Idiotic State Licensing Keeps U of M Flint Econ Dept. Head From Being Allowed To Teach High School
Michigan Capital Confidential's Tom Gantert writes that teacher licensing requirements in Michigan keep highly qualified Ph.D.s from being high school teachers without jumping through a bunch of training hoops:
Christopher Douglas is an associate professor and the chair of the Department of Economics at the University of Michigan-Flint, where he teaches a half dozen classes. He has undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering and economics from Michigan Technological University as well as a doctorate in economics from Michigan State University.Yet, Douglas has said he would have to complete additional coursework and also pass the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification to teach at a public high school in Michigan. And he isn't alone.
Ross B. Emmett is a professor of political economy and political theory and constitutional democracy at James Madison College at MSU.
"According to the state of Michigan licensing requirements, I cannot teach economics in a Michigan high school," Emmett said in an email. "This, despite the fact that I have a Ph.D. in economics and over thirty years of experience in liberal arts college classrooms with excellent evaluations."
...Many highly qualified people are barred from teaching at DPS because, although they are qualified to teach at a public K-12 school, they have not completed the state-required licensing.
"Unions like barriers to entry, which is what this certification represents," Douglas said.
...All Michigan teachers must complete either a traditional teacher preparation program or an alternative program.
Teachers must also complete required reading courses. That means six semester credit hours for elementary teachers and three semester credit hours for secondary teachers.
Teachers must complete a course in first aid and CPR that is approved by the American Red Cross or similar organization.
Teachers must pass the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification and the Professional Readiness Examination/Basic Skills.
I recently looked up the exam for psychologist certification in California. I have spent years reading in psychology -- my current reading is a Michael Gazzaniga co-authored Cognitive Neuroscience textbook along with (yesterday night) a 20-page paper criticizing embodied cognition that I'm halfway through.
After looking at the test questions, I see that I could pass the psychologist certification exam, no problem.
The problem? I haven't taken classes in how to recognize child abuse, etc., or met other classic educational requirements.
Okay, so I won't get certified. I really just wanted to do it so I could stop having people not take me and my knowledge base as seriously (and it's mainly journalists who do that -- professors seem to respect me for my knowledge, enough that I got asked to speak at the big ev psych conference last year and enough that I'm the president of an organization of academics). Several chapters of the book I'm writing also take apart accepted thinking in psychology on a number of topics, laying out why that accepted thinking isn't solid science.
The sort of hilarious thing is how many people are certified as psychologists and therapists who haven't opened a book since college and really know fuck all about their topic. But, hey, they've got that nice rubber stamp from the state, so all good!
via @AdamKissel
"Okay, so I won't get certified. I really just wanted to do it so I could stop having people not take me and my knowledge base as seriously (and it's mainly journalists who do that)"
Of course it is.
I find it interesting that after years of arguing about the scientific method on this web site, you still think *credentialism* is a valid short cut to being taken seriously by journalists, no less.
I mean really, who cares?
Isab at June 14, 2016 6:46 AM
Isab, it's important in marketplace terms -- because your books get more credence (and thus more publicity) if you are taken seriously by journalists. Otherwise, I don't care -- or I would have gotten a Ph.D. Researchers take me seriously -- which is why big people in behavioral science appear on my tiny little Internet radio show and why I got invited to speak on applied science to 500-plus Psych Department faculty and students at Cal State Fullerton, etc., etc.
I finished college instead of dropping out for this same reason -- because it seems to give certain people a reason to not hire you, and I needed to be hired in my early 20s. (I don't need to pay for college to study and learn -- I do it every day, and engage critically with people in various scientific fields via phone, email, and in person.)
I was wondering who'd be up first to sneer at me, and you don't disappoint.
Amy Alkon at June 14, 2016 7:19 AM
I was wondering who'd be up first to sneer at me, and you don't disappoint.
Amy Alkon at June 14, 2016 7:19 AM
I just get up earlier than Crid does.... Different time zone. :-)
Credentialism replaced real science in the public eye several years ago.
The climate *science* gig is an excellent example. A bunch or experts from many different disciplines trying to cobble together their observations and imply causation where none has been established.
Real scientists don't care what journalists think because science not only isn't about consensus, it isn't about marketing either.
However, the reason university professors can't teach high school is because of artificial bureaucratic barriers designed to protect *union* jobs, not really credentialism at all. Both groups, public high school teachers, and university professors worship at that shrine together.
Isab at June 14, 2016 7:43 AM
The unions have always erected barriers to keep out les autres. While the South was castigated for Jim Crow, the unions quietly kept desirable Northern jobs safely white. African-Americans, when allowed union entry, were always too low on the totem pole of union seniority hiring practices to endanger white access to well-paying senior-level jobs.
