All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 5, 2007 - Skeptoid
10:55
Skeptoid #25: Scientists Are Not Created Equal

The word "scientist" can mean just about anything you want it to mean. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Scientists Are Not Created Equally 00:09:16
An ongoing dialogue in modern society is what scientists say, because you'll get different answers from different people.
Part of the problem is that many of us only consider scientists who we agree with to be real scientists.
This opens the door for any random crackpot to be considered a scientist by some and revered for it.
Well, what is a scientist anyway?
We're talking about that today on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's Hyperfixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Scientists are not created equally.
You hear in the news all the time that scientists say this, scientists say that.
For example, some friend of mine will try to convince me that the Earth is only 6,000 years old because there are some scientists now supporting it.
I often reply with something like, sure, it's easy to find some whack job who will say just about anything.
No, no, not whack jobs, they'll quickly say.
Scientists.
Oh, well, there are no whack job scientists.
News flash, wherever you go, you'll find all kinds of people.
All kinds of people in every group.
As if bearing the arbitrary, unsupported label of scientist means that you automatically know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Does it?
What exactly is a scientist anyway?
Is it someone with a degree in a scientific field?
Is it someone who works in a scientific field?
Is it someone who's won awards or written articles in a scientific journal?
Can it be a guy in his basement who has taught himself a great deal about a given subject?
Can it be anyone who applies critical thinking to the world around him?
Do you have to have the word scientist in your job title?
Can someone simply call himself a scientist?
Whatever it is, it seems that your word is cast in gold as absolute truth if someone refers to you as a scientist.
Many people accept that too readily.
If the six o'clock action news team reports that a scientist says it, it must be true.
Not all scientists are people that we should listen to at all.
Even the Nazi doctors who performed experiments on living humans during World War II were, by any practical definition, scientists.
Would you want any of those guys telling you what's right and what's wrong?
Nevertheless, they held advanced degrees and were among Germany's top medical experts.
It's weird to say it, and it's politically incorrect, but you can't disqualify Nazi doctors as valid scientists just because they were evil.
Now go to the other end of the spectrum.
Most people in the world, and thus, by extension, most people in the world with postgraduate scientific degrees, attend religious services.
The only thing that tells us is that those scientists do not apply skeptical, critical thinking to the theological aspect of their lives.
Beyond that, many of them are top experts in their scientific fields, Nobel laureates among them.
You can't necessarily disqualify a scientist only because of certain aspects of what he does.
Many detractors try to, but it's often not right.
I'm considered a top expert in my professional field, and I absolutely have differences with most of my colleagues.
Should I be cast out, or is it healthy to have diverse viewpoints within a community?
I submit that we shouldn't give any weight to someone's statements just because some person calls him a scientist.
So then, what quality must a scientist have to be authoritative?
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
Maybe we should accept the word of a scientist if he has an advanced degree.
Have you ever known an idiot with a degree?
The fact is that practically any motivated person can eventually get any degree they want if they're willing to put in the years.
I'm sure that if James Randy wanted to, he could work hard and get a PhD in divinity from Oral Roberts University.
The reverse is also true.
A staunch creationist could no doubt become a doctor of astrophysics.
Indeed, many astrophysicists out there undoubtedly are creationists.
Thus, when you hear a creationist defend his position by quoting from a scientist, name any astrophysicist, who believes in it, that hardly means that the entire science of astrophysics has concluded that the universe was created by a magician.
Not only is the fact that someone holds a particular degree not a reliable indicator that he is an expert in that field, many degrees are themselves pretty worthless as indicators that the holder has a scientific mind.
Legitimate accredited PhDs are available in many fields not associated with science, such as divinity, philosophy, dance, or fiction.
Many people can go around rightly calling themselves a doctor, but having no scientific background at all.
Really, the only thing a degree tells you about someone is where they drank themselves into a stupor when they were 19.
I refer you to my own PhD on thunderwoodcollege.com.
Is a scientist automatically qualified because he has an advanced degree?
No.
Maybe we should accept the word of a scientist if he works in a certain industry.
Have you ever had a boss who didn't know as much as you?
Have you ever worked with someone who hated his job or didn't care about it?
Think about the company where you work right now and think of that one guy in the office that everyone thinks is a kook.
Is he a kook for a reason?
There may be people at your company who would make good representatives of your work if you put them in front of a group to speak.
Are there also people at your company that no way would you want them representing what you do?
Is a scientist automatically qualified because he works in a certain industry?
No.
The fact is that calling someone a scientist doesn't mean that he's smart, that he's right, that he thinks scientifically, or that he's anything more than a waste of space.
You can't easily qualify someone just because they're called a scientist, and you can't easily disqualify a scientist because of some stuff that he does.
All of this means that the label of scientist is pretty darn worthless by itself.
When you hear any claim validated by the fact that some scientists support it, be skeptical.
You need to know who they are, what their interest is, and especially what the preponderance of opinion in the scientific community is.
You need to know if the scientist being quoted actually has anything to do with this particular subject, or if his specialty is in an unrelated field.
Look to see if this scientist has authored a good number of publications on the subject in legitimate peer-reviewed journals.
Find out what other published scientists in his field say about him.
Verify The Preponderance Of Opinion 00:01:35
Determine whether his views are generally in line with the preponderance of opinion among his peers in his discipline.
Fringe opinions are on the fringe for a reason.
They're usually wrong.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrian Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection