3 ms·

I'm a former PhD scientist who has done (non-pathogenic) GOF research -- we were trying to make energy production more efficient -- and I support the comment of

I'm a former PhD scientist who has done (non-pathogenic) GOF research -- we were trying to make energy production more efficient -- and I support the comment of GP.

tptacek 4y ago
First, I'm genuinely just asking if I understand the comment well enough. Did you read it the same way I did? Second, would you classify Derek Lowe as a scientist, or a "scientist"? (If you think there's no difference, then you're reading the parent comment differently from me, which is useful information.)
- aliqot 4y ago
  What is a scientist in your context? I see the definition according to Webster's, does yours differ from that?
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  if the scare-quotes bother you, ignore them, since they weren't the main point of the comment, but the quotes were meant to convey that many scientists today often don't behave scientifically, but instead behave like politicians, activists, or moralizers, even if they have the credentials of a scientist and do scientific things for a living. There are so many things said by scientists and scientific authorities today that are at best purely the opinion of the person speaking, or have very weak observational evidence supporting them, but these things are often given the veneer of science anyways.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You wrote it, so I'm not ignoring it; I'm taking what you said seriously. Can you articulate the way in which Derek Lowe is "not behaving scientifically"?
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      If you're going to take what I say seriously, then I think you should focus first on the main point of the comment, and not a minor detail, but whatever. I can play ball. Assuming Derek Lowe the author of the article, I feel like my first comment covered your question He's playing with the definition of a politically-charged word, claiming that a GOF experiment isn't so unless it successfully creates a more virulent virus. I get that the definition of words isn't set in stone and there can be ambiguity involved, but this seems like a very dishonest take on what GOF research actually is. He even quoted a scientist whose conclusion is the exact opposite of his, that this is in fact GOF research, and failed to mention the fact! To add to my original comment, he used the phrase "real virologist" at least three times. This is charged language that implies a lot of people in these conversations don't know what they are talking about. This is not the behavior I expect out of scientists. Well, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, this is unfortunately the kind of behavior I do expect out of scientists that write articles for sites like science.org.
      - bena 4y ago
        And tptacek felt that your use of quotes around "scientists" was also charged to imply Lowe wasn't entirely credible. But he wanted to make sure that's that what you were claiming because Lowe apparently has the academic credentials to lay claim to the appellation. You also want to accuse him of not engaging with your main point. But from your posts, I would say your main point is that some of those who claim to be scientists are more akin to politicians than scientists. And if that is not your intention, then I would say that is a failure on your part to convey what point you actually wanted to make. You want to knock his use of the term "real virologist", but he's using it to distinguish the people as people who work in virology and not random people on the internet arguing about the semantics of an apparently ill-defined term.
        PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        That's fair. I can see how the quotes would easily imply I'm suggesting these people aren't real scientists. I am however, suggesting though that in articles like these, they aren't doing science, and they could do much better. For instance, I think it would be more "scientific" to review various definitions of GOF research and suggest how this research might or might not fit each definition. This would at least have the appearance of being more objective and gathering data on existing usages of this word. And, to slightly correct your summary, I'm saying scientists are often conducting politics, or operating in the political arena (or moral arena), while, either explicitly or implicitly, taking advantage of the scientific credibility that society gives them by default. It's articles like these that land in leftwing fact-checking sites like Politifact that are then used as solid evidence that a particular claim is "misleading" or "mostly false."
- camdenlock 4y ago
  Is “scientist” some sort of sacred occupation? Are you a scientist? Can anyone be a scientist? Are credentials required? Which credentials do you accept? Is Derek Lowe sufficiently credentialed such that his statements should be treated as sacred?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No. Not really. Yes. Maybe. A PhD is a good start. No. I don't think you understand what I'm asking.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  I read it differently. I read it as the gp indicating that at the point where they are engaging in political play a scientist writ large ceases to be as much of a scientist. Perhaps that's not the original intent of the [gp], note: edited for clarity Edit: Oh wow. I just read gp's comment below. It was the original intent of GP.

