Do any of you have credentials?

[Aardwolf]

Unfortunately, yes, scientists DO teach things that aren't correct, regularly and persistently.
This is because:
1. They are fallible.
2. Their [human] sources are fallible.
3. Their/Our observations of the factual evidence are synthesized through their/our assumptions.
4. They don't realize they are teaching incorrect things, because they themselves were taught standard paradigms.
5. Honest scientists will openly tell you they are teaching things that are [probably] incorrect. Dishonest ones won't.
6. They don't mean to be dishonest or incorrect, they are just teaching what they learned, or what they perceive.
7. They are invested in a particular view and/or...
8. They receive funding from an organization biased toward a particular result, and need more supporters.
9. This is the very nature of science, scientific thinking, science history, and scientific revolutions.
10. Once you are considered an authority, you may stop questioning your own authority. "They" depend on you.

Well said, but remember these points should be considered about any field of science, not just the fields of science you disagree with...

[Good_Science]

Unfortunately, yes, scientists DO teach things that aren't correct, regularly and persistently.
This is because:
1. They are fallible.
2. Their [human] sources are fallible.
3. Their/Our observations of the factual evidence are synthesized through their/our assumptions.
4. They don't realize they are teaching incorrect things, because they themselves were taught standard paradigms.
5. Honest scientists will openly tell you they are teaching things that are [probably] incorrect. Dishonest ones won't.
6. They don't mean to be dishonest or incorrect, they are just teaching what they learned, or what they perceive.
7. They are invested in a particular view and/or...
8. They receive funding from an organization biased toward a particular result, and need more supporters.
9. This is the very nature of science, scientific thinking, science history, and scientific revolutions.
10. Once you are considered an authority, you may stop questioning your own authority. "They" depend on you.

I said they didn't purposely teach things that aren't correct, theres a big difference between that and intentionally misleading people.

[mharratsc]

Good Science said:

I said they didn't purposely teach things that aren't correct, theres a big difference between that and intentionally misleading people.

True that, bud. However there's a lot of 'intentional misleading' going on in the field, regardless.

Since you've taken the plasma science courses, let's look at one of the easiest examples to call B.S. on- 'magnetic reconnection'. Patent crap... the physics of magnetic fields as vector field continuums are proven. There aren't any pin stripes in a magnetic field. Yet still- you see magnectic 'reconnection' as being the 'source' of every energetic event they are too lazy to actually research.

'Black holes'- proven bad math based upon a misrepresented value in an equation that was adopted as physical law.

Dark matter/energy/blah- fictitious entities created to fill in the gaps of the missing electrodynamics of the Universe from their 'gravity only' cosmological model (how many decades old).

When you step back and look at it- these are glaring issues!! We've spent billions chasing a model of fusion power based upon an unproven model of thermonuclear fusion in stars based upon a 100-year-old unproven theory!! What the hell??

FocusFusion.org is closer to fusion in a relative few short years than they tokamak guys have gotten in sixty! Eric based his fusion model on how he perceives stars to be z-pinches in interstellar dusty plasma Birkeland currents, and his model is working!

Seriously- if he gets that thing to fire off and start generating power, do you think it will validate the Electric Sun model and get them to quit throwing billions of dollars at tokamak research? Color me cynical- but I think they would scream "it proves nothing!" and keep going right on with their paradigm for as long as they could continue to get people to give them funding. :\

Truthfully- I feel that Standard Model-trained scientists won't stop until their funding is completely withdrawn... even IF incontrivertible proof of the validity of ANY other cosmological model comes along.

We just need that 'incontrivertible proof' to be discovered that makes the world at large stop lobbing money at these rediculous 'string-theory-of-the-week' computer models, 'dark matter collection' experiments, and other rubbish, so that we can get back on track to a Natural Philosophy approach to Science again.

That's my two cents, anyway.

[webolife]

I see your two cents and raise you one more [for Aardwolf]...
I wouldn't be an honest scientist if I didn't apply every statement in my list to myself as well.
This list is a credo for me for the last 38 years. Don't think that just because I challenge the logic and evidence of a theory, that it is because of an a priori set of beliefs, such as that I do not want to believe the theory... Or, if you must think that, then realize that it must also apply to yourself as well. Truth be told, the expanding earth argument, for example, might fit well with my "belief base" were that the issue... but I don't see a powerful and elegant factual base for it. Speaking of credentials, credos, beliefs...

[Phorce]

Why do those in pursuit of Science need to have "credentials" ? Science was always meant to be a public access phenomenon. Physics studies the phenomena of the entity that created us IN THE FIRST PLACE so why would we need some abstracted and hypothesised "extra intelligence" or "credentials" to study it ? All you need is a life and you can practice Science. This absurd abstraction of Science into "experts" and people with "credentials" has created a real mental illness that makes a massive anaesthetic effect as one's common sense and biology is abstracted away from REALITY leading to the impression that one does not have the right "credentials" to practice Science. All you need are some observation skills and some commonsense and YOU ARE THEN BY DEFAULT A SCIENTIST.

[Good_Science]

Why do those in pursuit of Science need to have "credentials" ? Science was always meant to be a public access phenomenon. Physics studies the phenomena of the entity that created us IN THE FIRST PLACE so why would we need some abstracted and hypothesised "extra intelligence" or "credentials" to study it ? All you need is a life and you can practice Science. This absurd abstraction of Science into "experts" and people with "credentials" has created a real mental illness that makes a massive anaesthetic effect as one's common sense and biology is abstracted away from REALITY leading to the impression that one does not have the right "credentials" to practice Science.

If someone has a degree then you know they have at least 3 years of study behind them and that they can use the skill they have learnt. How is that a bad thing? It provides a rough quantification as to what knowledge they have and in what field. Rather than just allowing anyone to claim they can do something it shows they actually have the training required.

All you need are some observation skills and some commonsense and YOU ARE THEN BY DEFAULT A SCIENTIST.

Does that mean I can have a quick flick through a medical textbook and call myself a doctor? Would you let just anyone operate on you? No, you'd want a qualified doctor with a medical degree. It's very naive of you to think that credentials are useless.

[Phorce]

... it shows they actually have the training required.

You don't need any training to carry out Science. Anyone can make observations and make common sense deductions from them. This is how the human race has always solved problems.

... you'd want a qualified doctor with a medical degree. It's very naive of you to think that credentials are useless.

Actually I base my statements on cast in steel hard bitten experience. For example, you mention medicine. I almost lost my life from being treated by Doctors with degrees. I now treat my own health by referring to the health Science out there of all kinds and make my own Scientific deductions about my health. I am my own doctor and I don't have a degree. I'm still alive and in fact in the best health I have ever been.

But I did not intend to suggest that training and degrees are useless, in fact many people with that training provide much valuable Science to the world. But look at Astronomy and Cosmology where everyday amateurs add valuable observations and insights to the Science. All one has to do is go out on a night and one can participate in Science.

[Jarvamundo]

... it shows they actually have the training required.

You don't need any training to carry out Science. Anyone can make observations and make common sense deductions from them. This is how the human race has always solved problems.

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rights.html
Progress In Physics Journal:
Declaration of Academic Freedom (scientific human rights) known also as the Academic Bill of Rights is authored by Dmitri Rabounski, the Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics.

Article 2: Who is a scientist
A scientist is any person who does science. Any person who
collaborates with a scientist in developing and propounding
ideas and data in research or application is also a scientist.
The holding of a formal qualification is not a prerequisite for
a person to be a scientist.