If scientific methods are thought of as something special and other, separated by context and ritual from everyday life, then when someone like your average journalist looks at scientific results, they’re parsed as essentially an argument from authority and get evaluated against the opinions of other, nonscientific authorities
Well unless you understand the arguments underlying the science, they are arguments from authority.
Furthermore the attitude implicit in the BBC policy goes a long way toward making science even more a case of argument from authority.
Think about it, suppose you’re a journalist, how do you decide which arguments have “scientific backing”? Do you
a) analyze the arguments yourself to see how valid they sound?
or
b) look at the credentials of the person making that argument?
Note that (b) is a lot easier then (a) to a reporter without much scientific training? Furthermore, even if you do analyze the arguments, you’ll have to answer to your superior if you reach a conclusion that differs from (b).
It’s not obvious what rule a journalist could use that is quick and easy to apply with no domain specific knowledge, would rule out taking creationism or MMR hysteria seriously, but allow taking cryonics seriously.
Compare the credentials of proponents and opponents. PhD in Christian Science vs in biology, “I have an autistic kid!” vs MD, and roughly equivalent on both sides, respectively.
Alternately, hire journalists with domain-specific knowledge. If you wanna compete with free media, have something to offer.
It’s often hard to know what’s a good credential in somebody else’s field. Doing this requires knowing how much to trust the PhD from any particular school, how much to trust journals in the field, how much to trust the department hiring process, etc. Remember, frauds and phonies have strong incentives to look respectable, so there’s a lot of mimicry in the academy.
One of the major things people typically learn while getting their PhD is who to trust in their particular subfield; this isn’t something an outsider can do accurately in two minutes.
Compare the credentials of proponents and opponents. PhD in Christian Science vs in biology,
Jonathan Sarfati has a PhD in chemistry. He’s a young earth creationist. William Dembski has a PhD in math. He’s an ID proponent. Michael Behe is a biochemist with tenure at a major university. He’s an ID proponent.
Simply working off of credentials is insufficient.
Well unless you understand the arguments underlying the science, they are arguments from authority.
Furthermore the attitude implicit in the BBC policy goes a long way toward making science even more a case of argument from authority.
Think about it, suppose you’re a journalist, how do you decide which arguments have “scientific backing”? Do you
a) analyze the arguments yourself to see how valid they sound?
or
b) look at the credentials of the person making that argument?
Note that (b) is a lot easier then (a) to a reporter without much scientific training? Furthermore, even if you do analyze the arguments, you’ll have to answer to your superior if you reach a conclusion that differs from (b).
It’s not obvious what rule a journalist could use that is quick and easy to apply with no domain specific knowledge, would rule out taking creationism or MMR hysteria seriously, but allow taking cryonics seriously.
Compare the credentials of proponents and opponents. PhD in Christian Science vs in biology, “I have an autistic kid!” vs MD, and roughly equivalent on both sides, respectively.
Alternately, hire journalists with domain-specific knowledge. If you wanna compete with free media, have something to offer.
It’s often hard to know what’s a good credential in somebody else’s field. Doing this requires knowing how much to trust the PhD from any particular school, how much to trust journals in the field, how much to trust the department hiring process, etc. Remember, frauds and phonies have strong incentives to look respectable, so there’s a lot of mimicry in the academy.
One of the major things people typically learn while getting their PhD is who to trust in their particular subfield; this isn’t something an outsider can do accurately in two minutes.
Jonathan Sarfati has a PhD in chemistry. He’s a young earth creationist. William Dembski has a PhD in math. He’s an ID proponent. Michael Behe is a biochemist with tenure at a major university. He’s an ID proponent.
Simply working off of credentials is insufficient.
I would quite often go with an intelligent and reasonably motivated parent over a non-specialised MD on relevant subjects.