Conan the Grammarian at June 14, 2016 8:12 AM
But it is. Science has to be paid for. And that payment comes out of marketing the science or the scientist. Neil DeGrasse-Tyson isn't about astronomy anymore, he's about Neil DeGrasse-Tyson. And marketing Neil DeGrasse-Tyson provides his pet causes and institutions with an enormous fund raising advantage.
The danger comes when the funding unduly influences the results; when a solar company or environmentalist group funds a study that just happens to show that carbon monoxide pollution from automobiles is the biggest threat to the planet's existence. Or an oil company funded study shows that carbon monoxide is beneficial to plants and animals. Either result may be true, but can you trust the results in light of the benefactor?
Such sneering keeps you honest. Would that other bloggers claiming non-credentialed scientific expertise had such sneering.
Conan the Grammarian at June 14, 2016 8:22 AM
"Neil DeGrasse-Tyson isn't about astronomy anymore, he's about Neil DeGrasse-Tyson. And marketing Neil DeGrasse-Tyson provides his pet causes and institutions with an enormous fund raising advantage."
Conan, I think you just proved my point. Neil DeGrasse-Tyson isn't a scientist, except maybe in very small discipline of Astronomy. Outside of that small field, he is a self promoter, and no more of an authority on anything than you and me.
Most journalists wouldnt recognize real science if it bit them in the ass.
They simply aren't up to snuff in either mathematics or the scientific method.
It takes a very gifted individual who is also a subject matter expert to write an article which explains real science in a way that it hasn't been dumbed down and distorted to the point of irrelevance.
A lot of real science cannot be explained to an audience of laymen at all.
Real science is double blind, and repeatable.
The biases of the observer are removed from the equation for a very good reason.
Isab at June 14, 2016 8:51 AM
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713
Surprised to find this in the LA Times, but it is spot on.
Isab at June 14, 2016 8:58 AM
I know that colleges will utilize people with special expertise such as engineering or computer science or business to teach part time even though they don't have Ph.D. by their name. But high school is evidently too tough for such people to be considered qualified (/sarc).
On the other hand, neither a Ph.D. or a teaching certificate actually prove one can teach and not be a jerk...
Craig Loehle at June 14, 2016 9:23 AM
But he is, or was, a scientist in that discipline. Now, he's a media personality who fronts funding and awareness efforts in science. And my point was that science needs those efforts and the marketing behind them. Science is marketing. Unless it wants to lose funding to ... (gasp) ... liberal arts.
Conan the Grammarian at June 14, 2016 9:37 AM
"But he is, or was, a scientist in that discipline. Now, he's a media personality who fronts funding and awareness efforts in science. And my point was that science needs those efforts and the marketing behind them. Science is marketing. Unless it wants to lose funding to ... (gasp) ... liberal arts."
Here is where we disagree.
Science isn't a noun. It is a verb. And Marketing doesn't have anything to do with science. Marketing is the selling of a product that either government or industry has decided is in their best interest to convince consumers that they *need*
What passes for science, and what receives public funding these days, is generally not anything close to real science. It is agenda driven conjecture.
All the marketing and money in the world doesn't buy you real science, but it will buy you a lot of journalists, psychologists and nutritionists trying to slap a science label on what they do, to get on the gravy train.
It will also buy you a bazillion worthless government or industry funded dietary *studies*
It's like *raising awareness* of for example famine in Africa. Just a way to suck money from the rubes who are into virtue signaling.
Everyone loves the imprimatur. Very few can walk the walk.
Isab at June 14, 2016 10:15 AM
Isab: "Surprised to find this in the LA Times, but it is spot on."
That's an interesting article. Thanks for posting the link.
Here is a link to the article the author was critiquing, which is also interesting:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712
Ken R at June 14, 2016 11:17 AM
Alkon: "The sort of hilarious thing is how many people are certified as psychologists and therapists who haven't opened a book since college and really know fuck all about their topic."
You can say that again. I get really frustrated with people who boast of 20 to 30 years of experience and still base their practice on the theories and interventions of the Nurse Ratched era.
Ken R at June 14, 2016 12:06 PM
I'd like to see that psychologist do his statistics. Then explain to me what they meant. Also, let's see how he designs his surveys, if he can suss out why an internet survey is inherently biased.
Show your work, no hand waving allowed.
Real science is double blind, and repeatable.
Indeed. A pity that most of the gibberish published in scientific journals can't be repeated.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 14, 2016 1:19 PM
Credentialism is of course how governments, schools and business hire people. If you check all the right boxes, use the right words in the right places, you can appear to be qualified for the job even if your skill set isn't really a good match.
