Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Aron-Ra]

Now I respect your .... problem ..... here, I have some basic problems

I appreciate your commentary explaining that. Of course where I have seen enormous dishonesty from the creaionist camp, and this has been especially true of all the professional creationists I've yet debated:
Microbiologist, Luke Randall Ph.D., who supports Kent Hovind;
paleogeologist, Casey Luskin M.S. from the Discovery Insititute;
engineer Mark Ramsey with Texans for "Better" Science Education,
and talk radio host, Russ Miller, founder of the Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries radio show.

It was proven that all of these men were lying on purpose with full knowledge of their attempted deception.

But I have never seen that from the evolutionist side of the fence, and before you can pretend there's an even field there, I would suggest you produce a single example of an evolutionist lying for evolution, because I maintain that never happens!

Also all religions do require faith. In my study of that subject, I have found that not all religions have gods. But every religion ever recognized as such adheres to the following definition:

Religion is a doctrine of ritual tradition or practice
(holidays, ceremonies, meditation, chants, sacred texts, garb, etc.)
...based on a system of faith-based beliefs
(assumed as inarguable truth in lieu of objective evidence)
...which include the focal idea that some aspect or essence of one's "self"
(spirit, soul, ghost, astral body, consciousness, knowledge, memories, etc.)
...may extend beyond the physical body or continue even after its death.
(magical miracles or curses, salvation, damnation, reincarnation; psychic, psionic, or spectral manifestation, or absorption into "oneness" with the "whole")

 

[Chalnoth]

Okay, again I ask this time more specifically,
1. what physical laws were broken
2. how does the lack of broken physical laws say no god/gods/God (can we shorten it to creator at least?)

I keep asking people but get the kind of response you gave, you have to give me more if you expect your claim to have merit.

You have to define the god and give a mechanism for creation first to have any hope of answering these questions. But if you're not going to be breaking any physical laws, then having a god as a part of the explanation is completely spurious: it adds nothing to the explanation whatsoever, and is just added complication. Thus, by Occam's Razor, we should discard any unecessary god or gods (creators that don't break physical laws).

 

[Chalnoth]

First of all, many self studied people are extremely knowledgable and so I think you might want to think that over again

Like who? I am aware of many people in the past who have been able to do this, but as science has accrued more and more knowledge, it has become more and more difficult to do so. So who has done this recently?

secondly, my post made no mention of uneducated people only people of different mindsets,

I'm only talking about science in general here, and whether or not people outside of science have a hope of contributing anything significant to science. And, well, it's going to be very, very hard to do so. Not because of any socal barriers, but because of technical ones.

And I never talked about intelligence. I talked about knowledge. There is a knowledge barrier to people contributing to science without going through the normal path of graduating with a BS and moving on to graduate school to get a Ph.D.. If you want change scientists' view of the world, you have to know about current theories, and you have to know about both current and past experiments. And it is vastly easier to learn this information by going through the usual channels than attempting to teach yourself. It may still be possible, but I am not aware of any person who has recently done so. Nor would I understand why they would.

 

[Tomk80]

Before I address individual issues here, let me say this, there is a difference between the ideal and the real world sometimes, I reserve the right to view the evidence and weigh it fairly before determining whether the ideal world is different from the real world in this or any issue.

Fair enough.

Let's hope so, I know that it is not suppose to be this way, but the evidence I have been seeing, questions this idealism in practise.

Examples?

You know what, I never used to question this, today, I am finding a lot of evidence that contridicts this and have begun to ask the question, is the scientific community as unbiased as it was constructed to be?

Examples?

I am still collecting evidence, but it concerns me that enough evidence exists to even ask the question, Doesn't that trouble you?

Quite frankly, no. Apparantly you are collecting evidence, so if you have any, feel free to give it. My own experience is that scientists do take seriously any idea that is rooted in an understanding of the issues.

Again, those are not the evidence that got me questioning, the evidences that got me questioning are things like evolutionists admitting that well formulated papers written by creationist-scientists were rejected (one even admitted that the rejection was unfounded) because a creationist wrote the paper, it had nothing to do with the accuracy of the content, but rather the "political" correctness of the author, this shows bias that at one time, I didn't even suspect from the scientific community, today, I question everything and look for evidence of bias.

Like? I know of no such papers. I know that a number of creationists have been or are taken seriously in their own fields, but not in the field of biology. Because what they state in their own fields is correct, but their positions in the field of biology are bunk.

I hope I don't find it, but I look where once I did not. If the bias does indeed exist, it is problematic and that was all I said on the issue, that bias in science is not science at all.See my above post where I deal with this issue in greater detail, then if you still don't understand my position ask again, okay?

So, to get it clear, you do agree that scientists do not have to take serious ideas that are rooted in an ignorance of the issues. Just to be clear for a moment.

 

[Tomk80]

Like who? I am aware of many people in the past who have been able to do this, but as science has accrued more and more knowledge, it has become more and more difficult to do so. So who has done this recently?

I know at least of a dutch bird spotter with an extreme interest in birds of prey who still contributes enourmously in our knowledge of these animals, without having a formal education of any sorts. There are a few others, but here the point is the same. To be able to contribute, you need to have a dedication that rivals that of those people who went through the more formal educational paths. In other words, you will really need to put in the same amount of work.

 

[Chalnoth]

I know at least of a dutch bird spotter with an extreme interest in birds of prey who still contributes enourmously in our knowledge of these animals, without having a formal education of any sorts. There are a few others, but here the point is the same. To be able to contribute, you need to have a dedication that rivals that of those people who went through the more formal educational paths. In other words, you will really need to put in the same amount of work.

Well, I would say you probably need to put in more. My problem is just that I see people saying that science is wrong or that they have these fantastic new ideas about how the universe might be without anything resembling the work or dedication required to be able to contribute.

We see most of the former on this forum, where people just don't understand the science, but claim it's wrong based upon their own personal beliefs. But there are many of the latter in other places, where some people think they have some fantastic new idea that science hasn't considered. Usually it can be shown to be wrong in moments by a person who actually has the experience and done the work. Every physics conference seems to have one or two of these people, and I will routinely get e-mails from them too (people of this sort will send out e-mails to campus accounts all the time).

And the thing that bothers me isn't that they are wrong. Being wrong is fine (I'm wrong all the time, after all). The thing that bothers me is that when we show them that they are wrong, they don't accept it and move on, but continue to harp on the same issue over and over again. Here's an example of a website that is along the lines of what I'm thinking about:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
Here's a guy claiming that the speed of gravity must be infinite, without understanding General Relativity. Here's an explanation from my own General Relativity professor that explains quite succinctly why he's wrong:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403060

This is the sort of thing I have a problem with. Here we have a demonstrably wrong idea that is being propagated across a number of websites because this man decided he would try to correct scientists without taking the time and effort to understand current science first.

 

[razzelflabben]

I appreciate your commentary explaining that. Of course where I have seen enormous dishonesty from the creaionist camp, and this has been especially true of all the professional creationists I've yet debated:
Microbiologist, Luke Randall Ph.D., who supports Kent Hovind;
paleogeologist, Casey Luskin M.S. from the Discovery Insititute;
engineer Mark Ramsey with Texans for "Better" Science Education,
and talk radio host, Russ Miller, founder of the Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries radio show.

It was proven that all of these men were lying on purpose with full knowledge of their attempted deception.

But I have never seen that from the evolutionist side of the fence, and before you can pretend there's an even field there, I would suggest you produce a single example of an evolutionist lying for evolution, because I maintain that never happens!

I am not quick to call anyone a lier and maybe that is the problem, I give every individual a chance to prove themselves before passing judgement. I do not know all these people you speak of and I will not simply take your word that they are liers in fact, I have heard people call the evolutionists liers as well, so to date, it is one camp calls the other liers and the smearing campaign muddies the waters and sounds an aweful like the political candidates that we can't trust as far as we can throw them. I guess that is a long way to say, that every individual has a right to be judged independent of all others.

Also all religions do require faith. In my study of that subject, I have found that not all religions have gods. But every religion ever recognized as such adheres to the following definition:

Religion is a doctrine of ritual tradition or practice
(holidays, ceremonies, meditation, chants, sacred texts, garb, etc.)
...based on a system of faith-based beliefs
(assumed as inarguable truth in lieu of objective evidence)
...which include the focal idea that some aspect or essence of one's "self"
(spirit, soul, ghost, astral body, consciousness, knowledge, memories, etc.)
...may extend beyond the physical body or continue even after its death.
(magical miracles or curses, salvation, damnation, reincarnation; psychic, psionic, or spectral manifestation, or absorption into "oneness" with the "whole")

Already posted this once, but here it is again.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

Do you know the bifference between belief and faith?

 

[razzelflabben]

You have to define the god and give a mechanism for creation first to have any hope of answering these questions. But if you're not going to be breaking any physical laws, then having a god as a part of the explanation is completely spurious: it adds nothing to the explanation whatsoever, and is just added complication. Thus, by Occam's Razor, we should discard any unecessary god or gods (creators that don't break physical laws).

Shall I ask again or just assume the question will once again go unanswered?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I am not quick to call anyone a lier and maybe that is the problem, I give every individual a chance to prove themselves before passing judgement. I do not know all these people you speak of and I will not simply take your word that they are liers in fact, I have heard people call the evolutionists liers as well, so to date, it is one camp calls the other liers and the smearing campaign muddies the waters and sounds an aweful like the political candidates that we can't trust as far as we can throw them. I guess that is a long way to say, that every individual has a right to be judged independent of all others.

Alright. Were we to argue the issue, I kept a record of each debate and almost all of them in public forum, and can easily prove that every one of these people I debated with lied on purpose knowing that what they said was false and not caring about that. This has happened more often than not to my experience. Now I know you hear people say evolutionists lie too, but if you ever find a specific example of that, then I insist you show it because I maintain that never happens.

Already posted this once, but here it is again.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

This definition isn't as good as mine because it is limited only to theistic beliefs. Shaman, Druid, Buddhism, and Chinese ancestor worship are all excluded by that criteria.

Do you know the bifference between belief and faith?

Yes. Belief is whatever you perceive to be true. That should be determined by evidence and logic, but faith offers an alternative, allowing one to consciously choose what to believe for emotional, rather than rational reasons.

 

[razzelflabben]

Like who? I am aware of many people in the past who have been able to do this, but as science has accrued more and more knowledge, it has become more and more difficult to do so. So who has done this recently?

I don't want to start a war here, only to be heard. I am not talking about science exclusively, what I am talking about is not excluding science from the realm of those who are capable of self study.

Let me tell you a story, our eldest son is genius or near genius level, comes with the genes, His great grandfather was a genius and his grandmother nearly so, by the time he was in 6th grade, he had read all the books in the library that were of any interest to him at all, including college level works. He taught himself spanish and is currently translating an ancient spanish manuscript pretty much so just for the fun of it. If he wanted to be a scientist I have no doubt at all that he could learn enough to be a good one, in fact, his retention and understanding excell most people who are taught by others, much less self taught. But this is not his area of interest. I would match his level of knowledge in his choosen area with any professor on the subject and his is all self taught. What you must not forget is that if you want it bad enough, if you want to know something bad enough, nothing and I mean nothing, not even the educational system can stop you from learning it. It is what I have taught my children and students alike, all you need is a desire and determination and the world is open to you. I will not give you names of people who are this day scientists by self study for two reasons, 1. it is irrelavent and the most important reason 2. it is missing the point. The point is not is there someone out there right now who can and has done so, the point is that if there is someone with the desire and drive, lack of schooling won't stop them. That is the point.

I'm only talking about science in general here, and whether or not people outside of science have a hope of contributing anything significant to science. And, well, it's going to be very, very hard to do so. Not because of any socal barriers, but because of technical ones.

I was not talking about those lacking education, at least when this part of the discussion started, but rather those educated, with views outside the "good old boys club" that concept was taken out of context to talk about education and so I piped in with evidence that people with interest and drive can learn anything they want without the benefit of the educational system. People do it all the time, and throughout history, it's a fact and I have yet to find a topic that is excluded.

And I never talked about intelligence. I talked about knowledge. There is a knowledge barrier to people contributing to science without going through the normal path of graduating with a BS and moving on to graduate school to get a Ph.D.. If you want change scientists' view of the world, you have to know about current theories, and you have to know about both current and past experiments. And it is vastly easier to learn this information by going through the usual channels than attempting to teach yourself. It may still be possible, but I am not aware of any person who has recently done so. Nor would I understand why they would.

But none of that is on the point now is it? You make a statement here, then turn around and change your view to be the same as mine, that it is possible to self study to be scientist. So if it is possible, why exclude someone because they didn't get a degree from a prestiges college or university.

BTW, just a side note, my comment was not originally that lack of education had anything to do with it, but rather a different world view excluded people from having scientific papers published. Something I didn't accept until evolutionists here pointed it out and the more I dig, the more I find this "good old boys" club in the scientific community, which removes the scientific community from being scientific, if that club really does exist that is.

 

[razzelflabben]

Fair enough.


Examples?


Examples?


Quite frankly, no. Apparantly you are collecting evidence, so if you have any, feel free to give it. My own experience is that scientists do take seriously any idea that is rooted in an understanding of the issues.


