Current Events > I don't understand why science has to be a thing for scientists.

(+) Yeah! (+)

And how the masses look up to them.

There's no reason everyone shouldn't know things like quantum mechanics, relativity or molecular genetics. All people have to do is pick up a book and read.

Same goes with languages, just practice. Anyone can learn a language in a year if they put effort into it.
---

ok
---

No
---

Except it's not that easy to obtain an actual understanding of those topics unless you put a lot of time and effort into it, which most people don't have time to do unless they're looking to go into those fields professionally. There's also the fact that some people are able to pick up certain subjects more easily than other people.
---

Verdekal posted...

And how the masses look up to them.

There's no reason everyone shouldn't know things like quantum mechanics, relativity or molecular genetics. All people have to do is pick up a book and read.

Same goes with languages, just practice. Anyone can learn a language in a year if they put effort into it.

How deep of a knowledge are you talking about here?
---

I can understand it if someone is pressed for time, as in works 50 hours a week with three kids.

But why can't everyone just pick up a book on pchem and f****** read?
---

Verdekal posted...

And how the masses look up to them.

There's no reason everyone shouldn't know things like quantum mechanics, relativity or molecular genetics. All people have to do is pick up a book and read.

Same goes with languages, just practice. Anyone can learn a language in a year if they put effort into it.

a scientist is a professional.

Anyone is free to learn and/or understand whatever science they want, but without a career in scientific research, you can't be a scientist. There are definitely non-scientists that are more knowledgeable about science than some scientists, but they're not scientists because that's not their career.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Verdekal posted...

And how the masses look up to them.

There's no reason everyone shouldn't know things like quantum mechanics, relativity or molecular genetics. All people have to do is pick up a book and read.

Same goes with languages, just practice. Anyone can learn a language in a year if they put effort into it.

a scientist is a professional.

Anyone is free to learn and/or understand whatever science they want, but without a career in scientific research, you can't be a scientist. There are definitely non-scientists that are more knowledgeable about science than some scientists, but they're not scientists because that's not their career.

The point is anyone can or should be able to become an equal authority on something. A piece of paper like a degree is someone that gets you a job.

Again, just READ.
---

Verdekal posted...

The point is anyone can or should be able to become an equal authority on something. A piece of paper like a degree is someone that gets you a job.

Again, just READ.

You can read as much as you want, that won't make you as much as an authority on the subject as an actual scientist who does the work.
---

Verdekal posted...

I can understand it if someone is pressed for time, as in works 50 hours a week with three kids.

But why can't everyone just pick up a book on pchem and f****** read?

Read enough to understand the very basics? Read enough to read and understand science journals?

Reading only gets you so far. I'd say there has to be an actual effort in doing the work before you can really understand what you're reading and how it works in research, specifically in science. Or no?
---

do you really believe this Verdekal?

do you also think everyone should know basic plumbing, farming, first aid, etc? why know quantum physics before any of those things?
---

LysistrataMedea posted...

do you really believe this Verdekal?

do you also think everyone should know basic plumbing, farming, first aid, etc? why know quantum physics before any of those things?

Maybe I just wish people would do this. I read a book a day, every day.
---

COVxy posted...

You can read as much as you want, that won't make you as much as an authority on the subject as an actual scientist who does the work.

Yep. Reading something is one thing; being able to look at it critically and comprehend it is another. Having the tools to experiment and put your knowledge into practice help a great deal too. And being around experts that you can learn from.

Books ain't cheap either. And on the internet, there's a lot of shit to wade through.

Verdekal posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

do you really believe this Verdekal?

do you also think everyone should know basic plumbing, farming, first aid, etc? why know quantum physics before any of those things?

Maybe I just wish people would do this. I read a book a day, every day.

rare picture of Verdekal
http://tailopez67scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/tai-lopez-lamborghini.jpg
---

I agree that would kill the ignorance about things like climate change and evolution.
---

Who do you think discovered the material in those science books, TC?
---

Anyone can attempt science but unless they're properly trained, their method and rigor is probably going to suck and they'll get shredded in a real peer reviewed journal.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Anyone can attempt science but unless they're properly trained, their method and rigor is probably going to suck and they'll get shredded in a real peer reviewed journal.

Well that's their incompetence.
---

Verdekal posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Anyone can attempt science but unless they're properly trained, their method and rigor is probably going to suck and they'll get shredded in a real peer reviewed journal.

Well that's their incompetence.

I doubt that you understand these subjects nearly as much as you think you do.
---

Why do you think that training to be a scientist is such a long process?

There's 4 years of undergrad, ~5 years of grad, ~4 years of postdoc. Then you get your first real job. ~13 years of training.
---

5 years of grad school??? Maybe if you are a dunce lol

But anyway, people shouldn't be getting their science from clickbait articles and tweets. They don't need to go study textbooks like TC is suggesting, but they should at least be able to read the actual studies being referenced, not just CNNs article "XY Causes/Prevents Cancer!!!!!"
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

5 years of grad school??? Maybe if you are a dunce lol

5 years is the average graduation rate for science PhD programs, yes.
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

They don't need to go study textbooks like TC is suggesting, but they should at least be able to read the actual studies being referenced, not just CNNs article "XY Causes/Prevents Cancer!!!!!"

Also, the actual studies are a much more difficult hurdle than the textbooks. Anyone can sit down and read through a textbook. The studies require (most often) a large amount of background knowledge and training to understand.

That's not to say that people shouldn't try, especially since the studies that the public usually gets really excited about are ones that are pretty accessible to the layman.
---

Not being facetious, that's a decent estimation.
---

COVxy posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

5 years of grad school??? Maybe if you are a dunce lol

5 years is the average graduation rate for science PhD programs, yes.

Oh you were lumping masters and PHD programs, I was thinking just masters program for some reason

Also, the actual studies are a much more difficult hurdle than the textbooks. Anyone can sit down and read through a textbook. The studies require (most often) a large amount of background knowledge and training to understand.

That's not to say that people shouldn't try, especially since the studies that the public usually gets really excited about are ones that are pretty accessible to the layman.

The meat of the studies, where they explain all the procedures, data, calculations, etc. is tough for sure. But you can dive into the Abstract, Intro, and Conclusion without much difficulty in a lot of the popular studies like you said are more accessible. You don't need to understand all the formulas after you read a paper, but you can at least get an idea of why they did the study, what they think the data shows, and areas where the study was lacking or could be inaccurate.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

COVxy posted...

Not being facetious, that's a decent estimation.

I knew you were serious about the estimation, I just didn't know whether you were being facetious about 13 years not being a long process.

Oh, I see what you mean. I was actually posing that question to TC literally, not in the colloquial way of (why do you think this when it is obviously that?).

In other words, the bottom of my post was demonstrating how long the process is, and the question to TC was to get him to think critically as to why that much training might be needed and why that prevents people from developing an authority on the subject just by free time reading.
---

Verdekal posted...

Same goes with languages, just practice. Anyone can learn a language in a year if they put effort into it.

What the fuck...

I bet you also think everyone can be hot and attractive if they just exercise, too.
---

COVxy posted...

Why do you think that training to be a scientist is such a long process?

There's 4 years of undergrad, ~5 years of grad, ~4 years of postdoc. Then you get your first real job. ~13 years of training.

Seeing the amount of time laid out like this instead of keeping it in the back of my mind is making me a sad panda right now
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Oh you were lumping masters and PHD programs, I was thinking just masters program for some reason

This varies from country to country. In Sweden a PhD is four years, although universities are allowed to use the students for teaching up to 20% of their hours, leading to pretty much every PhD here being a minimum of 5 years. Without accounting for a master's degree.
---