As Isab says, it is a "shortcut". But it is easy, doesn't require thought, and no one can second guess you after the fact.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 14, 2016 1:26 PM
Marketing is selling a product or service that actually meets a need. It's about separating a product from a close substitute, i.e., convincing you a Dodge meets your needs better than a Chevrolet. Not even the bet marketer in the world can sell consumers a product they know they neither need nor want. By "need" I mean not only actual need (i.e., a car), but also a psychological need (i.e., a cool car).
And science needs funding, which can be increased through the use of marketing. Science needs to convince those with funds that contributing to a specific endeavor or discipline will benefit the world (and, by association, the contributor) more than contributing to the other disciplines and projects wth their hands out.
Neil de Grasse Tyson is part of that marketing, using his fame to promote his pet projects and disciplines; as well as science in general. People with money to contribute want to hobnob with someone famous. He's not making scientific discoveries any more, but he is helping to fund others who might.
Very few scientists these days achieve almost universal recognition and by exploiting it, they can market their pet causes. Hawking gives speeches to which tickets are sold, proceeds to benefit the host organization (less Hawking's fee). de Grasse Tyson narrates films and gives speeches - for a fee, of course.
And, yes, some of the contributions are made to pseudo-science or junk science, constituting little more than virtue-signaling. Again, it's up to real science to set itself apart from that pack and inform the pool of contributors why funding the local university's physics department is better than funding Dr. Carter's Homeopathic Institute. A good marketing person can help with that.
Science is a noun. One does not science. One studies or uses science.
Conan the Grammarian at June 14, 2016 2:09 PM
"Marketing is selling a product or service that actually meets a need."
While needs and wants reside in the human heart, which a free market does its bet to accommodate within the law, it certainly isn't any libertarian free for all. And marketing isn't a science either, If it was, we wouldn't have millions of fast food restaurants failing every year, because the marketers would be telling those people how to meet consumers *needs and wants* and stay in business.
. You can't objectively define a need beyond those things required for basic human survival, and people, including scientists are notoriously fickle.
How about cosmetics? They a need? Want to take a guess how many chemists are employed testing those as opposed to working on pharmaceuticals or infectious diseases?
And how many owe their jobs solely to government regs such as OSHA or environmental laws?
Science does need money, but the truly worthwhile projects usually get shut down for political reasons. Think Super Collider.
While at the same time the government literally throws money at pseudoscience make work projects for credentialed third tier drones. There are a lot more of them, and their political loyalties are easier to buy.
"Science is a noun. One does not science. One studies or uses science."
No, one either understands and uses the scientific method in their research, or one does not.
Studying science falls into the same category as journalism. You are taking someone else's' word that they both *understood* and *used* the scientific method in reaching their conclusions.
And you won't find many firm answers in real science, only degrees of probability that some axiom is correct.
This is why we have so much crap out there masquerading as science.
Few laymen have the tools or the time to repeat the research, or check the data or the methodology.
Still there are good scientists out there doing real science, catching a lot of fraud these days.
By the way, most liberal arts graduates only exposure to doing science was those mandatory science projects assigned in junior high.
They aren't science either. Most of them, with a few notable laborious time consuming exceptions are *demonstrations* which any Eagle Scout or ten year 4-H member will be able to explain to you in excruciating detail.
http://retractionwatch.com/
Isab at June 14, 2016 3:20 PM
For some reason I'm envisioning a video mashup with Alec Baldwin's "God complex" scene in Malice...
"I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea..."
That's nice, but you don't have an EMT-B license, sorry...
John Cerovac at June 14, 2016 4:39 PM
My wife is a special education professor and, before that, taught special education students in high school. But her certification has lapsed. If she wanted to get back into the high school classroom, she would have to take additional classes, classes that she current teaches to undergraduate and graduate students.
Tom R at June 15, 2016 3:38 AM
It would certainly be nice if for once the members of this community could recognize the fact that there is a distinct difference in the level of expertise between the person reading the book... and the person who wrote the book.
Millions of people have read the books written by Stephen Hawking, that doesn't make them experts in cosmology.
If you want to be recognized as an expert in a scholarly field you need to publish original work in high impact peer reviewed journals (it also helps if that work is cited often).
There are no shortcuts around this point regardless of how brilliant someone *thinks* they are.
Ones worth as a scholar is tightly linked to their publication record.
All of these complaints about "credentialism" ignore the simple truth that you do not earn scholarly credentials without producing something original that is evaluated by recognized experts in the field.
I know that must be frustrating for people who never earned those credentials or demonstrated expertise on that level... but I am left to wonder just how comfortable those same folks would feel going to a surgeon who indicated that they never went to medical school, never were board certified... but they have read lots of books on the subject and are confident they can do the job.
