When to disagree with the experts.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

When to disagree with the experts.

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote:Just attacking a model is not science, but it also has to bring forth an alternative model. And that I also am attempting to do with the FM. My goal is not to "convince" anyone to my side, but to show that the model is reasonable and supportable by empirical evidence. And that an appeal to faith is not necessary to believe in its plausibility.
This is something else I take issue with. What gives you the credibility to propose ANY model? Are you a geologist? Biologist? Ecologist? Hydrologist? etc. How can you propose a model when you dont understand the fundamentals behind it? The current model is highly interdisciplinary, has taken over 100 years and has thousands of papers published supporting it.

The flood model has none of this.
My goal is not to "falsify" modern science. But I do challenge and question modern science. And I think it's also hubris to think that any field of science cannot be challenged.
Once again, this is good and all, but far too often people question things not on their merits, but rather because they conflict with other beliefs. People only question evolution because it conflicts with religion. This is why you never see atheists questioning evolution. Same goes for geology.

You NEVER see the same type of questioning in fields like ecology, chemistry, physics, etc.
The experts do sometimes get it wrong. But in the sciences, is it at all rational or reasonable for someone without in depth knowledge of the specific field, to challenge the consensus of those who have made it their life's work to study it and have the recognition of their peers. As far as I am concerned, no one with only a bachelor's degree or less, is truly qualified to do any more than follow what the experts say and try to keep up.

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #21

Post by nygreenguy »

Miles wrote:Really! As you must be aware words often carry more than one meaning. "Dogma" is just one such word.




dogma Pronunciation [dawg-muh, dog-]

–noun, plural -mas, -mata

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

source

____________________________________________________________________

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)

NOUN:
pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta
A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).


source

____________________________________________________________________

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

source

____________________________________________________________________

And probably the most enlightening definition: ↓ ↓ ↓____________________________________________________________________

Dogma
Dog"ma , n.; pl. E. Dogmas (#), L. Dogmata (#). [L. dogma, Gr. , pl. , fr. to think, seem, appear; akin to L. decet it is becoming. Cf. Decent.]

1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.

2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet.

3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

Syn. -- tenet; opinion; proposition; doctrine. -- Dogma, Tenet. A tenet is that which is maintained as true with great firmness; as, the tenets of our holy religion. A dogma is that which is laid down with authority as indubitably true, especially a religious doctrine; as, the dogmas of the church. A tenet rests on its own intrinsic merits or demerits; a dogma rests on authority regarded as competent to decide and determine. Dogma has in our language acquired, to some extent, a repulsive sense, from its carrying with it the idea of undue authority or assumption. this is more fully the case with its derivatives dogmatical and dogmatism.


source
Your definitions explicitly state opinion and belief. Science is definitely not any of these. Science is knowledge based, not belief. And opinion is a personal statement of belief. Principal sort of fits, but no one would call the law of thermodynamics a dogmatic belief. So, I would say your use of the definitions is in error.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #22

Post by micatala »

joeyknuccione wrote:
McCulloch wrote: Can you think of an example where you might be able to outperform the experts who have already given it a try?
Drinking! :drunk: :joy: :pelvic_thrust: :tongue: :joker:



The heaviest drinkers I every knew were Irish mathematicians. I'll lay 5 to 2 on them against you, assuming they haven't stepped out of the second story window of the pub since I last saw them (which has been a number of years ago now).
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #23

Post by Miles »

nygreenguy wrote:
Miles wrote:Really! As you must be aware words often carry more than one meaning. "Dogma" is just one such word.




dogma Pronunciation [dawg-muh, dog-]

–noun, plural -mas, -mata

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

source

____________________________________________________________________

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)

NOUN:
pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta
A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).


source

____________________________________________________________________

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

source

____________________________________________________________________

And probably the most enlightening definition: ↓ ↓ ↓____________________________________________________________________

Dogma
Dog"ma , n.; pl. E. Dogmas (#), L. Dogmata (#). [L. dogma, Gr. , pl. , fr. to think, seem, appear; akin to L. decet it is becoming. Cf. Decent.]

1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.

2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet.

