The value of a non-scientific education ...

[sasguru]

...is virtually nil, IMHO.
Plenty of slightly clever people study pseudo-sciences like Economics or Politics etc. yet have no clue about the value or not of their so-called knowledge. They don't have a clue about the epistemological basis of their discipline - but are good at writing essays and passing exams.
I would wager that I could get an advanced degree in any non-scientific discipline purely by sticking to the current zeitgeist.
If people can't grasp the basics of the scientific method or the mathematical and statistical underpinnings of evidence-based knowledge, what fecking use are their opinions?

[threaded]

...is virtually nil, IMHO.
Plenty of slightly clever people study pseudo-sciences like Economics or Politics etc. yet have no clue about the value or not of their so-called knowledge. They don't have a clue about the epistemological basis of their discipline - but are good at writing essays and passing exams.
I would wager that I could get an advanced degree in any non-scientific discipline purely by sticking to the current zeitgeist.
If people can't grasp the basics of the scientific method or the mathematical and statistical underpinnings of evidence-based knowledge, what fliping use are their opinions?

Plagarised from Socrates, but a good effort at translation.

The "I wager bit" is actually a conversation involving a slave boy and the diagonal of a square, but well done indeed.

[beaker]

And your point is?

[sasguru]

Plagarised from Socrates, but a good effort at translation.

The "I wager bit" is actually a conversation involving a slave boy and the diagonal of a square, but well done indeed.

Actually I didn't know Socrates said that. It was my very own effort based on years of observation. And anyway what did Socrates know aof the scientific method?
But great minds do think alike.

[oracleslave]

[quote=sasguru;547880

I would wager that I could get an advanced degree in any non-scientific discipline purely by sticking to the current zeitgeist.

[/quote]

I thought the majority of people currently obtaining scientific degrees did exactly this as well, i.e. stick to the zeitgeist.

[Lucy]

...is virtually nil, IMHO.
Plenty of slightly clever people study pseudo-sciences like Economics or Politics etc. yet have no clue about the value or not of their so-called knowledge. They don't have a clue about the epistemological basis of their discipline - but are good at writing essays and passing exams.
I would wager that I could get an advanced degree in any non-scientific discipline purely by sticking to the current zeitgeist.
If people can't grasp the basics of the scientific method or the mathematical and statistical underpinnings of evidence-based knowledge, what fliping use are their opinions?

I agree, although what you call pseudo sciences are simply not. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources, polsci is politics.

If more scientists understood human behaviour, as well as they understood their own disciplines, they would be more rounded and better able to identify workable solutions. eg: global warming.

Philosophy is central to all decision that are made, you can decide to have a consistent conscious philosophy, or not decide, and have a contradictory mongrel of philosophies (eg sasguru).

Politics is the translation of philosophy into how government should be designed and function, without this, on what basis do any scientists have a reason to make proposals on what should or should not be done about something.

[BrilloPad]

...is virtually nil, IMHO.
Plenty of slightly clever people study pseudo-sciences like Economics or Politics etc. yet have no clue about the value or not of their so-called knowledge. They don't have a clue about the epistemological basis of their discipline - but are good at writing essays and passing exams.
I would wager that I could get an advanced degree in any non-scientific discipline purely by sticking to the current zeitgeist.
If people can't grasp the basics of the scientific method or the mathematical and statistical underpinnings of evidence-based knowledge, what fliping use are their opinions?

I dont think we should punish people for sins more than 10 years old. As long as they have been working in science for more than 10 years then fine.

[Ardesco]

If more scientists understood human behaviour, as well as they understood their own disciplines, they would be more rounded and better able to identify workable solutions. eg: global warming.

[threaded]

Actually I didn't know Socrates said that. It was my very own effort based on years of observation. And anyway what did Socrates know aof the scientific method?
But great minds do think alike.

Is there any 'real' difference between the Socratic and Scientific methods? Remembering that much of modern science is actually based on 'thought experiments' too.

[wobbegong]

The value of a non-scientific education ...

...is virtually nil, IMHO.

David Beckham (and his accountants) would probably disagree.