is Phenotype All ?

@memester,

In science it's details that buy your license to speak abstractly. Without details, all you can engage in is wistful musings.

Ask a question about life, look for the details, and abstract a theme out of it.

1 Reply

@memester,

Quote:

The hard part is elucidating the mechanisms that regulate expression.

This is the absolute truth, but it's also the most fascinating part of it all. Even reading about how the mechanisms were discovered is interesting. I love reading the materials and methods section of a good paper because the experiments are usually so clever.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;70637 wrote:

In science it's details that buy your license to speak abstractly. Without details, all you can engage in is wistful musings.

Ask a question about life, look for the details, and abstract a theme out of it.

"Science" is way too vague a term,:letme-at-em: to be festooning the galleries with truisms, and with barely an effort to support them.

0 Replies

@memester,

It's not vague at all. One thing that differentiates philosophy from science is just the point I've made.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;70669 wrote:

It's not vague at all. One thing that differentiates philosophy from science is just the point I've made.

"Geneticist" was way too vague for our discussion, regarding Phenotype, but "Scientist" is not ?

0 Replies

@memester,

I didn't say scientist. I said science. I'd even include social sciences in this. If you're in a field in which knowledge is advanced by hypothesis-driven data collection and the deduction of general principles based on the studied data, then that is a type of science. If so, then the data come first and abstractions second.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;70686 wrote:

I didn't say scientist. I said science.

I'm aware of that, but since "Geneticist" is one who does "Genetics", "Scientist is one who does "Science". There is usually a human on-board, when the thing in question is done. Like " 'speaking abstractly' is done by ...a 'scientist' who has earned it through the details" or be just a wistful muser. You're talking about a person in a field, and by his attention to details, he is eiher a duespaid scientist or wistful muser. That's the person we're talking about.

Quote:

In science it's details that buy your license to speak abstractly. Without details, all you can engage in is wistful musings.

Quote:

I'd even include social sciences in this. If you're in a field in which knowledge is advanced by hypothesis-driven data collection and the deduction of general principles based on the studied data, then that is a type of science. If so, then the data come first and abstractions second.

When they want to decide how to allocate funding for Community Health Centers, It's quite useful for them to use "fuzzy definition" in their science.
In other words, "Forget the details: we have a plan, so just get us the numbers. We know what to do with them."

They do not have to differentiate between "culture" "ethnicity" "race", "colour",and so on, although they use the words freely, equating some...

Nether do they need to bother considering all the genetics or epigenetics factors to know that a large Immigrant population from a specific area is arriving, and needs Sickle Cell counseling facilites ...they don't need the details of how it works, they don't need to know about individuals' test results, they just take a self-reported marker like "home township" or "race" , and it's good enough. They know then, where to send that kind of funding and resources, once they find out where the population is being settled.

The reporting for these sciences on race and crime, for instance, might use self reporting on race...very few people who are mixed heritage, let's say of White and Black American, will call themselves "More than Half White Anglo Saxon Caucasian".
and for these Mushy Sciences, we don't need to know more. In this circumstance, "Black" will do, for studying Race and Crime. He's Black if he is kinda looking like it, usually, and certainly if he comes from a certain social milieu.

... the science might use police arrest reports...same thing..and sometimes it's been found that Hispanics are more likely to be called White if they are the victim, than if they are the suspect.

The scientists in Mushy Science - those who are good abstract thinkers - then can pop up with

Quote:

Well, we can test for that. There's almost 100% correlation between self reporting as "Black" and "positive" genetic test reports for Sub-Saharan Ancestry

If some new treatment comes out for a genetic, epigenetic, or heritable condition, same thing. They just need a crude kind of marker and imagination.
In this way, abstraction ability trumps mere details every time.

Quote:

memester said: By Abstraction Refined, is the Science Divined.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;70696 wrote:

When they want to decide how to allocate funding for Community Health Centers, It's quite useful for them to use "fuzzy definition" in their science. In other words, "Forget the details: we have a plan, so just get us the numbers. We know what to do with them."

That's why I make a distinction between science and scientists. A scientist may not always be engaging in science. If they're using rhetoric to achieve a political end, that's not science.

memester;70696 wrote:

If some new treatment comes out for a genetic, epigenetic, or heritable condition, same thing. They just need a crude kind of marker and imagination. In this way, abstraction ability trumps mere details every time.

Well, I treat a lot of people with cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, and congenital immunodeficiencies, and there is a tremendous amount of primary scientific research that has led to the current standards of care.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;70718 wrote:

That's why I make a distinction between science and scientists. A scientist may not always be engaging in science. If they're using rhetoric to achieve a political end, that's not science.