3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

Syn. -- tenet; opinion; proposition; doctrine. -- Dogma, Tenet. A tenet is that which is maintained as true with great firmness; as, the tenets of our holy religion. A dogma is that which is laid down with authority as indubitably true, especially a religious doctrine; as, the dogmas of the church. A tenet rests on its own intrinsic merits or demerits; a dogma rests on authority regarded as competent to decide and determine. Dogma has in our language acquired, to some extent, a repulsive sense, from its carrying with it the idea of undue authority or assumption. this is more fully the case with its derivatives dogmatical and dogmatism.


source
Your definitions explicitly state opinion and belief. Science is definitely not any of these. Science is knowledge based, not belief. And opinion is a personal statement of belief. Principal sort of fits, but no one would call the law of thermodynamics a dogmatic belief. So, I would say your use of the definitions is in error.
And I would say, and will, you're very mistaken. First of all take a look at the definitions from the four source I presented. Stripped to their barest form they look like this .

Definitions of Dogma
I've underline most of the defining adjectives to hopefully impress on you the serious nature of such opinions, beliefs, principles, tenets, etc..

__________________________________________________________________


1st source

A settled opinion,

A settled belief

A settled principle.

An established opinion,

An established belief

An established principle.



2nd source

An authoritative principle,

An authoritative belief,

A statement of ideas, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

A statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.


3rd source

Something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet (and yes, there are such things as scientific tenets)


4th source

That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine. (and yes, there such things as scientific and doctrines and opinions.)
____________________________________________________________________


All of the forms of convictions listed above are found in science and used as important tools to advance our knowledge

And speaking of scientific opinions, which seem to rankle your sense of scientific propriety, take a look at the following.


[center]Scientific opinion on climate change[/center]
"This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.


source

An introductory book on the philosophy of science might help your understanding of the its theory and processes.

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #24

Post by nygreenguy »

Miles wrote:
All of the forms of convictions listed above are found in science and used as important tools to advance our knowledge

And speaking of scientific opinions, which seem to rankle your sense of scientific propriety, take a look at the following.


[center]Scientific opinion on climate change[/center]
"This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.


source

An introductory book on the philosophy of science might help your understanding of the its theory and processes.
You are purposely using the leased used definitions of the least used definitions.

Opinion is GENERALLY regarded as an individuals personal statement of belief.

Dogma is GENERALLY regarded as a set of rules or doctrine.

There is usually a reason that definition come in a specific order. The definitions that come first are the most common (and proper) uses of the word.

For someone who is so quick to try to jump on the criticism van, Id figure you would at least know this common fact.

And thanks for the "suggestion" but since Im already a practicing scientist, Im quite versed in the philosophy of science.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #25

Post by McCulloch »

Scotracer wrote:It's an oxymoron to say "Scientific Dogma". Dogma is something that is not to be challenged or deviated from. Everything in science is open to challenge.
nygreenguy wrote:Your definitions explicitly state opinion and belief. Science is definitely not any of these. Science is knowledge based, not belief. And opinion is a personal statement of belief. Principal sort of fits, but no one would call the law of thermodynamics a dogmatic belief. So, I would say your use of the definitions is in error.
Ideally, in science everything is open to question. However, science is still done by humans and humans are inherently political. Therefore, it is possible that some principle or idea might be promoted dogmatically. However, as has been pointed out, there probably is not any field of modern science where a consensus of the experts is likely to be corrected or overturned by non-specialists.

An example has been pointed out to me recently in the field of linguistics. For many years, the field had been dominated by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky was quite dogmatic that human language could not have evolved. Chomsky concluded that humans are born with a universal grammar hardwired into their brains. Eventually, his theories have been challenged by Steven Pinker, Marc D. Hauser, W. Tecumseh Fitch and others. Now even Chomsky has been convinced.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #26

Post by Goat »

McCulloch wrote:
Scotracer wrote:It's an oxymoron to say "Scientific Dogma". Dogma is something that is not to be challenged or deviated from. Everything in science is open to challenge.
nygreenguy wrote:Your definitions explicitly state opinion and belief. Science is definitely not any of these. Science is knowledge based, not belief. And opinion is a personal statement of belief. Principal sort of fits, but no one would call the law of thermodynamics a dogmatic belief. So, I would say your use of the definitions is in error.
Ideally, in science everything is open to question. However, science is still done by humans and humans are inherently political. Therefore, it is possible that some principle or idea might be promoted dogmatically. However, as has been pointed out, there probably is not any field of modern science where a consensus of the experts is likely to be corrected or overturned by non-specialists.

An example has been pointed out to me recently in the field of linguistics. For many years, the field had been dominated by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky was quite dogmatic that human language could not have evolved. Chomsky concluded that humans are born with a universal grammar hardwired into their brains. Eventually, his theories have been challenged by Steven Pinker, Marc D. Hauser, W. Tecumseh Fitch and others. Now even Chomsky has been convinced.
The fact that Chomsky has been convinced shows me he was not quite as dogmatic as many, because there have been scientists that have held onto their favorite theories long after they were disproven. Fred Hoyle never gave up his steady state theory.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: When to disagree with the experts.

