Yes... As a scientist myself I agree, that one citation from that one example you heard about speaks for us all. We had a meeting and hes the guy...
Yes... As a scientist myself I agree, that one citation from that one example you heard about speaks for us all. We had a meeting and hes the guy...
You do realise that a dermatologist is a specialist medical practitioner not a "scientist" per se, while medicine uses scientific methods there is a significant difference between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by boa
There are many scientists in medicine and many medical practitioners are also medical scientists, but most medical practitioners are not scientists. I won't go into the difference between a medical doctor and a PhD doctor.
By definition a dermatologist focuses their practice on one single organ "the skin".
My other comments have already been covered by other members.
That's because you always find what you're looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by boa
And suddenly all the subsequent evidence they find only bolsters their original stance on the opinion. Then they start finding people who concur with this opinion, start trying to convince others, formally and informally create groups based on opinion agreement, start dismissing people who disagree with this opinion, and slowly move away from objective reasoning or the ability to consider or adapt to new opinions. Then ten years goes by, 20 years goes by... the longer the opinion is unquestioned the closer it comes to being a fact/belief. Sometimes it never gets challenged. And sometimes someone smarter comes along and debunks the opinion with their own collection of evidence. Now go back to the start of this paragraph and begin the cycle again.
Unfortunately for humans it's impossible to know all the information - even in just one field of specialty. Just look at climate science. We all have an opinion on the topic, but if you sat down with a piece of paper and wrote what you actually know about the subject and how the whole system works (without cheating or Googling) you'd realise how many assumptions we're operating with.
That may be true, but the situation is not as hopeless as you suggest.
While one researcher may be a bit blinkered, you can bet that there are a dozen others keen to make a name for themselves by looking at the situation differently to prove him wrong.
Surely there is more kudos and more satisfaction to be gained by proving someone (or everyone else) is wrong rather than just helping to prove they are right.
What you say might describe an individual, but it doesn't describe the whole community, particularly the scientific community.
I love the distinction present in the thread title- scientists OR people.
It's something I've always known but never been able to articulate before.
:)
As stated - the guy in question is not a scientist.
The other thing people are forgetting here, is that even when interviewing "real" scientists, the media rarely gets it right. I don't think I have ever done an interview that is reported accurately!
I don't recall getting an invite to this meeting...?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesB71