The issue is with the loosening of the definition of the word expert. Should one trust the statements of someone who has dedicated their lives to studying a topic of interest and has a deep and varried knowledge base, on that issue that they studied? Yes, they should, because the expert very likely understands the issue better then them. However if that person is just a self claimed expert, with no illustration of their claimed expertise then people are best to be skeptical.
It's a bit more complicated an issue then you make it seem to be frank. Posts like this while well intentioned, end up doing more harm then good as people take them at face value and end up leaving with the idea "trust no expert, knowledge doesn't matter" even when the article was written entirely to the contrary.
So you are saying that I should take advice from an expert astrologer because they have dedicated their lives on their subject?
And how can you possibly verify that. (+ see my point above)
Knowledge does matter. I mentioned very specifically what "expertise" entails and it has to do with falsifiability in experiments and replicability. Most of "science" is bullshit, whether we like it or not because the majority has become a meme for "education" with no actual emphasis to rigorous scientific investigation.
Yes, on the subject of astrology. Which you should know is stupid and not be interested in from the outset. However if you were interested then their years of study would be valuable. Despite the fact that the field is hog wash.
Accomplishments in the field of supposed expertise.
Nonsense, now your just putting your ignorance on display.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_facing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html
Like I said. "Mostly" Bullshit
Mmm hmm. Okay kyriacos, what ever you say ;)
I wish it wasn't. Perhaps more than you.
In case you prefer the more "digestible" version
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
Again, I work in the field, I know the issues. Thanks.
so what? my statement stands. Most of it IS bullshit because there is no replicability. Doesn't matter if you work on the field as much as it doesn't matter if a fortune letter spend a lifetime interpreting coffee stains from cups. You said "Nonsense, now your just putting your ignorance on display."
obviously you are the one who is ignorant or rather trying to scoop the issue under the carpet. I am allergic to senseless science cheerleading as much as I am with pseudoscience.
Most of the work hasn't been attempted to be reproduced. Those statistics are skewed by really high profile flashy "high impact" publications. There are reproducibility issues, but you must also keep in mind those stats are created by polling a specific subset of scientists.
I have yet to be unable to reproduce ANY experiment that I have tried from the literature. Everything has been appropriate.
The majority of it is not bullshit. Some of it is, exactly how much isn't known. Certainly not a majority.
Can't take your word mate, nor your specific field. Evidence shows otherwise.
Except it really doesn't.
I can say the same about psychology. I can say that about anything. You know "it's stupid man".
Bogus accomplishments and self-honoring don't make the field valid. anyone can come up with a field and crown themselves experts in it. The field doesn't make the person's findings valid.
I would suggest you do your research before you comment in my posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
You can't say it about psychology because psychology explains things that happen. Astrology attempts to create a causal relationship between two unrelated things. So that's a poor example.
No self honor isn't a justification, that's not an accomplishment, however actually advancing a field in a measurable way is. Your just skirting around the issue.
I'm well aware of the reproducibility issues in science publication. This doesn't make your statements any more true.
Perhaps you should focus on writing a better post then throwing shade at me.
Still not more true buddy. :)
Psychology uses causal relationship between two or more unrelated things all the time. That's how the narrative is created. Actually, to step this up a bit I dare you to bring a study of your choice to I can demonstrate this to you.
How can you tell if a field is even valid? Why have a "field" anyways when there is so much trash all over it, overshadowing actual research (aka neurobiology vs bullshit psychology)
Actually it does because so far we know that most are not replicable and in my dictionary. no replicability = snake oil.
my post is good enough. I have yet to see a valid counter argument. I am well aware of the opposing arguments. This is why it is so easy for me to bring evidence to the table. I am very careful with that I write and almost always I can anticipate the "classic" response.
I was in academia for some time in case you didn't know.