Should People Debate Scientist On Their Research or Their Creditials?

Question

If a scientist presents data that you don't like, should you prove him wrong or say he was paid off? What is the more responsible thing to do?

He's a P.H.d which makes him responsible for what he says. You have to argue against his science, not his background. Otherwise group think would set into the scientific community.

He's a PHd! If he presents a report you have to show scientifically that his data is either flawed or suspect. Calling him a liar before you have proof is just irresponsible.

Alberto: Sea levels would remain constant, volume of H20 would be reduced. If you knew anything about chemistry you'd know that.

msi_chord: thank you for being the first honest poster.

NET DISPLACEMENT IS ZERO. VOLUME DOES NOT EQUAL DISPLACEMENT. VOLUME INCLUDES THE ICE ABOVE THE WATER!

Therefore, the reduction in volume is equal to the volume of ice above the water.

Please reconsult phase diagrams on H20.

Since I'm bored I'll even go into the fluid mechanics of it. Net displacement is equal to the total water weight. Because the total weight of the ice does not change as the ice melts, the level of the water does not change. However, total volume of any mixture is equal to the total volume of ice + the total volume of liquid water. If you had ever taken a class in thermodynamics, you would be able to accurately see that the total volume of a ice/water mixture goes down as the ice transitions into the liquid phase.

Answer 1

Yes, it is reasonable to look at a scientist's credentials.

Answer 2

Not all scientists have PhD. I have 2 bachelor's degrees, many of my friends are not yet mastered, but that does not take away from their pursuit of the scientific method. Every paper presented, whether an undergraduate report or a thesis from a tenured professor, is subject to serious scrutiny, and; before it becomes fact it has to be proven and it's results must be reproducible. You must also look closely at the presenters past and present employment and associates to discern whether he is influenced by money or power or lust.. For instance: Al Gore has no credentials as a climatologist or as an environmental scientist yet he pretends to know what he is doing while he is lying through his teeth. If all the water that is now ice melted, Manhatan would not go Atlantan-- the worst that would happen is that it would probably rain a lot in places where it usually does not, then it would cool down a lot, then it would refreeze and return to the way it now is.

Answer 3

Not only should you but responsible scientist do. There are very few facts in Science and debating findings and results is part of the scientific process. I would also question their credentials if they required questioning, such as methods used to obtain an outcome or retrieval of data. I would also question who is funding the research. Many global warming scientists are funded by groups that have an economic advantage of having global warming data be true, just as some other organization have an interest in the opposite and fund science to prove their view. The responsible thing to do is question the science and the scientist in a civil amnner and help the research to come a conclusion based on scentific method not popularity or money.

Answer 4

I would argue that a Scientist is only as good as their research as even some of the brightest minds have obtain flawed data.

We have to realize there is a huge difference between scientists, researchers and compulators (data entry). We need to realize that by entering a scientific experiment with a precluded outcome (for the morons that answered your question before me that means entering an experiment with an outcome and back tracking it to support your outcome) is completely against every step of the scientific process. Experiments that use this type of conjecture are most often proved partially are completely inaccurate.

So it is the METHOD that should first be unbiasedly(regardless of your political views) questioned and investigated.

Answer 5

First of all it was not his data. It came from a Russian astronomer.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060210/20060210_15.html

In science it is always proper to question data and the interpretation of data. It is very easy to manipulate data. Just to give an example:

http://www-ccec.ece.ucsb.edu/people/smith/classnotes/ethics/schon_ieee_spectrum.pdf


"He's a P.H.d which makes him responsible for what he says."

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. They have peer reviewed journals for a reason, because many PhDs don't know what they are doing. If you want to see some quackpot PhD's just watch TLC for a while. I am sure they will have UFO expert with a PhD. The graph in question does appear to come from a peer reviewed journal but that still does not mean it is absolute fact. I have seen many errors in scientific journals.


Hmmm it appears that my questioning of the data in the previous question is being completely ignored. It seems it is easier to ignore problems than to actually address them.

Answer 6

As a scientist, in most cases you argue the data. Maybe the research is flawed in some way like an invalid assumption, incorrect analysis of the data, or a flawed experimental setup. Unless someone has something negative in their past, like making up data (referred to as "dry labbing") or does not have expertise in that particular area, I would avoid calling someone out on their credentials.

A PhD in what? A person who has a PhD in Social Work will not be credible when it comes to an issue regarding something like high temperature superconductors. They may be well-educated, but not have the expertise in that particular field.

Answer 7

you're the idiot that was trying to tell people that if floating ice melted, the volume of sea water would be reduced, which is a complete falsehood (it's unchanged), anything you say is suspect

no the volume stays the same, the ice is FLOATING, if the ice was being somehow held under the surface of water and it melted, the volume would be reduced, but that is not the case, WHEN FLOATING ICE MELTS THE NET VOLUME CHANGE IS ZERO

Answer 8

Especially where all the facts are not in , it's never a done deal - therefore , any "proof" should be taken with a grain of salt , based partly on credentials ; partly on research ..and partly on who funded the research for which the data will benefit .

Answer 9

Am I the only one who wonders why the heck this scientific debate is in politics in the first place? Not blaming you, btw.

Did it ever occur to global warming theorists that politicizing this would automatically alienate at least half of the population?

ADDED: I resent your suggestion that my answer was dishonest, just because you might not agree. It was perfectly honest, and I am not pursuing a science degree; however, I am involved in politics, and can tell you now that you need to take this debate somewhere besides politics, if you are not interested in discussing POLITICS.

Answer 10

He's not a credentialed scientist pal - the burden of proof is on you if he is.

*show us the credentials, and dispute my last answer - if you dare.

**Pfffft.