My guess is that most people want to know their surgeon actually has a medical degree and has the proper certifications... but who knows, maybe you folks will surprise me.
Artemis at June 15, 2016 4:08 AM
Isab Says:
"Real science is double blind, and repeatable."
This is a serious oversimplification.
SOME science is double blind... the kind of science that relies upon statistical tests for pharmaceutical efficacy for example should in general be double blind (there may be exceptions here as well though).
No chemist is going to stand in front of a fume hood mixing chemicals labeled with codes in order to be "blind" to the work they are doing. That would constitute an outrageous safety hazard and would be unethical. In most experiments of this kind the chemist would be well aware of what was in each vial before them (i.e., they would not be "blind" to what they were doing).
Science is also in general repeatable, but there are also exceptions. For example, we would not necessarily expect data collection of something that constituted a snap-shot in time to be repeatable (assuming the data was archived the analysis could be repeated though).
A great example of this is that cosmologists do not expect it to be possible to measure the microwave background radiation from the big bang forever. At some point in the future (billions and billions of years from now), that radiation will be so red shifted that it will be below the detection limits of any conceivable data collection system. At that point it will not be possible to repeat the cosmic microwave background experiment.
What you have said is true in many cases, but it is not in fact universal.
Artemis at June 15, 2016 10:31 AM
My God, Artie, you can be a pretentious and condescending twat at times.
Conan the Grammarian at June 15, 2016 10:46 AM
You can't objectively define a need beyond those things required for basic human survival.... ~ Isab at June 14, 2016 3:20 PM
Maslow might disagree with you.
Conan the Grammarian at June 15, 2016 10:51 AM
You can't objectively define a need beyond those things required for basic human survival.... ~ Isab at June 14, 2016 3:20 PM
Maslow might disagree with you.
Conan the Grammarian at June 15, 2016 10:51 AM
Maslow agrees with me perfectly. You know how few people make decisions on any kind of rational basis? Only the self actualized, a miniscule percentage of the population.
Conan, you have wandered off into Artemis territory on this topic. You don't have the background to identify real science, and can't seperate it from the dreck pedaled by idiots like Neil de Grasse Tyson .
"Science is also in general repeatable, but there are also exceptions. For example, we would not necessarily expect data collection of something that constituted a snap-shot in time to be repeatable (assuming the data was archived the analysis could be repeated though)."
Yes, Artie, assuming the data is good, and not cherry picked, this is all that is required.
(This is where the cold fusion cranks have failed time and time again.)
I'm puzzled that you don't seem to have a clear understanding that "double blind" isn't a literal concept though.
It just requires that the chemist in question doesn't have the ability to know exactly what it is he is testing so that his biases don't skew the results.
Also the drug studies administrators as well as the people giving the drugs, can't know who gets the placebo, and who gets the real thing, for the same reason.
Isab at June 15, 2016 12:38 PM
I realized that I put one of my claims poorly.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is almost certainly a genius as an astrophysicist.
It is when he uses that expertise to speak as an authority on politics, religion, and other topics, much like Noam Chomsky, that he crosses over into la la land.
Specific scientific expertise, doesn't transfer very well into other disciplines. He is falling into a trap that many other intellectuals fall into. Hubris.
Isab at June 15, 2016 12:53 PM
"Only the self actualized"
Roy Orbison's greatest B-side single, IMHO.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 15, 2016 12:54 PM
Conan Says:
"My God, Artie, you can be a pretentious and condescending twat at times."
Conan, can you please start using some new material already, you have become predictable and boring.
Your entire dialogue ALWAYS begins with poisoning the well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
I can put up with a lot of things from you... but your demonstrated laziness and lack of originality in your personal attacks is something that you really need to work on.
In any case, my point still stands, this forum has a very unique relationship with things like "expertise".
People here absolutely demand credentials from OTHER people... while constantly discounting the important of credentials when it comes to THEMSELVES.
Artemis at June 15, 2016 11:10 PM
Isab Says:
"I'm puzzled that you don't seem to have a clear understanding that "double blind" isn't a literal concept though.
It just requires that the chemist in question doesn't have the ability to know exactly what it is he is testing so that his biases don't skew the results."
I do have a clear understanding of that is required for a "double blind" procedure... this is precisely why I object to your suggestion that it is a requirement for all "real science".
It just isn't that simple because there are things like ethical and safety considerations that always come first in proper experimental design.
When a "double blind" experiment is possible I agree that it is the so-called gold standard. What I am trying to get across is that "double blind" experiments are simply not always possible because the kind of work being done does not permit that kind of an experiment.
"Double Blind" tests generally work well for things like clinical trials, however even there exceptions might exist on ethical grounds.
None of this makes the science any less "real".
