you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

I agree with you. Unfortunately science has a lot of gatekeeping and elitism in it… often people are ostracised for their beliefs if you don't agree and go along with "the general consensus" at the time. People like this aren't very good at going going with the general consensus.

Half of science is also your reputation. If a random newbie says they saw a new species in this part of the woods, literally nobody will believe them. You have to be good at writing reports in the style and language expected, and knowing where to submit these reports. You can't just use normal people words and upload it to wherever.

It's a shame, because I think there's a huge amount of people that would love getting into the "leg work" of science, which many desk jockeys dislike, but they aren't book smart so they're not allowed. These kinds of people will never get a PHD, it's not their path. But it's hardly difficult to point a DSLR camera or take samples.

I know someone who goes up into the "mountains" for a week once a month, sets up camp, and fossicks for gold. Often for longer periods of time. Imagine if they were paid to look for fossils or take geology samples or other science-y stuff? I know for a fact these people would absolutely love playing with a new toy and learning how it works. How many scientists go into the field that often? Multiply that by like 100 because they have this whole community of fossickers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Your paragraph about reputation is wrong: the thesis statement of this paragraph is: half of science is your methodology. And that's not really gatekeepy, it's what's needed to be recorded to actually verify what was observed. So we don't have another Piltdown man or microraptor.

    Have you looked into citizen science projects? There are many many projects set up so the average joe can contribute in some way. They may not be discovering a new species like some Edwardian British Naturalist, but they are helping contribute in significant ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I have actually already contributed a decent amount to iNaturalist over the years: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=zarobi

    But that's kind of the extent of "citizen science", in my area at least — some variant of taking photos and dumping them into a public database. Which is still helpful of course, but I was talking about working more intimately with specific research, or even being employed to do certain tasks.

    Right now you have to be "in" to be "involved", which has it's pros and cons. In this thread we were mostly discussing the cons. You might call it quality assurance and preventing micro-raptors, but at the end of the day there is still a gate being built and maintained there.

  • source
  • parent