Post #27

Post by McCulloch »

micatala wrote:I'll also say up front you may disallow this as it involves medical consensus, not scientific consensus. You can decide to what extent medicine counts as a science.
Medicine probably should be a science, however, many practices and traditions within medicine are not supported by scientific research. We should all hope that this number is decreasing not increasing.
micatala wrote:In this country, the medical establishment is overwhelming opposed to home birth. There are very few doctors who are willing to assist a woman having birth intentionally at home. Doctors often claim home birth is unsafe, and this is the reason they are unwilling to assist with home births. In many cases, the doctors and nursing organizations actively try to stamp out home birth by prosecuting lay midwives who are willing to assist with home births and refusing to serve in collaborative relationships with certified nurse midwives who would be willing to assist with home births.
The medical establishment is not a consensus of experts, but an economic and political force.
There is an emerging consensus among those experts who actually do the research into this field. So then the question in this case is not whether we as lay people should oppose the consensus of experts, but which group of experts should we listen to, those who are doing the research or those who are practicing a form of care that might be threatened by this method. So, in a way, this is not applicable to the OP.
micatala wrote:It is certainly worth highlighting that this example brings up one possible general reason for disagreeing with the consensus of the experts. If the experts have a tangible monetary or other interest in supporting a particular view, they might support this view even if the data or science does not. It could be that the data or science is inconclusive, which is probably more common, or that it is in fact counter the claims of the experts.
Certainly worth considering. We should always, as they say, follow the money.
micatala wrote:More often, I think what happens is some cadre of experts, usually a minority, will make claims counter what the evidence shows for economic reasons. Global warming would be one example.
Good try, yet again, there was no real consensus of experts against the evidence of global warming.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #28

Post by McCulloch »

goat wrote:The fact that Chomsky has been convinced shows me he was not quite as dogmatic as many, because there have been scientists that have held onto their favorite theories long after they were disproven. Fred Hoyle never gave up his steady state theory.
To his credit, yes. Yet according to what I've read, Chomsky held out longer than the evidence warranted. Hoyle, on the other hand, became one of the few expert voices outside of the expert consensus.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #29

Post by Miles »

nygreenguy wrote:
Miles wrote:
All of the forms of convictions listed above are found in science and used as important tools to advance our knowledge

And speaking of scientific opinions, which seem to rankle your sense of scientific propriety, take a look at the following.


[center]Scientific opinion on climate change[/center]
"This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.


source

An introductory book on the philosophy of science might help your understanding of the its theory and processes.
You are purposely using the leased used definitions of the least used definitions.

Opinion is GENERALLY regarded as an individuals personal statement of belief.

Dogma is GENERALLY regarded as a set of rules or doctrine.

There is usually a reason that definition come in a specific order. The definitions that come first are the most common (and proper) uses of the word.
"The most common (and proper)" Give me a break here. You may be a scientist but you're obviously not as well versed in the use of the English language as you could be. ANY use of a word that conforms to any definition of it is proper. And the English language does not limit the use of its words to only those definitions that are most common. *SHEESH!* were do you get your ideas?
For someone who is so quick to try to jump on the criticism van, Id figure you would at least know this common fact.
Not those "facts" you make up in order to save face.
And thanks for the "suggestion" but since Im already a practicing scientist, Im quite versed in the philosophy of science.
That's hardly the case. Having taken a couple of courses in a major university on just this subject, I can assure you that very few scientists become "quite versed" in the philosophy of science (the class sizes were quite small--mostly attended by those majoring or minoring in philosophy). Some may have taken a class in it, but few ever reach such a level of understanding you're suggesting. Not saying that you haven't, but your implication that being a scientist somehow means one is "very versed" in the subject simply doesn't hold water.

Just as a matter of interest, care to tell us what your field is?

Sjoerd
Scholar
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:06 pm
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands

Post #30

Post by Sjoerd »

I am a practicing scientist too. And I say: don't trust blindly any of their opinions. Scientists certainly don't. And don't trust me when I say this. Question everything. Use your own eyes and your own judgment.

It is always reasonable to disagree with any expert. To disagree and to be credible in other people's eyes, that's another matter entirely. It depends on the expert, depends on you and it depends on the other people.
The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.
No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
Listen to the fool''''s reproach! it is a kingly title!
As the caterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.

William Blake - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Post Reply