Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think it's a mistake to say there's a clear separation between "scientists" and "debunkers". You can do both things. You can do science and you can debunk. They are different things. Debunkers use science, they sometimes (arguably) do science, but they also just do fact checking, research, and use skills like image analysis.

Perhaps more interesting is where "scientist" ends and "amateur scientist" begin? Or how about "citizen scientist", or "independent scientist" (aka "gentleman scientist")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_scientist
And then of course there's the contested designation of pseudoscience and "crank scientists"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hermits-and-cranks-lesson/
Ultimately it's best to judge people by their deeds, or simply judge the deeds themselves. Arguing if someone is or is not a scientist can quickly devolve into a semantic dictionary argument.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In a way, the scientific method consists of the removal of bunk from our understanding of the world around us.
Partly, but it's more about creating accurate theories that best explain the world. The bunk removal is a (necessary) side effect.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
mmm, this can get confusing, new terminology can be a minefield

the description above has the term citizen scientists having rather benign concept, but to someone like James Delingpole it has an altogether different meaning.

it simply seems to mean someone with a contrarian view and access to the internet and YouTube, JD seems to denigrate actual science, in favour of the "citizen scientists"

here he is in a revealing interview with Sir Paul Nurse - where he explains his view on conventional "science" and the scientific method contrasted with the the role of "citizen" scientist.

he eschews peer review and favours peer to peer review, via the internet

 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
mmm, this can get confusing, new terminology can be a minefield

the description above has the term citizen scientists having rather benign concept, but to someone like James Delingpole it has an altogether different meaning.

it simply seems to mean someone with a contrarian view and access to the internet and YouTube, JD seems to denigrate actual science, in favour of the "citizen scientists"

here he is in a revealing interview with Sir Paul Nurse - where he explains his view on conventional "science" and the scientific method contrasted with the the role of "citizen" scientist.

he eschews peer review and favours peer to peer review, via the internet

It's like arguing over who is a "REAL Christian".
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
The scientific method goes well beyond the removal of bunk. It aims at providing a more accurate explanation of observational data.
I'm not sure I see the difference. Bunk and misconceptions are pretty much the same thing and the opposite of accuracy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure I see the difference. Bunk and misconceptions are pretty much the same thing and the opposite of accuracy.
Science is creating accurate understandings. That does not mean simply showing that some other understanding is wrong (although that might be a side effect).

For example, the study of bacteria and viruses might debunk early theories of disease spread, but there's a vast amount of knowledge that has been discovered by science about how bacteria and viruses work that has nothing at all to do with misconceptions - it's things we did not know, and sometimes did not even know we did not know them.

Debunking is about demonstrating that things are wrong. Science is about discovering things that seem to be true - or at least fit the available evidence very well.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
medicine science is an interesting one - I was talking to a doctor friend of mine the other day and said that quite a lot of medical theory has been overturned in the last 50 years
 

NoParty

Senior Member
I don't think I really understand the phrase "citizen scientist."

Are there any requirements at all to achieve this?

Am I a "citizen NFL star" if I'm interested, but have no NFL experience I could put on my résumé?
 

deirdre

Senior Member
I don't think I really understand the phrase "citizen scientist."

Are there any requirements at all to achieve this?

Am I a "citizen NFL star" if I'm interested, but have no NFL experience I could put on my résumé?
i dont know what your last sentence means. But one would have to use the scientific method. For instance, if we could get a chemtrailist to actually photograph the sky in one area every two hours for two weeks I would consider that data collection using the scientific method to prove their claim that the chemtrails are always covering the sun.

If my boys football coach invented a 'new play', I could record data of the results of that play everytime over a set period of time and 'prove' (or help the analysis process) as to whether the 'new play' is effective.

In behavior modification... say youre dealing with a tantrumming child. a parent can (and should) collect data to 'see' if the consequence they are using is effective or not.

I think that's what it is anyway.
 

Herman Aven

Member
Debunking is about demonstrating that things are wrong. Science is about discovering things that seem to be true - or at least fit the available evidence very well.
How does falsifiability fit in here? As in: The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.Karl Popper.

