When to disagree with the experts.

[McCulloch]

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?

[Scotracer]

An argument from authority is a form of informal fallacy.

Not sure what you mean by this. But appeals to authority, no matter the form, would be fallacious.

Yes it is fallacious, but it's not a formal fallacy. I don't think you understand the difference between formal and informal fallacy. A formal fallacy is a flaw with the structure of an argument and an informal fallacy is a flaw where a premise is incorrect, not the structure. An argument from authority is an informal fallacy.

Proof:

From modus ponens you get:

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
Conclusion. Therefore, Q.

And this is always correct however the premises themselves can be flawed:

1. If a scientist makes a statement about science, it is correct.
2. Albert Einstein states that all quantum mechanics is deterministic.
Conclusion. Therefore it's true that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

Premise 1 is incorrect due to it being an Argument from Authority. The flow of the logic (formally) is still correct however the argument is flawed.

[Nilloc James]

Again, it could be very probable that the layman is incorrect. But, it is attacking the ideas, not the person's aptitude, that would constitute a valid debate.

Which would probably be more effectively done by referencing the experts in the field rather than by a motley collection of internet forum users.

If you're going to charge that science can only be debated by scientific experts, then likewise, only religion can be debated by religious experts.

I partially agree.

However I have a feeling that by "religous experts" you mean experts like preists etc. Though knowlagable they are biased to the point where I have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

[Scotracer]

Again, it could be very probable that the layman is incorrect. But, it is attacking the ideas, not the person's aptitude, that would constitute a valid debate.

Which would probably be more effectively done by referencing the experts in the field rather than by a motley collection of internet forum users.

If you're going to charge that science can only be debated by scientific experts, then likewise, only religion can be debated by religious experts.

I don't fully agree with the association. Religion does not rely on evidence (and therefore understanding of said evidence), it relies on claims that are immaterial and therefore can only be approached using logic and philosophy. Of course may details will require scholars to debate, and that's why I don't attempt to discuss the questions of the origin of the books or in their original languages - there's just no point to it. But on the front of things like what is moral, and what is rational, I feel even the layman can contribute.

[thatoneguy]

I think that this quote from Bertrand Russell sums it up nicely:

(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive argument exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement.

This quote is from the second page of his book "Skeptical Essays," and it's my personal favorite quote by him because it emphasizes the ridiculousness of so many people that believe they know better than the experts.

Trying to say you know better than biologists falls nicely into category 1. Experts can be wrong, but even if you're going to disagree with them without being an expert, it would still be ridiculous to be completely sure that you are right.

Finally, some subjects, like the sciences and economics, entail huge bodies of information, in which one new piece of information could completely change the meaning of another piece of information. In these kinds of subjects (and most academic subjects fall into this category) it's simply fallacious to make a statement, with any percentage of certainty, unless you have seen all the information available to you. Since biology is one of those subjects, I would have say that disagreeing with an expert, without being backed up by an expert in the same field, is fallacious. Of course, if you are backed by an expert in the same field, then that falls into category 2.

As for the Argument from authority thing, it is fallacious to only reference the conclusion reached by someone more knowledgeable (like Einstein's belief that randomness did not lie at the heart of nature) is fallacious. If you cite their reasons, or explain them yourself, then it is not.

[T-mash]

I think that this quote from Bertrand Russell sums it up nicely:

(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive argument exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement.

This quote is from the second page of his book "Skeptical Essays," and it's my personal favorite quote by him because it emphasizes the ridiculousness of so many people that believe they know better than the experts.

Trying to say you know better than biologists falls nicely into category 1. Experts can be wrong, but even if you're going to disagree with them without being an expert, it would still be ridiculous to be completely sure that you are right.

Finally, some subjects, like the sciences and economics, entail huge bodies of information, in which one new piece of information could completely change the meaning of another piece of information. In these kinds of subjects (and most academic subjects fall into this category) it's simply fallacious to make a statement, with any percentage of certainty, unless you have seen all the information available to you. Since biology is one of those subjects, I would have say that disagreeing with an expert, without being backed up by an expert in the same field, is fallacious. Of course, if you are backed by an expert in the same field, then that falls into category 2.

As for the Argument from authority thing, it is fallacious to only reference the conclusion reached by someone more knowledgeable (like Einstein's belief that randomness did not lie at the heart of nature) is fallacious. If you cite their reasons, or explain them yourself, then it is not.

As said before. The idea that a holy book gives you more knowledge about scientific subjects than people who have spend nearly their entire life doing research on it is just silly. If only some priests would stand up and say: "Today we are going to do something a little different. Put your bible away and open these biology books we are giving you!" on a Sunday morning... half of this science vs evolution stuff would have been avoided.