But how can you say that when "scientist" is far too vague a term ? Now that you've said it. Smile

so is "science"

That cat's out of the bag ! :eeek:

The "you" is a scientist. He's doing "science". or not. First it was attention to details or not, now it's political motivation or not.

This doesn't seem quite right. Goalposts are wobbling already.
Let me bring an example, J. Phillipe Rushton, on Race and Intelligence. Race and Crime. He does much other stuff too !
J. Philippe Rushton, Ph.D. - Recent Publications.
is he doing science when he's going to a downtown Toronto tourist mall, looking for black youths to study, as to penis length, ejaculation distance, and IQ ?

"Western" is a highly respected university, and we have JP's personal page too
CURRICULUM VITAE

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;70721 wrote:

The "you" is a scientist. He's doing "science". or not. First it was attention to details or not, now it's political motivation or not.

It's not the motivation. It's the activity. Scientists can engage in non-scientific activities, like political advocacy. How true they remain to the details and uncertainties inherent in science while speaking politically is a reflection on their judgement and not on science.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

What activity? If Rushton gets funding from the Eugenicist Movement, to go testing youths for penis length and some part of IQ, that kind of activity ? Scientific activity ? What if he breaks ethics rules to get the data, but nobody can break his science ? His science might be up to 600 pages of analysis. Nobody has challenged it successfully. Not many have the capability.

At least we now both agree that we are talking about "scientists", eh ?

0 Replies

@memester,

If it's science it's science, however dumb the research question. If I want to know whether gardenias smell better when they listen to Rachmaninoff, I can create a scientific protocol to test that question. On the other hand, if Rushton goes and speaks at political rallies for his movement, that is not science, nor is it formal scientific communication.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;70737 wrote:

If it's science it's science, however dumb the research question. If I want to know whether gardenias smell better when they listen to Rachmaninoff, I can create a scientific protocol to test that question. On the other hand, if Rushton goes and speaks at political rallies for his movement, that is not science, nor is it formal scientific communication.

hehehe..so if he is paid to find correlations and he goes to the major downtown tourist and hustling mall and handpicks Black studs...that part is not science...and when he correctly analyses the results, that is science ?
You understand...when I say he goes handpicking trolling for dumb lunks on the hustle, that is my opinion. but he was rebuked for ethics in data collection.
So it is not useful evidence, my mere opinion.

Facts only. He goes about his business in a scientific manner, as far as we know.
So is this guy doing science ? And which discipline of science is it ?
You would have had me go through all this for every darn genetics paper in my research.
Before I could say what discipline the word was used in, I'd have to ascertain that in fact it was all science. Or the possibility is there that in any part where he used the word, he might not have been speaking as a scientist at all ! :bigsmile:

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;70740 wrote:

hehehe..so if he is paid to find correlations and he goes to the major downtown tourist and hustling mall and handpicks Black studs...that part is not science...and when he correctly analyses the results, that is science ?

Wading through your lurid morass here, let's break this down:

1) This individual proposes a scientific study
2) He receives funding from an agency after reviewing his proposal
3) In his study design he has a recruitment protocol that defines his subjects, his method of recruitment, his inclusion criteria, his exclusion criteria, his method of consent, his method of randomization, and his method of anonymization.

That's all a legitimate part of science.

memester;70740 wrote:

but he was rebuked for ethics in data collection.
So it is not useful evidence.

A post-facto rebuke for ethics suggests that his ACTUAL method of collection deviated from his design, which would have to be overseen by an institutional review board. Whether it's useful data or not depends on what the problem was.

memester;70740 wrote:

He goes about his business in a scientific manner, as far as we know. So is this guy doing science ?

Sounds like it.

memester;70740 wrote:

And which discipline of science is it ?

Who cares? The journal that publishes it will be the one that finds it most relevant and sufficient for their quality standards.

memester;70740 wrote:

You would have had me go through all this for every darn genetics paper in my research.

Respectfully, if this conversation is any indication, I'm not sure your scientific literacy is up for that.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;70745 wrote:

Wading through your lurid morass here, let's break this down:

1) This individual proposes a scientific study
2) He receives funding from an agency after reviewing his proposal
3) In his study design he has a recruitment protocol that defines his subjects, his method of recruitment, his inclusion criteria, his exclusion criteria, his method of consent, his method of randomization, and his method of anonymization.

That's all a legitimate part of science.

A post-facto rebuke for ethics suggests that his ACTUAL method of collection deviated from his design, which would have to be overseen by an institutional review board. Whether it's useful data or not depends on what the problem was.

Sounds like it.

