It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Velvet1
reply to post by PuterMan
Many great connective threads of science have come from so called amateurs observing at their leisure, against science often rushing projects through to only later amend or adjust accordingly via external input. This particularly so in medical fields.
Science rarely has any morals only goals, but the external observer often does relate from a moral stance, usually reminding science that, there are some things you can do, but it doesn't mean you should! Sometimes the so called experts actually listen!
All good points you raise, thank you!
Originally posted by PuterMan
There has from time to time on threads with a more scientific content been the suggestion that we (as ATSers) are not capable of making informed decisions because we are not scientists, that we are just amateurs playing at the subject; that unless it is peer reviewed documentation in an official journal it is not worth looking at.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Velvet1
This is so true. As you say most know 2+2=4 but don't know why.
I sort of forgot to add in my original post the tale - I think in a Bill Bryson book - about the guy who left school at 13, got interested in science and managed to write papers. He was widely accepted and famous when they discovered that he did not have a degree.
He was awarded an honorary one as they could not knock his work since it was so widely admired.
[edit on 6/4/2010 by PuterMan]
While the premise of the thread is noteworthy, let us not forget that those who are genuinely scientists have emerged as such due to a vast amount of study and application, and usually are able to see things from a particular perspective that only those with that study and knowledge can perceive.
and
And there's a reason for that. First, they have not only the knowledge, but they also have the resources and tools behind the conclusions they draw. They therefore hold a certain value.
For anyone to contest that value, is a tall order to say the least, even when we are talking about a beast as unpredictable as Yellowstone. Who here has the kind of access to data, tools, experience, and knowledge that has been accumulated at the USGS/YVO?
But I am also about seriously considering the extremely well backed conclusions made by real scientists.