[Goat]

[McCulloch]

A goofy example:
Lets say I conclusively, beyond all doubt and argument, show 1+1 does not equal 2.

So, I can show 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but I can't show what it actually does equal. What then?

The implication seems to be that not only must you show something false, but you must also offer an alternative. What if I can show where one notion is false, but I have no alternate explanation?

OK. Let's use a less goofy example. Let's say that you show that you were able to show that the currently accepted treatment for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome was ineffective. Does the fact that you cannot provide an effective treatment in any way lessen or invalidate your findings?

[JoeyKnothead]

A goofy example:
Lets say I conclusively, beyond all doubt and argument, show 1+1 does not equal 2.

So, I can show 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but I can't show what it actually does equal. What then?

The implication seems to be that not only must you show something false, but you must also offer an alternative. What if I can show where one notion is false, but I have no alternate explanation?

OK. Let's use a less goofy example. Let's say that you show that you were able to show that the currently accepted treatment for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome was ineffective. Does the fact that you cannot provide an effective treatment in any way lessen or invalidate your findings?

I 'preciate the reply, but was responding to a previous post that said one must offer an alternative explanation. It was explained / clarified / retracted / meant to mean "would sure be helpful".

[thatoneguy]

A goofy example:
Lets say I conclusively, beyond all doubt and argument, show 1+1 does not equal 2.

So, I can show 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but I can't show what it actually does equal. What then?

The implication seems to be that not only must you show something false, but you must also offer an alternative. What if I can show where one notion is false, but I have no alternate explanation?

OK. Let's use a less goofy example. Let's say that you show that you were able to show that the currently accepted treatment for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome was ineffective. Does the fact that you cannot provide an effective treatment in any way lessen or invalidate your findings?

I 'preciate the reply, but was responding to a previous post that said one must offer an alternative explanation. It was explained / clarified / retracted / meant to mean "would sure be helpful".

I'm with McCulloch. One of the biggest reasons we have religion so rampant is because of the idea that we need an explanation at all times.

With that said, yes, alternative explanations are helpful if they are actually more valid than the old one. If the Big Bang Theory is wrong then the theory that God did it instead wouldn't be much more helpful.

[otseng]

And if you are arguing a position that has the support of no current expert in the relevant fields, from where I sit, you are not going to leave the starting blocks.

There exists experts that support my view. However, they would of course not be in the mainstream.

And you will note that I do not debate religious ideas other than when they are put forward as real science(which they are not), such as claiming flood myths reflect real events.

Well, we shall meet often then.

The point is that citing authorities is not always an appeal to authority. When one is referencing the science developed by a scientist in the field of his expertise and citing his research, it is not a fallacy and claiming it is is a dodge by the losing debater.

I never said citing an authority is an appeal to authority. What I am saying is that simply saying that a bunch of experts believes something makes it true is not a logical argument. What is required is going into the evidence and arguments that the experts present.

And it was relevant to this discussion due to you denying having brought the subject up. And around and around we go.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

An argument from authority is a form of informal fallacy.

Not sure what you mean by this. But appeals to authority, no matter the form, would be fallacious.

Yes it is fallacious, but it's not a formal fallacy.

That's all I'm saying, that it would be fallacious. And it would not carry any weight in debates. Are you saying informal fallacies should be admissable as logical arguments in debates?

However I have a feeling that by "religous experts" you mean experts like preists etc. Though knowlagable they are biased to the point where I have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Everyone has biases, including scientists.

Religion does not rely on evidence (and therefore understanding of said evidence), it relies on claims that are immaterial and therefore can only be approached using logic and philosophy.

Logic and philosophy are definitely are found in religion. But, empirical evidence can also be found in religions. Some more than in others.

But on the front of things like what is moral, and what is rational, I feel even the layman can contribute.

I believe that any layman can contribute as long as evidence and logical arguments can be presented.

(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive argument exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement.

it emphasizes the ridiculousness of so many people that believe they know better than the experts.

In point (1), I assume it means that 100% of experts are agreed. However, this is hard to achieve for almost all theories.

Experts can be wrong, but even if you're going to disagree with them without being an expert, it would still be ridiculous to be completely sure that you are right.

I certainly can be wrong. But, what should the proper approach be to show that I'm wrong? Wouldn't it by offering evidence and logical arguments, rather than by simply stating that it's not what the majority of experts believe?

As for the Argument from authority thing, it is fallacious to only reference the conclusion reached by someone more knowledgeable (like Einstein's belief that randomness did not lie at the heart of nature) is fallacious. If you cite their reasons, or explain them yourself, then it is not.

I completely agree!

The idea that a holy book gives you more knowledge about scientific subjects than people who have spend nearly their entire life doing research on it is just silly.

Who said anything about a holy book or even quoted from it?