Wouldn't science, at least for an important part, be about formulating theories which provide pathways to internal challenges? All attempts to demonstrate these scientific theories are (possibly) wrong by further experimentation or refutation belong then still to that same scientific process. Debunking is then perhaps more concerned with singular ideas or statements than with any larger theoretical framework. And the ideas which are the subject of debunking efforts often don't provide easy means to falsify, conveniently, and the debunker has to insert and execute that possibility for the world.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member
I don't think I really understand the phrase "citizen scientist."

Are there any requirements at all to achieve this?

Am I a "citizen NFL star" if I'm interested, but have no NFL experience I could put on my résumé?
From my take on it citizen science is a way that interested citizens can help scientists collect data and advance scientific understanding in certain fields of research.

Now this does not mean that any one can build a mini CERN or HAARP array and search for sub atomic particles or ionize the atmosphere above their house. Its more along the lines of mass data collection and event observation. The BBC here in the uk are big backers of citizen science.

A couple of examples...

A couple of times a year the BBC run a series of programs called 'Stargazing Live' which of late have featured citizen science projects, the first was hunting for exo-planets by hooking up with an existing project run by the Planet Hunters organisation, and a second involved looking for certain features on the surface of mars.

from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargazing_Live

Another BBC long running project is the 'Watch' series of natural history programs that air several times a year. (Spring Watch, Autumn Watch, Winter Watch). Their citizen science element normally involves projects like mapping the distribution of certain species across the UK, plotting bird and insect migration, recording mating behaviour of fauna etc
Here's a link to the BBC Spring watch pages with details of their latest citizen science project.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/natureuk/entries/ec03f10b-aa7e-46a4-8671-67d8f9069bec

All interesting stuff, and there are a couple I've been involved with. Every year I take part in the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch, and in 2003 my then girlfriend and I took part in the Time Team 'Big Dig' where we sank a 1mx1m test pit 6 feet into her back garden (we found fuck all!)

Bottom line citizen science isn't about any Tom, Dick or Dutchy coming up with half baked ideas or doing an basic battery experiment and claiming they are real scientists. Its about people with a real interest in certain fields of science - astronomy, natural history and archeology are the key ones, although other disciplines like rocketry etc are also involved; coming together with the real 'paid' scientist to expand research, data collection, etc in order to expand coverage and push knowledge forward. And also remember that there are certain fields, ornithology and astronomy in particular, where the 'amateur' is often as clued up as the professional, and often has local knowledge that the professional can not lay claim to.

And finally here is the work of one citizen scientist, a guy who is a mate of mine. Pete is a FRAS* and has been photographing the sun now for several years and plotting sun spots, flares etc. He now works with several professional solar astronomers, providing them with raw data and the like.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjwastro



(*Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society)
 

Steve Funk

Active Member
Evaluating and testing hypotheses that are often considered fringe or pseudoscience is one area where I believe citizen scientists can do useful work, because professional scientists may not get involved. Publishing an experimental result in Metabunk is a form of peer review, the last step in the scientific method, since other amateur or professional scientists are free to attack or defend the experimental methods. Publishing in Geoengineeringwatch is not peer review since that forum does not publish dissenting comments.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
Mick West Nanothermite on 9/11 - Where did the idea come from? 9/11 32
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 22
SFX Where to ask questions about posting? Site Feedback & News 5
Trailspotter Where did the third trail go? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Where and How could the Wallace Experiment Easily Be Repeated? Flat Earth 252
R Occasions where you don't engage a misconception CT? Practical Debunking 18
Mick West Converting mb (pressure) to altitude, and sites where this is useful Contrails and Chemtrails 10
qed Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Mick West Debunkers, Skeptics and Conspiracists: Where are you on the political compass? General Discussion 252
Tazmanian Where did the explosions come from? Boston Marathon Bombings 46
TWCobra Where is the Stratosphere today? Contrails and Chemtrails 96
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top