So, I blogged before I went in for surgery about an "interview" Twatson gave to a scientific luminary.
She has taken note. PZ Lyers noted that the interviewer had no scientific credentials. Someone asked about Twatson's scientific credentials. After all, Twatson talks about science and isn't qualified (despite having a science degree from Boston University in the scientific field of communications and advertising). In a rare moment of not heavily censoring comments on her website, Twatson let the comment be seen in a post she did about the "interview". Funny that it came after I called her out in my blog about the "interview", claiming she'd forgotten about it.
Yes, I suppose that it's possible she forgot. It's also possible she just didn't want anyone to know what a fool she made of herself in that interview with statements like, oh, say, how boring scientists find doing science to be. Lab science, it turns out, just bores the fucking living shit out of the scientists who devote their lives to doing it. I must thank them for undertaking work they so utterly despise; it's truly remarkable that they're able to cope with their absolute lack of interest in experiments and other lab work. No doubt, it's the extremely high pay they're given to do this trivial and menial work. /grats
Abbie has an article up detailing some of the boring shit that lab work inspires. Reading about it was nearly soporific. I can only imagine that scientists in these fields have some kind of crack/meth mainlined in so they can remain conscious long enough to get anything done. Poor bastards.
So, PZ smears Althouse as a dingbat who has "what to do with science?" Noting that Althouse was no match for Rebecca.
Mrhinkydink dared return the notice that Twatson is no more entitled to talk about science than Althouse is. This non-compliance simply will not do!
Not to be demurred from the party line, and full-throated defense of Twatson's rightful place as an authority to speak on science, he notes that one doesn't need to publish peer-reviewed articles on science to talk about it. One only has to be right (that is to say, one just has to say what other people say about science and then, voila, one is entitled to tell others what science is and what it says). You don't have to know how to do one jot of science to be able to pontificate about it. Just tell other people what you've been told and you're entitled to be considered a science educator!
But it's all ok, you see. Twatson isn't a polemicist who feels the need to out-perform someone who's naive or wrong in a discussion. No, for that kind of shouting down someone and keeping their views from seeing the light of day, she goes to her blog and writes things and then, you know, prevents dissension by moderating out of existence people who try to point out out how wrong she is in stuff. Allowing dissent there is, for her, an exception to policy rather than a standard manner of operation.
Further, she can't let that rare exception of a non-suppressed criticism go without implying that simply doing "research" on her claims is "creepy sleuthing". You see, on the one hand, you're supposed to take what she says as the gospel. You see, she talks about her "science" degree with such frequency, that you're supposed to know what her degree is about and in. To say you don't quite know its contours is to be a liar. Because she's said stuff about it.
So, how is it that one might find out what she's said about it? You got it. One goes to read/listen to what she's said about it. There's a small problem with that though: going to find out what she's written/said about it makes one "creepy" by not listening to what she's said or written. So, to know what she says about it requires watching/listening/reading what she's said about it, and that's creepy, stalkerish behavior. Not know what she's said/written on it but saying you've read about it makes you a liar.
Greg Laden makes a cameo explaining that to be a scientist, like Twatson is a scientist, requires a load distribution like she had: it requires some liberal arts education to round one out. Yes. I suppose that's true. What science degrees tend not to do, however, is actively make it a requirement of the degree to take as little science as possible. Twatson's degree, as I've noted previously, explicitly forbids taking more than a certain amount of science. The majority of one's credits must be not science related.
What a bunch of fuckwits.
Here's a page from history about how boring science is. This a field where a fairly minor oversight can be deadly. Indeed, even following every protocol to the letter can get one killed because of using the wrong kind of latex glove. Even if you're an expert on all this boring shit. Recall Dr. Karen Witterhahn's boring experience in the lab of getting a couple of gtts of dimethylmercury on her protective gloves and then being killed for it? Yeah, "boring" and "tedius" shit like choosing the right gloves can be deadly. Painfully so.
Fuck you, Twatson - you're as scientifically literate as Althouse. The only thing that make you different from her is the books you read; neither of you has an understanding of science because neither of you has done science, or studied science. I don't know about your "plenty of science friends" and what they know as it regards you because their knowledge isn't your knowledge. My father used to land aircraft in the air force, and has told me about it. This doesn't mean I know anything about operating an air traffic control center. I just know there exist people who do it, and sometimes they talk about it.
You are in the same boat, you hack.