On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +0000, chris peck wrote: > >> Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find it > very difficult indeed. > > All attempts to write about science for general consumption are > worthless are they, Russell? For example, you spent 5 years > translating Bruno's book to what end? No end? I mean if what you say > is true you should make absolutely clear to everyone you can that they > should not buy the book unless they possess the requisite > qualifications which few people are going to have.
Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments applied to research articles only, as that was the context. Of course, I never implied that people without research training cannot apply themselves to understanding research articles - I believe our own Stephen P. King would be a suitable counterexample, IIUC, but just that it is very hard for someone to do so, and requires a lot of determination, so they are few and far between. > I don't think you really believe that. I think you believe that core > issues about a science can be communicated to lay people sufficiently > well for them to make rational decisions about them. Of course. But then naturally those decision makers will need to take those expert opinions on trust, as they don't have the ability and/or inclination to read the primary literature. > > Besides which, its just the logic of the situation that even if it where > impossible to understand anything about climate science without a PHd in it, > statements about consensus would still be empty. It would still be a logical > fallacy to proclaim something to be true because of who said it, rather than > what was said. I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here. > > >> Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though. > > Most politicians have training in Law. A far more subtle and far harder > discipline than science. You should give them more credit. > I'm not sure about most, but certainly more than those with science training. I do not underestimate the intellectual capacity required to study law. I'm married to one. As for being more subtle and harder, I think that depends on the student. For me, studying law would be much more difficult than studying science, as there is far too much rote learning for me. I would say the converse is true in my wife's case. My son is somewhere in between, but I suspect that ultimately he might end up studying law though, as he;d have an easier job of it. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
