[Arete]

kitkat, on 15 November 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

Another problem is, "if you don't talk like a scientist using their specific terminology and do not mimic their choice of words in the strictest sense, then you will responded as if you are an idiot. People of science should learn to translate their language in something that lay people can easily understand of how they interprete in their own opinion of the research. To insist on recited information that a scientist can only understand to the public creates a wall between them and that is why forums like these do not have a large population to participate in it.

I'm sorry - but given the recent posts you've made in the biology section I feel it's necessary to call you on this one. For example in this thread:
http://www.sciencefo...tween-bacteria/

You've challenged current scientific theory based on a complete misinterpretation of a popular science article - which you didn't reference leaving us to dig and assume we found the right one. You've then gone on to completely misunderstand the definition of many very basic biological terms in order to try and argue a point e.g.

kitkat, on 10 November 2011 - 11:49 PM, said:

So we can communicate properly - prokaryotes, microbes, bacteria are all one and the same subject correct?

I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I've worked with year 9 high school students who can tell me without hesitation the difference between an organelle, a bacteria, a prokaryote and a microorganism. They are fundamental building blocks of knowledge, essential to the understanding of cellular biology. Despite being furnished with wikipedia links to explain the key differences you argued the point that in your opinion they were one and the same for over a page. It's not our or any scientist's fault that your basic scientific knowledge is this lacking - you need to do a bit more reading.

This brings me to three major points:

a) Scientific illiteracy is a problem, sure. Its got roots in science, in education systems and in the media. However - ALL of the scientific literature is internet based these days. With the advent of FOS journals like PLoS and BMC, the literature is more accessible to the general public than EVER before.

b) If you're going to assert changes to a well supported scientific theory (i.e. evolution by natural selection - http://www.sciencefo...prey-mechanism/), you need to pose a legitimate problem with the theory and pose legitimate alternatives. If your problems with the theory stem from a poor or incomplete understanding of what the theory actually states, people politely and comprehensively try to explain how the theory doesn't work the way you're proposing it does and you react with snippy, sarcastic responses, it inevitably elicits frustration in the people trying to help you.

c) Scientific language, terminology and nomenclature exists purely for clarification purposes. In the above thread you deliberately refused to acknowledge fundamental, learned in high school biology scientific definitions when presented with them because it didn't suit the point you were making. (i.e. you stated: mitochondrion = microorganism, I corrected: mitochondrion=organelle, you cited: that's your opinion) It's again, not science's fault that you refuse to acknowledge differences in definitions pointed out to you reflective of important biological differences because it doesn't suit you. It also makes it near impossible to have a meaningful discussion on a topic of science when you refuse to acknowledge these definitions.

Again I mean no disrespect or dismissal of you or your posts, but please don't blame a lack of knowledge and education on science/scientists/this forum if you're capable of picking up a biology textbook and reading it.

This post has been edited by Arete: 16 November 2011 - 04:38 PM

[IamJoseph]

kitkat, on 15 November 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

In my opinion, there seems to be an ongoing problem for people that have a general interest in finding out as much as they can of what is current in science discoveries of what interests them. Today, people do all of their research via the internet and we blindly place trust in the content of all the websites that gladly provide their research and their conclusions of those findings. When a particular question of interest is provided by these resources and we share them here, it is often met with sarcasm and require proof of our sources.

This is confusing to the person presenting this information since I feel that the person that represents an education on the matter should already know what is being provided via the web to the public and they should provide the source that provides us with the correct information. Coming to these forums and the responses you get makes me question whether I should even bother with doing any personal research since most of it is untrue.

Another problem is, "if you don't talk like a scientist using their specific terminology and do not mimic their choice of words in the strictest sense, then you will responded as if you are an idiot. People of science should learn to translate their language in something that lay people can easily understand of how they interprete in their own opinion of the research. To insist on recited information that a scientist can only understand to the public creates a wall between them and that is why forums like these do not have a large population to participate in it.

There is much corruption in today's encyclopedia, which has seeped into humanity's psyches as facts. This is most seen in historical sectors. People read definitions which are based on opinions up to 1,500 years after the fact, seen when the footnote legends are examined. This is a result of the opinions being from those who have already made up their minds based on their beliefs only. And those beliefs can never be evidenced by contemporary references, and are usually antithetical to its real time facts. This can be seen when one tries to find any contemporary proof for any figure in the NT - one gets dizzy following all the spins and should question why we have no Christian dead sea scrolls when so many writers are mentioned - at a time when writings was commonplace? These are the kind of stuff which has become facts when we check for references. Equally, there is no proof of Moses. There is of david, which is not bad, seeing this is a 3,200 year figure. I am wondering why the Gospels failed to record a million Jews sacrificing their lives in the war with Rome in 70 CE: it begs the Q when was the Gospels written and by whom? Its like the NY Times not mentioning 9/11 on 9/12. I found that democrasy was introduced not by the Greeks but in the Hebrew bible! I found the first alphabetical book is not phoenecian but the Hebrew bible! I found that the oldest NAME of a human is recorded in the Hebrew bible! I found that all laws which turn the world are listed only in the Hebrew bible! Now these are facts - but not seen in references stemming from Europe and made widespread throughout the world. It means humanity is standing on rickety ground.We see that the two biggest religions - Christianity & Islam - are in insane contradiction of each other of the same space-times they believe in: both cannot be right - yet these will kill and die for those false beliefs. I say:


HUSTON - WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE!

[swansont]

kitkat, on 15 November 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

Another problem is, "if you don't talk like a scientist using their specific terminology and do not mimic their choice of words in the strictest sense, then you will responded as if you are an idiot. People of science should learn to translate their language in something that lay people can easily understand of how they interprete in their own opinion of the research. To insist on recited information that a scientist can only understand to the public creates a wall between them and that is why forums like these do not have a large population to participate in it.

Scientific terminology is generally more precise (and occasionally less precise) than lay terminology, meaning that if you use the wrong word, you mean something you did not intend. However, you probably have no idea exactly how much a scientist is already translating their discussion into a version more generally digestible unless you spend time listening to him/her in discussion with colleagues. Compare a paper and the press release based on it sometime and you will have an inkling of how much translation is already going on, between the terminology and trying to express math in words.

Some of the burden has to be on the audience to gain some scientific literacy if they want to participate in the discussion.