Like? I know of no such papers. I know that a number of creationists have been or are taken seriously in their own fields, but not in the field of biology. Because what they state in their own fields is correct, but their positions in the field of biology are bunk.


So, to get it clear, you do agree that scientists do not have to take serious ideas that are rooted in an ignorance of the issues. Just to be clear for a moment.

First let me say that I feel that discussing some of the above issues in detail at the moment would be too far off OP to be fair to the posters and readers here, so I will respectfully decline from providing any evidence at the moment and do not have enough evidence to make a call so might refrain from such discussion altogether because of time restraints until such time as I have enough evidence to make a call. I do find it disturbing that we should even have cause to consider it however.

Secondly, and back to point, I have no problem with scientists dismissing things that are founded in ignorance as long as it is true ignorance and not merely a difference of opinion. Remember my post in which I talked about human nature being such that it is common to view someone of a different opinion ignorant, that is not acceptable in the scientific community. It must be true ignorance not ...... imagined .... ignorance that dismisses ideas.

 

[razzelflabben]

Alright. Were we to argue the issue, I kept a record of each debate and almost all of them in public forum, and can easily prove that every one of these people I debated with lied on purpose knowing that what they said was false and not caring about that. This has happened more often than not to my experience. Now I know you hear people say evolutionists lie too, but if you ever find a specific example of that, then I insist you show it because I maintain that never happens.

Well in order to show either side to be liers, I would have to be as dedicated and interested in collecting such information as you have been for as long as you have been and I don't see that happening, I have other areas of interest. In fact, I could blow your mind away with things I have "collected" about how the education world functions. It would make you rethink our educational system. But that is another day and time isn't it?

This definition isn't as good as mine because it is limited only to theistic beliefs. Shaman, Druid, Buddhism, and Chinese ancestor worship are all excluded by that criteria.
Yes. Belief is whatever you perceive to be true. That should be determined by evidence and logic, but faith offers an alternative, allowing one to consciously choose what to believe for emotional, rather than rational reasons.

A definition is a definition and it's "goodness" is relative.

But I think you don't quite understand the difference between belief and faith, or else I am reading your post wrong. It can be summed up in one word. Trust. Believing something does not require trust in it, it requres me to think it is truth. (what I read you saying here) but faith is putting everything you are into that belief, it is trusting that belief to be truth. It is hanging all you are, will be and hope to be in that one bit of belief based on empiracal evidence that has been sufficient to convince whoever viewed the evidence of knowing truth.

So let's translate that, I was not a "christian" (still not religious christian, different discussion) when I looked at the evidence and reviewed it. What I found was a consistancy, that I couldn't get away from. Thus, I began to form a belief system that God does indeed exist. But belief doesn't mean I trusted it, in fact, I still questioned whether or not I was right, even though the evidence convinced me that I was. In order for that belief that I was right to become real, it needed to have faith, trust that God being real could and would affect my life. For me, personally, this required a testing of the evidence and collection of new evidence, for others, it is automatic, some never find it, they are content to always believe but never have faith. There are many levels of faith, and it is the cornerstone of understanding. So for a scientist like you to have a distaste for things of faith is really an oxymoron because science requires you to have faith in our empirical world, our process of discovery, our senses, etc. in order to believe we know the answers. Faith is exclusive to religion, but many try to make it so, when really, you live with faith every day.

 

[Chalnoth]

I was not talking about those lacking education, at least when this part of the discussion started, but rather those educated, with views outside the "good old boys club"

My Mom had similar views about higher education, too, and I took them from her. Then I started studying at a university, started actually conversing with scientists, and found it to be completely and utterly false. "Good old boys club" mentality just does not work in a scientific field. Skepticism is the number one most important quality a scientist should have (quickly followed by self motivation, with intelligence a distant third). So I am highly suspicious that you have any personal experience with scientists in the real world.