Part of the training of any scientist is in how to be dispassionate and data driven. This is not a natural way for most people to think. This is also why we have things like peer review.
Scientists don't just get to publish results because they want to publish them, they have to be vetted by recognized experts... and that process is "single blind".
If you want to argue that the peer review process should in fact be "double blind" where only the journal editors know the authors and the reviewers then I am with you 100% and I believe that would constitute a real improvement to the process.
That being said, I stand by my assertion that ethics and safety standards trump the desire to have all experimental pursuits be "double blind". Often times the scientists performing the work have to know exactly what they are working with because it tells them the proper techniques with which to handle the materials in question.
Artemis at June 15, 2016 11:23 PM
Isab,
Just to provide further context here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
Here is an important quote:
"n some cases, while blind experiments would be useful, they are impractical or unethical; an example is in the field of developmental psychology: although it would be informative to raise children under arbitrary experimental conditions, such as on a remote island with a fabricated enculturation, it is a violation of ethics and human rights."
Please note how in a very general article on the subject there is care taken to show that things like practicality (this often includes things like safety concerns) and ethics preclude the use of blinded experiments.
My criticism of your position isn't just something I concocted up on my own.
Your position on this issue suggesting that only "double blind" experiments constitute "real science" lacks nuance and sophistication.
It is an overly simplistic view that neglects many critical factors that are involved in proper experimental design.
Experts in the field understand when blinded studies are possible and when they are appropriate. Sometimes they are simply not safe and/or are unethical. As a result your universal statement is in error.
Artemis at June 16, 2016 12:33 AM
Artie, I'm trying very hard to treat you like an adult, but when you begin every post by saying "if only you ignorant people would listen to me" then you've already poisoned the well before you say your piece.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2016 6:15 AM
I think we're in agreement on that.
No, Artie, regular posters on this forum have given their credentials, (i.e., the source of their expertise) over time. Asking you for yours is them asking how you come by the knowledge you purport to convey in your post. What makes you someone to whom we should listen on subjects that require specific expertise?
Your insistence that your arguments stand alone and your demands that they be taken seriously without any backup smacks less of a stand on principle than it does a child's petulant demand the the adults in the room listen to him.
You offer strong opinions and demand they be taken as seriously as those offered by others with whom we are familiar, without revealing to us the parentage of your opinions.
"Until you know the pedigree of the information you cannot evaluate a report. … We are not democratic. We close the door on intelligence without parentage.” ~ John Le Carré
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2016 6:33 AM
Conan Says:
"No, Artie, regular posters on this forum have given their credentials, (i.e., the source of their expertise) over time."
Interesting that you say that as I have never heard what your credentials are.
Care to share?
Interestingly enough I have shared my credentials many times in the past and have always been consistent.
The issue is that people here seem to have VERY selective memories about this kind of thing and conveniently seem to forget one conversation to the next.
Furthermore, that also tends to happen here is that people like you demand credentials... and once you get them you immediately start accusing the person who gave them of "elitism" because suddenly you are no longer on equal footing in the conversation.
That is the point of sharing the source of expertise, right?... The point is that neither you nor Isab have any experience in academia, publishing papers, or doing real scientific research... that much is evident by how you talk about the subject. Despite your lack of experience you seem to believe that you should be able to have "strong opinions" on this subject... ironic, no?
Artemis at June 16, 2016 9:47 AM
Also:
"Your insistence that your arguments stand alone and your demands that they be taken seriously without any backup smacks less of a stand on principle than it does a child's petulant demand the the adults in the room listen to him."
I provided a link demonstrating exactly what I was talking about in my post here:
Artemis at June 16, 2016 12:33 AM
Again, why let facts get in the way of your constant stream of made up nonsense.
Artemis at June 16, 2016 9:49 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, I'm trying very hard to treat you like an adult, but when you begin every post by saying "if only you ignorant people would listen to me" then you've already poisoned the well before you say your piece."
Alright, Conan, let's try and clear the air here and bring things down a notch. Also, you may be trying but you are not succeeding because what you fail to do is read what I write in the best possible light.
You objected to my comment when I said this:
"It would certainly be nice if for once the members of this community could recognize the fact that there is a distinct difference in the level of expertise between the person reading the book... and the person who wrote the book."
This statement was made in reference to these words from the original post:
"my current reading is a Michael Gazzaniga co-authored Cognitive Neuroscience textbook along with (yesterday night) a 20-page paper criticizing embodied cognition that I'm halfway through."
My point was that reading a textbook qualifies you as a student... writing the text book qualifies you as the expert.
There is a fundamental difference here that seems to be overlooked quite often.
You can call this "pretentious and condescending" all you want, but the true arrogance comes from the person who reads textbooks and thinks that qualifies them as an expert in the field.