Who cares? The journal that publishes it will be the one that finds it most relevant and sufficient for their quality standards.

Respectfully, if this conversation is any indication, I'm not sure your scientific literacy is up for that.

I don't think that's any more respectful than for me to say that "Respectfully, I don't think your logic is shining".
I don't think it's necessary to say, in fact. :cool:

If merely being published is the criteria, then what was all that rot about ?

Why mention all this about attention to detail making the scientist now able to do abstractions with paid license..or if not attention to detail, he's not a scientist, he is a wistful muser ?

Now you say it's about being published, and they're the judge ?

Why lead me down the garden path, if you think I'm illiterate ?
All you had to say was "In papers published. That's the criterion."

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;70746 wrote:

I don't think that's any more respectful than for me to say that "Respectfully, I don't think your logic is shining".
I don't think it's necessary to say, in fact.

Ok, forget the respectfully then.

memester;70746 wrote:

If merely being publsihed is the criteria, then what was all that rot about ?

I can't see who else would care the answer to your question, i.e. "which discipline of science is it?" Who on earth cares? It is what it is.

memester;70746 wrote:

Why mention all this about attention to detail making the scientist now able to do abstractions with paid license..or he'sn ota scioentist ?

The abstractions, quite specifically, are interpretations of the results of his study, including putting his results into the context of other research.

memester;70746 wrote:

Now you say it's about being published, and they're the judge ?

Who said "it's about being published"? My only point was that maybe the Journal of X won't think it fits with their discipline X, but discipline Y will.

memester;70746 wrote:

why lead me down the garden path, if you think I'm illiterate ?

I didn't think so when we first started talking.

* by the way, I really DID mean that respectfully even though it came off a bit snarky. To be literate with the professional writings in a technical discipline is extremely difficult without experience. Put a journal of formal logic in front of me and I'm done for.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;70747 wrote:

Ok, forget the respectfully then.

I can't see who else would care the answer to your question, i.e. "which discipline of science is it?" Who on earth cares? It is what it is.

and it is either science, or it is not. Who cares ? You cares. Remember, if he wasn't doing "science" as you call science, at the instant he did it and when he wrote about it, it's not science.
So then any "potential disipline" that I could categorize the field as...well, it fails to fit, as the mention was not done scientifically...by your criteria .

However, now you say that doesn't matter, and "who cares". Only the publisher. But I am supposed to be studying published papers, and taking instances of abstract use of a word by geneticists...

and you're then talking about whether he is a real scientist or a muser - that's the distinction. Attention to detail.

but now all that is forgotten.

For me, I'm needing to show what kind of genetics, and I also need to know that the person writing it, is doing science !

So to check for that, you tell me, that all it has to be, is published. and so look at what kind of journal it is.

what a runaround.
You know and I both know, it seems, that a paper published, is not necessarily science.

Quote:

Who said "it's about being published"?

you did

Quote:

My only point was that maybe the Journal of X won't think it fits with their discipline X, but discipline Y will...

...I can't see who else would care the answer to your question, i.e. "which discipline of science is it?" Who on earth cares? It is what it is.

Somebody apparently cares. That's what you required of me. " 'Geneticist' is too vague > Name the discipline".

Now do you say that whatever journal it appears in determines what discipline I should consider it ? From the vagueness of "Geneticist" to the specificity of which journal published it ? That's how I get specific about which discipline it is ?
And I leave the bit about whether it is actually science or not..to the judges ?

Then why wasn't it only required of me to find
abstract usage in Peer Reviewed papers in Genetics Journals? and the same for Evolutionary Biologists ?

What was all the tommyrot about attention to detail or he isn't a "scientist, using abstraction entitled by virtue of a "real" scientist's license ? It was Chicken Salad*.

Down the rathole. It's really about peer review and which kind of journal published it.
So, evidently, we take things on face value; Peer Reviewed, in the relevant kind of Journal as mentioned. That's it. That's all I needed. Like this:

PLoS Genetics: A Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal
The claim was about Geneticists' usage, and here's a Peer-Reviewed Genetics Journal.

I'm standing on terra firma. :bigsmile:

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

*A Wistful Musing of Chicken, Diced Celery, Seasonings, and Mayo

1 Reply

@memester,

A stumbled-upon; top of page 105 on the right ; "The genes of classical genetics are abstract entities."

Human molecular genetics 3 - Google Books

1 Reply

@memester,

Genetics and Molecular Biology - The phenotype strikes back and is out on more than one limb: a review of Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, by Mary Jane West-Eberhard

The Phenotype Strikes Back !

0 Replies

is Phenotype All ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know