American students have to take before doing a decent degree, due to the deficiency of the American high school syllabus
Except I went to wonderful schools my whole life including for high school ( one of the hardest schools to get into in my city, considered a 'top 60' prep school and a 'top 150' for AP scores - not bad considering the tens of thousands of high schools around the us) and was enrolled in many AP and honors classes. Like I said, assumptions lead to ignorance. The bad high schools tend to be inner city ghetto ones where the students don't care about education. You can't teach someone that doesn't want to learn.
A bit of basic chemistry, physics and biology
O Chem, IO Chem, Biophysics, Physiology, etc. are not considered 'basic'
does not make you a scientist
Never claimed I was. Nonetheless, it doesn't take a scientist with a PhD to understand what the scientific method is. It's as you say, 'basic.' That is why I questioned his credentials because a scientist with even just a bachelors in a scientific discipline let alone advanced degree (which he never acknowledged either which he has if any, which is fine it's not a big deal, I stated what the extent of my knowledge and experience) would know his analogies and interpretation of the scientific method are way off. Especially a statement like '
Seriously, science is just as much about probability and weight of evidence as it is about experimental replication.
' Any person who choses a major like bio, chem, physics, geology, whatever will spend significant time in a lab even if doing just a bachelor's. Every class whether it's bio, chem, etc is divided between lecture and lab in pretty much any renowned university around the world. When you conduct experiments in a lab you record your observations based on the steps of the scientific method. A person who claims to be a scientist hence wouldn't fumble with clumsy analogies and know that an observation that cannot be tested repeatedly in an experiment with the same results is not considered a valid confirmation. Probability and 'weight of evidence' never constitutes a valid confirmation based on the scientific method which is the universally accepted way in which scientists test their hypothesis.
has nothing to do with the science of forest management and conservation.@ Atch
Not really. Organic chemistry, biology, etc can be applied to basically all living things and scientific disciplines intersect. Even physiological processes are pretty similar across mammals. If he is a scientist and has studied forestry I'm sure he has more knowledge than I do. That's why I asked him if he studied forestry so he can further explain. He hasn't said that he has only that he works for some forestry institute which doesn't clarify what his role is nor his level of knowledge. I work for a tech company yet I have nothing to do with coding, programming, etc. nor do I know much about it as I am hired as an independent consultant.
Also there's no such science as 'forest management' nor 'conservation.' By forest management you may mean 'forestry' and conservation 'ecology' or 'environmental science.' Typically forestry is its own discipline although lately its been grouped with agriculture, ecology, and environmental science.