If I read through dozens of medical text books that would not qualify me to be a surgeon. If I read through dozens of legal text books that would not qualify me to represent someone at trial. We all know and understand this... and yet when it comes to science we have people who believe that so long as they have read about it they are now as expert as well. It isn't quite that simple.
Artemis at June 16, 2016 10:05 AM
On that we agree, mostly. Keeping in mind that sometimes, the writer of the textbook is deluded or clinging to outdated information or theories.
Remember, germ theory was only finally accepted in the middle of the twentieth century. Plate tectonics was only accepted in the 1960s. Both are now regarded as factual underpinnings of their respective fields. Advocates of those positions were hardly accredited as experts before the widespread acceptance of these theories. How many of today's "experts" will be discredited? How many of today's "crackpots" will be validated?
But, your point is taken. In the context of existing knowledge, the textbook writer is acknowledged expert. The avid reader is a knowledgeable student.
My objection is the way you start off your comments with smug condescension, as if you know more on any subject than anyone on this blog. Newsflash, you don't.
And you're very touchy when challenged on that.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
You're calling. You show your cards first.
In comments on specific subjects I generally share how I arrived at a conclusion, whether through reading, conversation, or acquired personal knowledge. As do several others on this forum. Most have shared pieces over the years, enough that a long-time reader of this forum can piece together a biography of each poster. Newcomers must simply accept the poster's point when the rest of the forum does, until they acquire enough pieces to rough out a sketch of the poster, since there's no profile page for membership with the obligatory CV.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2016 10:30 AM
{Sad... Artemis arrives. Least content/syllable of any poster. Good thing I read some Andrew M. Garland today...}
Awesome job, Isab. For those complaining about "double blind" - don't be a twit. There are entire fields of study in which the classic example of this is not used. Often, checks and balances are applied to the detection equipment to ensure that the observation is accurate, there being no way to obtain an independent sample or another method of observation.
Isab was perfect. Then someone else posted.
Radwaste at June 16, 2016 4:41 PM
Artie, you won't even reveal if you're a man or a woman. You won't tell us your level of education. You've shared nothing. Nothing.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2016 8:46 PM
@Conan: "The danger comes when the funding unduly influences the results; when a solar company or environmentalist group funds a study that just happens to show that carbon monoxide pollution from automobiles is the biggest threat to the planet's existence."
Don't forget the BIG one: when a government-funded study shows the government needs a larger budget, bigger staff, and more power.
markm at June 17, 2016 6:02 AM
And you do? Since you claim expertise in academia, scientific research, and publishing, pray, tell us about your expertise in academia. Tell us about your research. Your publications.
Conan the Grammarian at June 17, 2016 7:48 AM
Thats almost the default interpretation of any study's results.
Conan the Grammarian at June 17, 2016 2:47 PM
Conan Says:
"On that we agree, mostly. Keeping in mind that sometimes, the writer of the textbook is deluded or clinging to outdated information or theories."
Great, we are mostly in agreement then. Actually, I would say that we are essentially entirely in agreement as I happen to agree with your caveat as well.
That being said, why did you pitch a fit when I made a claim that you agree with?
You often leave me with the impression that you are actively looking for a fight as opposed to engaging in honest discussion.
"My objection is the way you start off your comments with smug condescension, as if you know more on any subject than anyone on this blog. Newsflash, you don't."
That is fallacious reasoning Conan.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance
So you agree with the substance of my argument... but you "object" to some subjective interpretation of my tone.
Here is a newsflash for you... tone does not come across well in internet posts. Most of the context you see is from your own imagination.
Basically you are arguing against your own made up nonsense... that has nothing to do with my actual tone.
Furthermore, when it comes to knowing more on "any subject" a rational person would have to conclude that was wrong.
I do not know what you do for a living, but I presume you know more about whatever it is than I do.
What I do know is that based upon how you discuss this subject (and other similar subjects)... is that you are not an expert when it comes to science, or research, or how academia works. I know this because what you say on these topics does not bare any mark of someone with actual experience of these things.
You speak about these topics with the same level of understanding I might expect from any movie goer who "imagines" what it is like to be a scientist. People like you watch shows like the big bang theory and act like it is a documentary instead of a highly distorted comedy show.
While I certainly appreciate people who enjoy science, it is ironic that you keep calling me "condescending" as you presume to lecture me on topics you know next to nothing about.
Artemis at June 19, 2016 11:59 PM
Conan Says:
"You're calling. You show your cards first."
I am assuming you haven't played much poker Conan as that isn't how the game works.
Generally speaking it is the the last player to show aggression, by raising or betting, must be the first player to show their cards... NOT the person who called without a raise.