But that's not really much of an excuse. There are plenty of scientists that post on these very boards. They're the ones that are most frequently presenting evidence for their position instead of just telling others that they are wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And I never talked about intelligence. I talked about knowledge. There is a knowledge barrier to people contributing to science without going through the normal path of graduating with a BS and moving on to graduate school to get a Ph.D.. If you want change scientists' view of the world, you have to know about current theories, and you have to know about both current and past experiments. And it is vastly easier to learn this information by going through the usual channels than attempting to teach yourself. It may still be possible, but I am not aware of any person who has recently done so. Nor would I understand why they would.

there is in addition to this excellent thought the problem of access to tools. Most of what people do on the boards like this one is talk and read, science is a lot more than just journals and textbooks, it is labs and equipment and the whole set of skills that accompany doing things, and more importantly doing things well or right with the ideas and the doing in concert.

i have no doubt that gifted, brilliant, talented and motivated people can get the equivalent education and knowledge outside of the normal schooling system. but access to lots of tools is restricted to those in the system. and this alone, depending on the field, is going to hamper and cripple not just the understanding of this hypothetical genius but his/her ability to get to the leading edge of any science field to make a genuine contribution.

the question is, why if they are so smart, would they try to do things on their own like this? don't they want to learn from the best and the brightest in their chosen field?

 

[Tomk80]

First let me say that I feel that discussing some of the above issues in detail at the moment would be too far off OP to be fair to the posters and readers here, so I will respectfully decline from providing any evidence at the moment and do not have enough evidence to make a call so might refrain from such discussion altogether because of time restraints until such time as I have enough evidence to make a call. I do find it disturbing that we should even have cause to consider it however.

But at this point you haven't given any cause to consider it. Even if so, what can I say. Scientists are humans too. Whatever their profession, you don't suddenly become a superhuman because you become a scientist. Problem is that thusfar, I haven't seen any evidence that scientists have ignored knowledge from lay-persons persé. I know of scientists ignoring and tainting other work, but that was never the scientific community as a whole, rather a rather nasty persona of a scientist (read up on Sir Richard Owen for example).

Secondly, and back to point, I have no problem with scientists dismissing things that are founded in ignorance as long as it is true ignorance and not merely a difference of opinion. Remember my post in which I talked about human nature being such that it is common to view someone of a different opinion ignorant, that is not acceptable in the scientific community. It must be true ignorance not ...... imagined .... ignorance that dismisses ideas.

I wholeheartedly agree and that was all I wanted to know. I will again press, however, that I have yet to see evidence that such a thing happens on a grand scale in science.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Well in order to show either side to be liers, I would have to be as dedicated and interested in collecting such information as you have been for as long as you have been and I don't see that happening, I have other areas of interest.

You seem to be saying that you haven't a single example of a lying evolutionist, which is a significant statement since you've been posting here at least as long as I have.

Still, while you may not care how many creationists have already lied to me, and wouldn't think of correcting them, I do care how many evolutionists lie to you, if that should ever happen. Trust me on this, I will straighten them out much more harshly than you likely would. So I insist you produce any and every specific example you ever come across, OK?

In fact, I could blow your mind away with things I have "collected" about how the education world functions. It would make you rethink our educational system. But that is another day and time isn't it?

I'm definitely no fan of our education system either!

A definition is a definition and it's "goodness" is relative.

But mine is still superior relative to thiers.

But I think you don't quite understand the difference between belief and faith, or else I am reading your post wrong. It can be summed up in one word. Trust.

Insufficient. Trust can be based on evidence of probability and past experience in light of multiple experiments. Faith is something more than that. Just as you describe below, it is a complete trust that is not dependant on reason and is embraced beyond reason to the point that it cannot be serious questioned.

Believing something does not require trust in it, it requres me to think it is truth. (what I read you saying here) but faith is putting everything you are into that belief, it is trusting that belief to be truth. It is hanging all you are, will be and hope to be in that one bit of belief based on empiracal evidence that has been sufficient to convince whoever viewed the evidence of knowing truth.

See what I mean? To me such an obsession as this is never warranted and might not even be considered sane. Please understand my sincerity when I say, I find it deeply unsettling to hear you describe your faith that way.

So let's translate that, I was not a "christian" (still not religious christian, different discussion) when I looked at the evidence and reviewed it. What I found was a consistancy, that I couldn't get away from.

That's hard to believe since I searched high and low and consistently was one of the things I could not find in Christianity anywhere.

Thus, I began to form a belief system that God does indeed exist.

I maintained my belief in God for some time after I stopped believing in Jesus.

But belief doesn't mean I trusted it, in fact, I still questioned whether or not I was right, even though the evidence convinced me that I was.

Opposite story for me. I wanted to believe, but just couldn't keep rationalizing reasons to.

In order for that belief that I was right to become real, it needed to have faith, trust that God being real could and would affect my life.

Opposite story for me. In order to determine what is really real, I knew I couldn't trust faith because faith can only be deceptive. In every situation I can think of, truth has always been better revealed through critical scrutiny than by assuming you were already right to begin with.