I'm a former PhD scientist who has done (non-pathogenic) GOF research -- we were trying to make energy production more efficient -- and I support the comment of GP.

tptacek 4y ago

First, I'm genuinely just asking if I understand the comment well enough. Did you read it the same way I did? Second, would you classify Derek Lowe as a scientist, or a "scientist"? (If you think there's no difference, then you're reading the parent comment differently from me, which is useful information.)

aliqot 4y ago
What is a scientist in your context? I see the definition according to Webster's, does yours differ from that?
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
if the scare-quotes bother you, ignore them, since they weren't the main point of the comment, but the quotes were meant to convey that many scientists today often don't behave scientifically, but instead behave like politicians, activists, or moralizers, even if they have the credentials of a scientist and do scientific things for a living. There are so many things said by scientists and scientific authorities today that are at best purely the opinion of the person speaking, or have very weak observational evidence supporting them, but these things are often given the veneer of science anyways.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 4y ago
  You wrote it, so I'm not ignoring it; I'm taking what you said seriously. Can you articulate the way in which Derek Lowe is "not behaving scientifically"?
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    If you're going to take what I say seriously, then I think you should focus first on the main point of the comment, and not a minor detail, but whatever. I can play ball. Assuming Derek Lowe the author of the article, I feel like my first comment covered your question He's playing with the definition of a politically-charged word, claiming that a GOF experiment isn't so unless it successfully creates a more virulent virus. I get that the definition of words isn't set in stone and there can be ambiguity involved, but this seems like a very dishonest take on what GOF research actually is. He even quoted a scientist whose conclusion is the exact opposite of his, that this is in fact GOF research, and failed to mention the fact! To add to my original comment, he used the phrase "real virologist" at least three times. This is charged language that implies a lot of people in these conversations don't know what they are talking about. This is not the behavior I expect out of scientists. Well, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, this is unfortunately the kind of behavior I do expect out of scientists that write articles for sites like science.org.
    - bena 4y ago
      And tptacek felt that your use of quotes around "scientists" was also charged to imply Lowe wasn't entirely credible. But he wanted to make sure that's that what you were claiming because Lowe apparently has the academic credentials to lay claim to the appellation. You also want to accuse him of not engaging with your main point. But from your posts, I would say your main point is that some of those who claim to be scientists are more akin to politicians than scientists. And if that is not your intention, then I would say that is a failure on your part to convey what point you actually wanted to make. You want to knock his use of the term "real virologist", but he's using it to distinguish the people as people who work in virology and not random people on the internet arguing about the semantics of an apparently ill-defined term.
      - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        That's fair. I can see how the quotes would easily imply I'm suggesting these people aren't real scientists. I am however, suggesting though that in articles like these, they aren't doing science, and they could do much better. For instance, I think it would be more "scientific" to review various definitions of GOF research and suggest how this research might or might not fit each definition. This would at least have the appearance of being more objective and gathering data on existing usages of this word. And, to slightly correct your summary, I'm saying scientists are often conducting politics, or operating in the political arena (or moral arena), while, either explicitly or implicitly, taking advantage of the scientific credibility that society gives them by default. It's articles like these that land in leftwing fact-checking sites like Politifact that are then used as solid evidence that a particular claim is "misleading" or "mostly false."
camdenlock 4y ago
Is “scientist” some sort of sacred occupation? Are you a scientist? Can anyone be a scientist? Are credentials required? Which credentials do you accept? Is Derek Lowe sufficiently credentialed such that his statements should be treated as sacred?
- tptacek 4y ago
  No. Not really. Yes. Maybe. A PhD is a good start. No. I don't think you understand what I'm asking.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
I read it differently. I read it as the gp indicating that at the point where they are engaging in political play a scientist writ large ceases to be as much of a scientist. Perhaps that's not the original intent of the [gp], note: edited for clarity Edit: Oh wow. I just read gp's comment below. It was the original intent of GP.