As you said... I am just calling here... you are the one who raised the stakes by demanding clarification of credentials and expertise.
Therefore it is your responsibility to detail your background expertise if you want to know mine.
Apparently I know more about poker than you as well... I am not surprised.
This goes back to what I have been saying about you... so far as you are concerned, credentials are for OTHER people. Every time you demand credentials from me, you suddenly freeze and refuse to show what yours are.
Going back to the poker analogy, the problem appears to be that I keep calling your bluff and you then want to act like you never raised the stakes.
Artemis at June 20, 2016 12:39 AM
RadWaste Says:
“Awesome job, Isab. For those complaining about "double blind" - don't be a twit. There are entire fields of study in which the classic example of this is not used.”
Radwaste there is something very disturbing when you admit that there are entire fields of study for which double blind experiments are not possible… and yet you say that the following declaration by Isab was “awesome”:
“Real science is double blind, and repeatable.”
Her comment is not compatible with the fact that there are entire fields of science where double blind experimentation fails to occur.
According to Isab… those fields are not “real science”.
That was my entire point that her perspective lacked nuance and sophistication.
Again we have someone who agrees with me… and yet pitches a fit anyway.
My entire point was that not all "real science" is performed using blinded experiments. I am glad you agree with me.
Artemis at June 20, 2016 12:42 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, you won't even reveal if you're a man or a woman. You won't tell us your level of education. You've shared nothing. Nothing."
Exactly when has my gender been relevant to any conversation we have had?
If and when we have a discussion regarding what it feels like to be a man or a woman then that will be an important data point. Until then it is utterly irrelevant unless you are a sexist who determines the validity of an argument based on if it was put forth by a woman or a man.
As for my level of education I have indeed shared it before.
Considering I have been present for every post I have ever made here, I am certainly an expert in what I have written as compared to you or anyone else.
That it is possible you were not been there for it is irrelevant. It doesn't mean I failed to share.
"And you do? Since you claim expertise in academia, scientific research, and publishing, pray, tell us about your expertise in academia. Tell us about your research. Your publications."
Let's not get ahead of ourselves Conan. As you said before, I "called"... it is your turn to show your cards and explain what your background experience is.
Artemis at June 20, 2016 12:57 AM
you presume to lecture me on topics you know next to nothing about. ~ Artemis at June 19, 2016 11:59 PM
Artie, I lectured no one about science and academia. I only pointed out to Isab that "science" is a noun, and not a verb, as alleged. A grammar point, not a scientific one.
==============================
You're right, Artie, I screwed up the poker analogy. meant to type "you're called," not "calling." I don't play much poker, so the error didn't jump off the page for me when I reviewed my post.
In this analogy, you're the one bluffing. You keep making assertions as if you have some expertise in a subject, like scientific research or publishing, without revealing why we should take you seriously, daring us to call your bluff. Considered it called.
No, you haven't revealed your education level, you've alleged that your family has a high education level, but not your own.
Whenever I've made an assertion of expertise or implied expertise, I've said how I came to have that expertise. You merely criticized Isab and said she knows nothing about scientific research and publishing, implying you know about it. Well, how do you know more? Why should I take your word on it over hers (and Radwaste's)?
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know what Crid does for a living, what he used to do, in what metropolitan area he lives, and his preference in automobile racing, where Radwaste works and in what field, in which branch of the military Patrick served, his current psychological status, his sexual orientation, his religion, and his geographic location. You'd know my now-former geographic location, my marital status, my religious upbringing, some of my work experience (and in which industries), my education level, and even my major.
All we know about you is that you tend to drag people into arguments about immaterial tangents (like this one). Oh, and that your family is highly educated, or so you say.
The relevance of your gender to the topic is not what's being noted here; it's the fact that you're so anal, or afraid, that you reflexively refuse to share even that.
about to board plane so will correct any errors later.
Conan the Grammarian at June 20, 2016 9:13 AM
Conan Says:
"You're right, Artie, I screwed up the poker analogy. meant to type "you're called," not "calling." I don't play much poker, so the error didn't jump off the page for me when I reviewed my post.
In this analogy, you're the one bluffing. You keep making assertions as if you have some expertise in a subject, like scientific research or publishing, without revealing why we should take you seriously, daring us to call your bluff. Considered it called."
Conan, you didn't screw up the analogy, you just screwed up the rules.
You are the one who keeps demanding credentials... and you have done so ad nauseam for years. This makes you the last one to "raise" in the poker analogy... you are the last one to make the "aggressive action" by raising the stakes.
As a result my response has always been that I am happy to share credentials AFTER you do.
That is what it means to "call" in poker.
As per usual though you will try and twist and distort to do anything and everything to avoid having to share what you keep demanding of me.
