Over at pharyngula (which I *cannot pronounce... I could never be a biologist) there is an account of the silly ID's folks attack on Chris Mooney for not having the right credentials to talk about the science. Its a silly attack, of course, and PZ dutifully rips it apart (I'm a bit baffled as to why ID is a scientific and *legal* issue... but anyway).
This post is only to point out that the reverse argument is used, just as foolishly: ie, "we can't possibly listen to you, you're a scientist who knows about the subject, and therefore obviously biased... we need someone *without* credentials to talk impartially about this...".
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Dean Esmay stopped by last night and left a comment in reply to my recent posts about his stance on evolution. True to his usual form, he slings a lot of invective and says almost nothing of any substance. He begins:
Heh. It's fun to watch this: ad hominem first. Ed always starts there--it's what…
This is becoming a regular series, isn't it? It wasn't intended as such. Rusty's latest salvo deals with a couple of questions. It started with his post concerning the Understanding Evolution website, and one section of that site in particular, which advised teachers on how to answer the common…
Preceded by Boris "the clown" Johnson, SA wins his coveted slightly damp biscuit1 for The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science. TL;DR: it's a pile of dingoes kidneys. But before we get down to the insightful analysis, here's a barely relevant cartoon.
Notice the use of the words "weasel"…
For a lot of people, I seem to have become the go-to blogger for
information theory stuff. I really don't deserve it: Jeff Shallit at
Recursivity knows a whole lot more than I do. But I do my best.
Anyway, several people pointed out that over at the Disco Institute,
resident Legal Eagle Casey…
Or, as Chris himself says, that the logical result is that there can be no science journalism at all.
Welcome to Pielkeland.....
C'mon, Luskin's an attorney: ID has to be a legal issue because otherwise Luskin himself would be unable to attack Mooney for discussing a subject in which he has no formal training... Heh heh
Noise from the Outside (does ID stand for identification?):
There's an inescapable irony to knowledge of a subject: it typically arises from an INTEREST in a subject, and very seldom a truly detached interest. Aside from whatever agenda might have motivated one's first inquiries into a body of knowledge, other agendas ("interests" as in "conflict of interest") arise quite rapidly as the particular path of one's inquiries lead to conclusions and predilections in which one eventually invests one's credibility and reputation.
Common among these is "professional interest." One takes, let's say, the CPA (Chartered Accountant) exam and passes it (as I did). Or joins a labor union. Or earns a PhD. Most people eventually acquire the interests of one's co-cogniscenti, at least as one perceives them. And one violates these interests at one's peril (see labor unions).
Detachment usually DIMINISHES with one's growing knowledge of any field. If you don't think so, just try blindly accepting any recommendation your friendly mechanic down at the garage might give you next time you bring your car in.
He's the expert, isn't he?
As a lawyer, I think it's incredibly pretentious for Luskin to claim equal expertise with a biologist in analyzing ID. It makes me wonder about the quality of his legal analysis.
Saying that a journalist whose field of expertise is communicating science to the public should not be listened to is itself ridiculous.