things is important.

To answer the question ... Shouldnt they get the general idea? ... It'll depend. A train-driver only has to know how to drive the train. In Formula 1 (F1) it will certainly help the team though, for the driver to have knowledge of engines and how a car works. If you are an airplane testpilot, having alot of knowledge on how a plane actually works will be extreemly important. Astronauts need to be very knowledgable, though not always. In the case of Apollo 13 it was very helpfull having knowledgable ppl in the spacecraft.

Must they ? ... I think not, but it will be prefered. It could aid them further up in their carreer. But it is no problem for the actual fieldwork, lacking it.

My opinion on this ofcourse, perhaps debatable.

 

[Giliell]

@ad infinitum
That's exactly what I'm getting at and was the question I posed: How much do people who are in some kind or the other trained in science really know about science and yes, you're right, they don't really have to know it to do their job, but isn't it a great shortcomming?

It's like having a cook who makes a good steak but who has never seen a cow.

 

[Ad Initium]

@ad infinitum
That's exactly what I'm getting at and was the question I posed: How much do people who are in some kind or the other trained in science really know about science and yes, you're right, they don't really have to know it to do their job, but isn't it a great shortcomming?

It's like having a cook who makes a good steak but who has never seen a cow.

No it is not a great short comming. And you are making a mistake here by saying:
"who are in some kind or the other trained in science really know about science" ... as you were asking about the method and not the science.

See how easily you are being fooled? How narrow it get's? Or were you talking about the science originally, not about the method, which got pushed on your discussion perhaps?

Did I succerpunch you into the discussion of method while you wanted to discuss science? Or perhaps the other way around.

Really?

Proof it!

Proof what? Well, that! ... What?

... I am confused.

---

Just look at me. I can discuss scientific method all I want and not have a clue on what any of the individual scientists are trying to figure out. But does that nulify the work these scientists do every day? Does discussing method make me an expert on their field of science? Ofcourse not.

We know better.

Giliell, if you want proof of the importance of Scientific Method to bring forth to your family. Just point them to creationists. Creationists are the prime example of science being used without the establishes scientific method applied. Though as the frecking sons of bitches they are (creationists), they will claim scientific method where there is none. That is called lying ofcourse ... a thing easily used by creationists.

I claim this, I know this, it has been proven, it is so as the Bible says, ... yet I have no proof, though I claim I have and bring evidence before you. I have yet to see Creationist evidence and theories that stands the test of scientific method. Sure, ... creationists can punch through theory, easy, .. but not through method. Method is what makes science unique, a thing anything fixed will never have.

True scientific method will stand the test of time.

I think if you want to point your family members to the importance of Scientific Method ... make them more knowledgeable of Creationists. They can only go two ways:
- Be lost to true science forever, being gullible
- Be lost to creationists, adhering to real scientific method

Being knowledgeable of Scientific Method makes you less gullible.

Gullible
-adjective
easily deceived or cheated.
,Synonyms
credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.

 

[Giliell]

I'm confused, too
No, it doesn't nullify what they're doing every day.
When I asked about "science as such" I meant the scientific method.
How do we know things, what's the process used to gain knowledge and why is it superior to other "methods".
What's the difference between evidence, a hypothesis, a law and a theory. Why is falsifyability so important and all those basics. That's what I found they were lacking.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In America, for example, school teachers generally rely on pedagogy to teach a subject rather than having a degree in the subject. When I went to school - years ago in Ireland - the teacher needed a degree in the subject in order to teach it.

As has been argued, it's better if you know what you're talking about than not.

Perhaps the question you're asking, Giliell, is, "How much do you need to know?" (in order to truly know what you know).

In mathematics, everyone remembers the boredom of learning "Euclid's Geometry" - the usual question arose: "What's it for?/Why do we have to learn it?". In order to understand what it's for, you have to learn it in its historical context.

Otherwise, you just learn it without any real understanding of its importance in the development of human civilization.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Math is most important in the historical context?
Blasphemer! BURN THE HERETIC!!!!!!!!!
No it is really usefull but not for 95% of the students.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Granted - but my point was that, at least with "Euclid", it helps to understand its historical context.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Greetings,

Granted - but my point was that, at least with "Euclid", it helps to understand its historical context.

Kindest regards,

James

Why does it help to understand Euclid's historical context?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Irkun, because the various proofs don't really make sense on their own - proving that line AB is parallel to line CD, etc.

When you see it in the context of plane geometry - cartography, etc - it helps.

Kindest regards,

James