Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three

mmoyer writes "Popular Science just published their annual rankings of the worst jobs in science. Highlights of this year's list include a human lab rat, orangutan pee collector, and, surprisingly, a NASA ballerina. Think your science job belongs on the list? You can nominate your job as well. Slashdot also covered the worst jobs in science in 2004 and in 2003."

Comments

Question for biologists...

[LeonGeeste]

(would have said evolutionists there, but that would have started a tangential flame war).

This is a quote from the "Kansas Biology Teacher" article:

"At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world--the human eye, say--are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).

The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science."

Now, if someone tells you that the eye cannot be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, do you respond that, well, ID can't be tested through the scientific method, so you're wrong? Because that's exactly what this article makes it sound like. If there's a response to the argument that the eye could not have arisen through the incremental changes posited by evolutionary theory, this article sure doesn't give it.

Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage? Or did it happen all at once? Can scientists reconstruct the formation for an eye through an accidental interference with the DNA? And, most importantly, does even asking these questions imply that I'm an anti-science ignorant hick?

Re:Question for biologists...

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Its not falsifiable, you can never prove it wrong, its faith. You cant PROVE it either.

The fact that you cannot prove something, does not make another thing you cannot prove true.

Evolution deals more in generalities, it is postulated that humans evolved through a series of events because genetics and bones etc... help us come to that conclusion.

How evolution created the eye, or even a cell for that matter, is still a part of the mystery, and if someone could make an example cell from parts then that would help on the way of showing that some random event could have as well.

The main difference is that if someone did come up with a theory for the development of eye cones in humans, then other scientists could take that model, scrutinize it, and determine whether it would or would not work.

Even if it was accepted for 20 years, scientists could come back at a later time and with new information find out that i was wrong using new techniques and knowledge.

Since ID is a non falsifiable, and non provable philosphy (without a time machine, or the ability to meet God) it simply cannot hold up, since you cannot assume something is irreducibly complex, or meets any of the other ID specific buzz words.

Because all of the buzzwords are subjective. If we wanted to find out if something was "irreducibly complex" 100 years ago, then many of the things we know of now would be moot.

Go back further predicting how the sun and such moves accross the sky accurately may have been irreducibily complex, with the knowledge of the time.

Of course, intelligent design must have been popular because of that, because people beleived in a SUN God back then.

So, even though ID has been popular since the dawn of man, doesnt make it science.

Re:Question for biologists...

[TCQuad]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

I'd be careful with this point, because it is not as simple as it first sounds. A change should, but does not have to, confer an advantage. It could be a neutral move, with no selection for or against it. However, these neutral moves could result in the availability of new potential advantages. So, when arguing the point, it is not the thinner openings were greater than the larger openings, but rather they were at least as efficient for the task they were used for and provided the potential for further development (cemented by the actual eye development).

Re:Question for biologists...

[VJ42]

Don't tar all religion with the same brush; I happen to be a hindu, I believe in evolution, there's nothing in my religion that goes against any science that I know of (even if there was I would probably come down on the side of science). This is probably because hinduism is such a flexable religion that it accomodates almost anything. However I have many christian friends who believe in evolution, they, as I, rationalise their religion as a metaphor. Take genisis for exaample, if you don't take the word 'day' literally, but take it to mean a period of time most things happen in the correct order, first light, then water, then animals, then humans. Think of religion this way:

Early man: how did light start?
god: About 5 billion years ago I gathered dust and particles of hydrogen and helium
Early man: (interupting): huh? What's a billion, and what are hydrogen and helium?
god: A billion is a big number hydrogen and helium are elements
Early man: can you show me some hydrogen and helium, the only elements i know are fire, water air and earth
god: *sigh* light happened because I just put it there, OK?
Early man: sounds good, I'll write that down.

Re:Question for biologists...

[elmartinos]

Here I present you The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your
kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this
sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[ackthpt]

This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons. He'd go in to their enclosures wearing a special hat with a very-anatomically-correct model of a female falcon on it.

Ha! There was something like this in the news earlier this year.

My sister had a job for a while cleaning cages of lab animals. She didn't like it much.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that any job where you get absolutely no respect for having it and working hard is a "bad job". And with that in mind, that pretty much covers the whole of every scientific endeavor in America.

It's still pretty much actor, guy in a band, sports star, independantly rich (not just wealthy), doctor, lawyer - then everyone else.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[sedyn]

"3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution

*snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)"

What ever happened to the good ol' days when a teacher was apethic towards their job? They just went in, did whatever the board told 'em to, and used the Nuremberg defence to ease any ethical issues. Or was that prozac?

I want to return to the time when this noble profession was all about the money.

Yeesh, if people can democratically decide what the facts are, then I move for a petition to strike down gravity, because it just keeps bringing people down.

Mod mistake here!

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition (It's not only the ID folks, there's other equally unscientific view too) and magical thinking. We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Carl Sagan's responses "Demon Haunted World"

In that book, folks would ask him about "healing crystals" and many other things both religious and "New Age". His response was something to the affect of "...there's no data that supports that belief." I found that response to be respectful to the person asking and at the same time putting forth that idea that maybe they should question their own beliefs. Of course, there's always going to be people who are completely happy relying on faith. I have no problem with that as long as they don't legislate their beliefs on everyone else.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[ChuckleBug]

I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70547&cid=6407 629

I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good information in it. I've seen this in every creationism/evolution debate I've read here. But we've got evidence and reason on our side, while all they have is: "I can't figure out/imagine how this happened, so god did it." That really is the sum total of what they want us to teach as science. They add a lot of verbiage to make it sound like more, but they always come down to:

1. Honest mistakes
2. Lies
3. More lies (I want to believe these guys are sincere, but there are so many wrong statements from creationists that have been clearly shown wrong, yet they keep repeating them.)
4. Nonsense - often a subset of 1. (e.g. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" That question is such a tangled morass of wrongness, I don't know where to begin.)

It does get discouraging at times, which is why I get cranky about this.

YIAAST.

What no "Grad Student?"

[forand]

Almost every one of the top 10 has one thing in common, if there is an even crappier aspect of the job it is being done by the grad student on the project!

I just want recognition for something! I will have to be happy with getting my Phd if I can't get on the crappiest job list.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism

I thought the real irony is how unintelligently designed 'Intelligent Design' is.

Re:Continental Drift?

[Control Group]

Anybody who wants to cling to a young earth.

Continental drift, after all, presupposes a time line about four orders of magnitude greater than that of young earth "theory." Hence, if you believe continental drift, you have a very hard time simultaneously buying into young earth.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Ced_Ex]

On that note, how easy would it be to score 100% on the Intelligent Design tests?

Question 1: Identify and describe the method in which humans obtained stereoscopic sight.

a) With binoculars.
b) God, the designer himself.
c) Crazy Theory of Evolution.
d) All of the above.

Question 2: Identify and describe the method in which humans obtained opposable thumbs.

a) Double jointed.
b) God, the designer himself.
c) Crazy Theory of Evolution.
d) None of the above.