My point is that if you are unwilling to share your credentials with me, I am under no obligation to share my own with you.
Please remember that the demands for credentials are ALWAYS initiated by you. I never ask you for them until AFTER you start down this road again.
"No, you haven't revealed your education level, you've alleged that your family has a high education level, but not your own."
I certainly have revealed my education level. If you have missed it that isn't my responsibility.
"Whenever I've made an assertion of expertise or implied expertise, I've said how I came to have that expertise."
Then you should have absolutely no problem sharing your expertise since you are claiming that you essentially do it at the drop of a hat.
Look Conan, you are the one who keeps asking about my background. If you are really so interested it is very easy to get me to open up... it means you have to initiate.
This is a completely reasonable position for me to take here.
"The relevance of your gender to the topic is not what's being noted here; it's the fact that you're so anal, or afraid, that you reflexively refuse to share even that."
Conan, that I might value my privacy and anonymity shouldn't come as something that is so shocking. People often enjoy communicating over the internet precisely because they can focus on thoughts, ideas, and the content of arguments.
As a final point I find the following statement you made quite ironic:
"Oh, and that your family is highly educated, or so you say."
You keep harping on the fact that I am closed off and do not share enough... and yet the one isolated bit of information you ever recall me sharing you have to qualify with "or so you say".
This is actually part of the reason I don't bother sharing credentials... anyone on the internet can claim anything and unless the people they talk to are willing to believe them it is all meaningless.
You for example could claim to be a professor of Physics at Princeton... you could claim it, but the claim alone would not be sufficient for me to believe you.
You apparently cannot even bring yourself to believe I have a family who might be well educated... so why would I believe anything I said about myself would convince you of the same?
Just to be clear, when I tell you that I have shared my background here before that isn't a lie or a distortion. I did share at some length and in response Crid started ranting about how it was impossible because he insists I must be in some institution.
So I ask you, what is the point when I am convinced that even should I share you will just respond with "so you say"?
At that point I will have shared for no gain... which is why I insist that you share first. At least then I can hold you to those claims in the future.
Artemis at June 25, 2016 3:06 AM
Conan Says:
"Whenever I've made an assertion of expertise or implied expertise, I've said how I came to have that expertise. You merely criticized Isab and said she knows nothing about scientific research and publishing, implying you know about it. Well, how do you know more? Why should I take your word on it over hers (and Radwaste's)?"
I don't need you to "take my word" to demonstrate that I am correct and that Isab's position on this subject is completely indefensible.
Here is Isab's position when it comes to her "double blind" criteria for "real science":
"It just requires that the chemist in question doesn't have the ability to know exactly what it is he is testing so that his biases don't skew the results."
Pay close attention to the fact that for Isab, "real science" requires chemists to not know exactly what chemicals they are working with.
Now let me link you to the OSHA standards for how to operate in a fume hood (which is where a significant amount of chemistry experiments take place):
https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html
"All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces must have labels and safety data sheets for their exposed workers, and train them to handle the chemicals appropriately."
Do you see where the OSHA safety standards require all hazardous chemicals to be properly labeled?
Do you now understand why Isab's requirement that scientists be "blind" to the chemicals they are working with violates federal law?
The reason I objected to her statement is precisely because I know what she was saying made no sense. It was the comments of a lay person presuming to say what is and isn't "real science" when she clearly doesn't have the foggiest clue what happens in a laboratory setting.
This isn't complicated stuff Conan, this is basic level training that is given to anyone who has to work with hazardous chemicals.
So while you can take my word if you want, you don't need to take my word for it. All of the information you need is right there in black and white on a government web page.
Artemis at June 25, 2016 3:30 AM
Just for fun, here is some more reference material for you:
http://srs.unm.edu/chemical-safety/chemical-labeling-guidelines.php
"All chemical containers must have labels"
http://www.uvm.edu/safety/lab/label-and-store
"All chemicals must be labeled wth the following information:
Full chemical name(s)...."
I think you get the idea. It is standard safety practice for chemicals to be labeled precisely so that scientists performing experiments know what hazards they are potentially being exposed to and what PPE to use as a result. In addition, it tells you how to properly dispose of the chemical waste.
The requirement to be "blind" to what you are working with might not strike you are obviously wrong... but if you had ever worked in a laboratory or conducted experiments the problems would have been glaringly obvious.
The statement was the equivalent of someone saying that "real drivers" don't use the brake pedal. If someone said that and you have ever been behind the wheel of an automobile you would instantly know that the person making the statement was talking out of their ass.
Anyway, I hope this reference material helps you to better understand why I corrected an erroneous statement.
Artemis at June 25, 2016 3:59 AM
Leave a comment