A
Anonymous
Guest
Righty":2o1tj3t7 said:
that is not the same as being of no contributable value :wink:
- Status
that is not the same as being of no contributable value :wink:
A
Anonymous
Guest
I don't think I ever said it had no contributable value.
Righty":m7gj0yw2 said:
Not proven ! Although, the hobbyist can learn something from science....be sceptical. From the link given, Sam Gamble has an undergraduate degree in a scientific subject. That does not make him a scientist. It is way short.
The issue remains that, if the hobbyist wishes to influence/contribute to science, he must gain attention of the scientific community.
How ? Why ? Why would (for example) a marine biologist, someone who has devoted a life to science and taken the vow of penury, listen to a keeper of fancy fish whose knowledge of invertebrate zoology isn't just limited, it is excruciating ? (I am that keeper of fancy fish, by the way.)
To sit at the table of science requires that dues be paid, credibility established. Doesn't matter how clever you are, how valid your observations, if you have not invested the time and effort, move along.
kim
vitz":2a9mvxip said:
I think you are misreading his post.
Didn't he write:
" By saying that the scientific method does not consider
itself to prove something, I was also trying to illuminate and support your
point that just because the scientific method didn't support cyanide's
killing of corals until a few years ago doesn't mean that it could not have
possibly been recognized or understood that cyanide is toxic to them far,
far earlier. "
Look at it more closely to remove the suspicion.
Can the hobby contribute to science? The answer historically is yes.
Consider that the Wright brothers were tinkers and succeeded where the scientists failed. Of course, most of the scientists said that flying was impossible.
It isn’t too surprising that that scientist often poop-poop non-scientists. But considering that it takes science 100-150 years to correct its errors, scientists have reasons to be afraid to admit that they may not be the sole source of knowledge. Like any guild, they must protect the belief that they have superior knowledge/learning/skill to justify they livelihood.
Those of us who have the title of scientist have to be mindful that dedicated men and women who never when to university or who never worked in a research lab created much of the foundation on which we build.
Professional/Scientists work on what they are paid to do. The amateur/hobbyist works on what he/she loves to do. The difference often results in the amateur discovering or extending knowledge. Of course, the amateur is unlikely to get any credit since he/she is unlikely to be published by the scientific guild publications. Some fields like astronomy are more open to input from amateurs and thus it is easier for the amateurs to get credit. Fields like biology are so closed that even within the ranks alternate theories are met with great hostility and rejected.
That doesn’t mean that every amateur does good science. But, it is comforting to realize that one can find a cure for some coral disease even if one doesn’t really know Exactly why it works. Even scientists don’t know why everything works they just can tell you what research has been done :lol: .
Consider that the Wright brothers were tinkers and succeeded where the scientists failed. Of course, most of the scientists said that flying was impossible.
It isn’t too surprising that that scientist often poop-poop non-scientists. But considering that it takes science 100-150 years to correct its errors, scientists have reasons to be afraid to admit that they may not be the sole source of knowledge. Like any guild, they must protect the belief that they have superior knowledge/learning/skill to justify they livelihood.
Those of us who have the title of scientist have to be mindful that dedicated men and women who never when to university or who never worked in a research lab created much of the foundation on which we build.
Professional/Scientists work on what they are paid to do. The amateur/hobbyist works on what he/she loves to do. The difference often results in the amateur discovering or extending knowledge. Of course, the amateur is unlikely to get any credit since he/she is unlikely to be published by the scientific guild publications. Some fields like astronomy are more open to input from amateurs and thus it is easier for the amateurs to get credit. Fields like biology are so closed that even within the ranks alternate theories are met with great hostility and rejected.
That doesn’t mean that every amateur does good science. But, it is comforting to realize that one can find a cure for some coral disease even if one doesn’t really know Exactly why it works. Even scientists don’t know why everything works they just can tell you what research has been done :lol: .
We look and guess, maybe applying things we read in books (unless the reef keeper is a scientist himself). Scientists have PHDs and more. We are now guessing as to weather or not we can contribute. Maybe we can, by documenting many events, but they may depend on environmental factors that we are not recording or reporting, and everything we observe is limited by the fact that it happens under artificial conditions. Don't get too narcissistic. Let the scientists decide weather we are contributing or not.
Looks like the amateur/hobbyist saved the scientist butts once again :lol: .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3517319.stm
To save everyone the trouble of reading the whole thing:
"..For some astronomers, events reached a crescendo when Steven Chesley, a researcher at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, looked at the available data and sent an e-mail saying the asteroid had a 25% chance of striking the Earth's Northern Hemisphere in a few days....Fortunately for all concerned, shortly after the ominous Chesley e-mail, an amateur astronomer managed to dodge the clouds and take a picture of a blank patch of sky.
This was significant because if 2004 AS1 really was going to hit the Earth, it would have been in the amateur's sights. The fact that it was absent meant the rock would not strike us. "
Do notice the amateur is not named :wink: .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3517319.stm
To save everyone the trouble of reading the whole thing:
"..For some astronomers, events reached a crescendo when Steven Chesley, a researcher at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, looked at the available data and sent an e-mail saying the asteroid had a 25% chance of striking the Earth's Northern Hemisphere in a few days....Fortunately for all concerned, shortly after the ominous Chesley e-mail, an amateur astronomer managed to dodge the clouds and take a picture of a blank patch of sky.
This was significant because if 2004 AS1 really was going to hit the Earth, it would have been in the amateur's sights. The fact that it was absent meant the rock would not strike us. "
Do notice the amateur is not named :wink: .
- Status
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
