Are scientists missing out on the untapped potential of the laymen?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by sunshaker, Apr 17, 2016.

  1. sunshaker Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2016
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The laymen will always have potential ; always have .
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,454
    Interesting example. But of course scientists ask all sorts of people to help them in their work, all the time. Mathematicians are a well-known example.

    No doubt, as in all walks of life, one can get "silos", within which people all tend to think rather alike. Breaking down barriers between these "silos" is something that is often beneficial, as I know from my business experience, which actually included getting different types of research scientist together to find new opportunities that might not have been apparent to any of them within their own departments. But I must admit your example is the first time I've seen any use at all in computer games!
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sunshaker Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    All humans love problem solving/games, To me these "games" are a great way for the layman/gamers to feel like they are playing "a part" in the science of the moment, also promoting science to a wider audience.
    There seems to me, to be a vast, yet untapped resource of millions of "eager minds", And they also work for free

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Well clearly scientists do tap the potential of lay people both in the example in the op and with citizen science undertakings such as the gallaxy zoo project.

    Alex
     
    ajanta and paddoboy like this.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I'd say no - they do use that potential regularly.
     
    ajanta likes this.
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Scientist are as simple as the layman .

    People assume the " scientist " ; is some brilliant person with a gift of intellect .

    No they are not ; they are simple as the layman .

    This " scientist " ; can have a fantastic memory for equations and what is read ; THAT does NOT imply ; intellect. It could ; but it's not a given ; at least it shouldn't be.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Lay people per se are not simple: They are just not skilled in the chosen profession of scientists, just as a scientist would certainly be a lay person with regards to say welding.
    Of course they are! Just as a competent welder is brilliant at his chosen field
    No they are not ; they are simple as the layman, although a scientist will certainly require more intellect over a wider range of issues that require new thought based on new data.
    compitent
    This " scientist " ; can have a fantastic memory for equations and what is read ; THAT does NOT imply ; intellect. It could ; but it's not a given ; at least it shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]
    If course it is generally a given....that's why only a certain breed are able to proceed at that craft.
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    First question what is or who is a scientist ? At what level of education is the title given scientist ? What if an individual have completed his curse work for Master or Phd and did not write a thesis under his or he tutor. ?
     
  13. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    "Are scientists missing out on the untapped potential of the laymen?"
    is this topic seriously implying that average people without the proper education and experience would know and understand more than a guy whom is actually in the trenches(an actual scientist)? --massively comical.. is not this site an example of the " layman " nonsense ?
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
    ajanta likes this.
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One way the layman can help, is if they have an understanding of wide range of science. Most brilliant scientists are specialists. If they wander too far from their specialty, they are not too far from being a layman. For example, an astral physicists who postulates about life on other planets, knows about as much about biology as a layman. Many people assume because he is renowned in one field, this means he is an expert in all fields.

    A broad based education in science, where one knows a little about everything, but not a lot about any one speciality, can give one some unique insight, which may not be easy for a specialists to see. For example, we use particle colliders to break down matter so we can learn about its substructure. We spend $Billions on the tools to do this.

    One possible problem with this approach is, in chemistry, the properties of materials are both temperature and pressure dependent. These experiments use low pressure; low gravitational pressure, and high energy; temperature. In chemistry, this would only give you a narrow range of properties; isobar.

    I am not an expert in particle physics, only an educated layman. But I am an expert in chemistry, which is the next science over. In physical chemistry, which is a blend of original physics and chemistry, the properties of materials cannot be fully defined with temperature; energy, alone. For example, in the diagram below, what colliders define is analogous to one horizontal line; constant low pressure, say below the triple point. They will see solids changing into a sub-particle vapor. If we could do the same experiment, but under the pressure of the sun's core, additional properties would appear. This may be an isobar above the triple point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Another way to look at these experiments would be to ask the question, under what circumstances in the natural universe, does nature do the same thing, we do in particle colliders? This is not Big Bang related, since that was under extreme pressure. It is not the core of a star, because the density is too high and again there is far too much pressure. Maybe if we have two exploding stars, with merging materials? How often do we see that? Would such a rare occurrence be a smart place to simulate the substructure of matter? Or do we do it this way because this is the best we can do?

    The layman is often like the child, who can see the balloon in the distant tree, that nobody else notices. However, since experts don't like to take advice from the peons, particles physics will never acknowledge that what they are doing does not even simulate any major phenomena in the universe. This is why they don't like to write in the science sections. I see the balloons in trees.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    An Astral Physicist????? Do you want to rephrase that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Astrology is total bunkum.......
    An Astrophysicist deals with the nature of astronomical bodies and spacetime.
    Have fun with your balloons!
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Then the next time you need surgery, I recommend you get a layman to do it. After all, a skilled surgeon is no more gifted than a layman, so why waste your money?
     
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    So, do you believe that it's all a matter of applying one's self? The only differing factor between the scientist and the lay person is the scientist applies himself to learning? Hmmm, I think intellect is involved somewhat. lol
     
  18. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Well, haven't even read all the responses or even the entire topic explanation, but scientists in general, as far as I have noticed, care mostly about themselves, getting sponsorship for their research and getting credited by peers, so laymen, whatever they have to offer, must be kept in the context of whatever the individual scientist has to benefit from using them as a source and what type of credibility they can bring to the table.
     
    river likes this.
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,454
    Nice to see you are still alive and kicking, Bebelina, but, as so often, I don't really understand what you are on about

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Oh yes you do ; exchemist ; yes you do.

    Doctrine ; you understand ; doctrine ; exchemist .
     
  21. Retribution Banned Banned

    Messages:
    200
    Well, there's a non-scientist.
    And this type of response is more or less what a non-scientific approach leads to.
    "Haven't read the post. Haven't read the thread. Don't really care what anyone says, this is what I think - but hey, listen, what do you think about what I said? Do you like it?"

    "Artists, as far as I have noticed, care mostly about themselves, getting patronage for their art and being acclaimed by the public".
    Know how silly you sound?
     
    exchemist, billvon and krash661 like this.
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Do you know how niave you sound ; ret. ?
     
  23. Retribution Banned Banned

    Messages:
    200
    Yes, river, I know exactly how naive I sound.
    I can even spell it correctly, and don't feel any particular need to resort to extraneous semi colons in order to sound different.
    I'd expect, though, that my understanding of how naive I sound would differ markedly from yours.

    How long has it been since you put the pipe down and didn't pick it up again?
     

Share This Page