> OK. In some of the work I'm collaborating on now, we have an
> extremely complex equipment setup that involves high-speed
> video, endoscopes, pressure catheters, and hydrophones. Some
> of our colleagues may have believed that nothing would come of
> our approach. Others may not have pursued it due to the
> technical difficulty of the task. We keep reminding ourselves
> that if it were easy, someone else would already have done it.
>
And others may have so many projects going on already that they cannot take
on another one -- no matter how easy -- unless someone volunteers to do it
essentially pro bono. That's probably how Wexler got her training. She made
a deal where, as long as she could pay her own salary and buy her own
supplies, she would agree to do a specific project in exchange for the
training -- both theoretical and technical -- needed to do that project.
By the way, the technicians that operate the "extremely complex equipment"
Wesley described would be a legitimate example of "outsiders" making a
significant contribution to a research project. This is, however, a special
case. The technicians themselves, using their knowledge, training and
experience from their own fields, did not develop the research project or the
hypothesis being tested on their own. Rather, it was the "insider"
scientists who developed the hypothesis to be tested and the research program
to test it. In doing so, however, they needed specialized equipment that
they could not create and/or properly operate, so they invited the skilled
technicians they needed to join their team and contribute their unique
capabilities.
>
> "Insider" status does not imply buying into a monolithic mindset.
>
Exactly.
>
> KLOB>By attacking the problem from both sides hopefully we can
> KLOB>together break it down.
>
> MBG>Oh boy, "attacking" things to "break it down" suggests that I
> MBG>have stepped on someone's toes. Why everything has to be so
> MBG>confrontational and war-like is sometimes depressing.
>
> When I posted here recently concerning the invidious
> comparison that Dembski was reported to have used (and which
> Jay Richards confirmed) concerning the Soviet Union and
> Darwinian evolutionary theory, I don't recall anybody here
> getting exercized over Dembski being a bit confrontational.
> There have been plenty of confrontational ploys that have
> passed through this list without attracting any especial
> notice, much less disapproval.
>
For the record, I do not speak for Wesley; therefore, my comments cannot be
taken to represent his own beliefs.
I do not in principle object to the idea of people like Phillip Johnson
critiquing science. The only important question is: is what he has to say
relevant? Scientists will evaluate that in the same basic way they evaluate
any contribution, namely is it empirically, theoretically and/or rationally
defensible. Part of the process in doing this is to examine the
contributor's credentials. If what he contributes is considered to be
relevant, credentials will not be claimed to have played a significant role
in making that determination. However, if what he contributes is considered
to be irrelevant, the clearest reason why often turns out to be that he
simply did not have the knowledge, training, or experience to make a relevant
contribution.
Under those circumstances, it can appear as if the contributor is being
rejected because he is an "outsider" rather than because his contribution was
not relevant. It is then that supporters of the contributor often attempt to
claim that being an "outsider" is irrelevant, and they often do this by
invoking classical stories of "outsiders" making significant scientific
contributions despite their lack of knowledge, training or experience and in
spite of the efforts of "insiders" to thwart them. The problem with this
argument is that it is a bad argument, and it is bad because it is both
irrational and a myth.
As such, when I speak of attacking things to break them down, I am referring
to challenging bad arguments in an attempt to refute them so that they will
no longer be used. This is not a personal vendetta, simply a matter of
defending scientific integrity. The only toes Mike has stepped on is the
idea that contributions to science need not be relevant to have a significant
impact, despite the fact that irrelevant contributions are seldom harmless.
Kevin L. O'Brien