For me, personally, this required a testing of the evidence and collection of new evidence,

This process lead out of Christianity first, then monotheism, and theism in general, and finally out of supernatural beliefs altogether.

for others, it is automatic, some never find it, they are content to always believe but never have faith. There are many levels of faith, and it is the cornerstone of understanding.

No ma'am, not in any sense. Faith offers no way to discover the real truth about anything. But its a great way to stay wrong forever and never realize it.

So for a scientist like you to have a distaste for things of faith is really an oxymoron because science requires you to have faith in our empirical world, our process of discovery, our senses, etc. in order to believe we know the answers.

Whoa no! Way wrong. Critical inquiry, peer review, even experimentation, the testing of hypotheses through potential falsification -every aspect of the scientific method individually or collectively could be described as the antithesis of faith. As for whether we know all the answers or not, we need only know those which are inescapable circumstances of our existence; that is our reality.

Faith is exclusive to religion, but many try to make it so, when really, you live with faith every day.

I do not live by faith at all, nor will I ever again. I have learned my lesson well, thank you.

 

[razzelflabben]

My Mom had similar views about higher education, too, and I took them from her. Then I started studying at a university, started actually conversing with scientists, and found it to be completely and utterly false. "Good old boys club" mentality just does not work in a scientific field. Skepticism is the number one most important quality a scientist should have (quickly followed by self motivation, with intelligence a distant third). So I am highly suspicious that you have any personal experience with scientists in the real world.

But that's not really much of an excuse. There are plenty of scientists that post on these very boards. They're the ones that are most frequently presenting evidence for their position instead of just telling others that they are wrong.

Here's hoping the ideal is indeed what is real. I use to not question it at all, going with the scientists are skeptics idea, but sense then, I have heard some scientists and seen some things that make me question this. Today instead of simply saying you are right, all I can hoestly say is that I hope you are right. (BTW just in case you are wondering, the educational issues I have are mostly centered around the public schools, and not higher education at all, though that is affected by the "political" atmosphere in the lower acedemic world.)

 

[razzelflabben]

there is in addition to this excellent thought the problem of access to tools. Most of what people do on the boards like this one is talk and read, science is a lot more than just journals and textbooks, it is labs and equipment and the whole set of skills that accompany doing things, and more importantly doing things well or right with the ideas and the doing in concert.

i have no doubt that gifted, brilliant, talented and motivated people can get the equivalent education and knowledge outside of the normal schooling system. but access to lots of tools is restricted to those in the system. and this alone, depending on the field, is going to hamper and cripple not just the understanding of this hypothetical genius but his/her ability to get to the leading edge of any science field to make a genuine contribution.

someone truely motivated will find a way to this "exclusive" information. There are a host of ways to get to it.

the question is, why if they are so smart, would they try to do things on their own like this? don't they want to learn from the best and the brightest in their chosen field?

Many things can affect this decision, money, time restraints (such as when they can go to school) transportation, social issues, etc. etc. etc.

 

[razzelflabben]

But at this point you haven't given any cause to consider it. Even if so, what can I say. Scientists are humans too. Whatever their profession, you don't suddenly become a superhuman because you become a scientist. Problem is that thusfar, I haven't seen any evidence that scientists have ignored knowledge from lay-persons persé. I know of scientists ignoring and tainting other work, but that was never the scientific community as a whole, rather a rather nasty persona of a scientist (read up on Sir Richard Owen for example).


I wholeheartedly agree and that was all I wanted to know. I will again press, however, that I have yet to see evidence that such a thing happens on a grand scale in science.

We will hope that when all the evidence is collected and reviewed scientists today are still scientists indeed and not just a "good old boys club" that would be a nice conclusion to this whole discussion.

 

[Chalnoth]

Many things can affect this decision, money, time restraints (such as when they can go to school) transportation, social issues, etc. etc. etc.

1. Money usually isn't much of a problem. If you can get a degree at a decent four-year college or university, then you can get supported in full for the entire time you're in graduate school. You can always get loans for the four-year degree, and it's typically easier to get money if you make less. The main obstacle here isn't really money, it's research. And fortunately basically every school has a great department dedicated to helping students obtain the needed information.
2. It's going to take much more time to learn the stuff on your own, and it's much more difficult. This is one reason why it's best to take the traditional route: get school over and done with before getting entangled with a relationship, family, and all that (though I do know a number of married people in graduate school).
3. Transportation is why it's best to just go live near school (which also means that you need to pick your school carefully, to make sure you can afford to live there).