quote:Originally posted by EmptiesInTheSwanson
Thanks for the article, almost completely supports me. She [Morton} isnt even a scientist, just works with a couple
Yawwn there, empty from the neck up...
Same-old tiring regurgitation of corporate name-calling and shooting the messenger. Is this the best you can do? We already covered this at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847
You're not Handee re-incarnated, are ya?
If Morton doesn’t have a PhD (only a lowly BSc), and is outpublishing the pro-industry hired guns and DFO – what does that say about their competence?
Ken Brooks is a geologist, not a fisheries scientist - yet he gets paid to defend your industry - yet I haven't hear you whining about he being qualified to defend anything regarding fish.
check-out Stephen Hume's Article below:
Science is a method; it does not insist on a credential
Stephen Hume. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jun 25, 2008. pg. A.15
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Jun 25, 2008
Any mention of Alexandra Morton, the feisty whistleblower who first drew unwelcome attention to sea lice and the interaction between farmed and wild salmon in the Broughton archipelago, routinely draws e-mail scoffing that she's not a "real" scientist because she doesn't have a PhD.
Science is not a credential. Science is a method. Science is practised every day by people who don't have PhDs. Indeed, people without academic credentials as we'd recognize them today laid the foundations for our entire edifice of scientific knowledge.
And some who hold PhDs are not practising science but use the credential to lend weight to opinions that they wish to advance in service of other agendas -- corporate objectives, government policy, propaganda supporting various causes, etc.
Science is a process by which we attempt an accurate representation of the world and how it works. Anybody is free to use the scientific method, it's not exclusive to the PhD club. If the results subsequently meet the rigorous criteria demanded by that method, then the findings are, by definition, a "scientific" result.
Scientific method is elegant and simple. It can be applied to any subject, hence "political science," "social science" and "life science" among the physical sciences.
Poets use scientific method to analyze the way verse works, its rhythms, metres, internal structures and its cultural and historical contexts, even whether a particular ancient Greek is more or less likely to be the author of an attributed fragment.
Choreographers use scientific method to determine the most efficient use of the available dance floor. Smart football coaches use it to calculate which offensive plays are most likely to succeed against which defensive formations.
Journalists use it all the time, sifting through heaps of apparently conflicting or unrelated information looking for pattern, incongruence, the consequences of cause and effect that might explain the outcomes of elections, international conflicts or the flow of commerce.
Scientific method demands not the prior approval of academic institutions, governments or corporations, but intelligence, curiosity, the ability to frame a question or design tests for a hypothesis, attention to detail, diligent gathering of evidence and then challenging the hypothesis and reporting honestly whether it stands up or collapses.
Nobody requires a PhD to do this. Nor does possession of a PhD guarantee that a conclusion is automatically superior to one arrived at by somebody with no degree at all. The value of the conclusion depends entirely upon the soundness of the method.
Certainly, the knowledge required to obtain a higher degree brings expectation of proficiency in framing hypotheses, analyzing data and evaluating results, yet the scientific literature is rife with examples of scholars with PhDs whose methods are subsequently found wanting by their peers. It's the method that's at issue, not academic reputation.
I don't draw these parallels to dismiss the value of credentials in higher learning. But it's important to recognize them for what they are and not to conflate them with what they are not. Owning a credential has nothing to do with application of method.
My intent is merely to point out that dismissing one person's analysis because that person doesn't happen to fall into a particular category -- not having a PhD, for example -- may satisfy the critic's desire to affirm preconceptions, but it's no basis for assuming that the work isn't perfectly good science.
Thus, anybody who seeks answers by proper use of scientific method qualifies as a scientist -- and that includes school kids who construct award-winning science fair projects.
Obtaining a PhD doesn't automatically make one a scientist. It means only that one has received a credential for achieving certain educational objectives that satisfy the standards of a particular institution. Seeking consistent answers to questions using scientific method is what makes scientists.
So e-mailing me to denounce Morton's -- or anyone else's -- research as not credible because she doesn't possess a PhD and therefore is not a "real" scientist may feel satisfying to the senders, but it is essentially worthless as criticism and is unworthy as personal comment.
Do the strict criteria of the scientific method govern the process by which the researcher achieves conclusions? That's the only issue.
shume@islandnet.com
Credit: Stephen Hume; Special to the Sun
