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?

[thatoneguy]

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

On a purely literal level, I agree. However, as a said (possibly in this thread, it's more effort to dig it up then to simply restate it) there are some subjects in which every piece of information is interlocking. A new piece of information could completely and utterly change the meaning of another piece of information. I consider biology and geology to be examples of those subjects, as are all sciences. Until you have seen all the information, your opinion, should it disagree with the experts, is very likely invalid simply because they know something you don't.

If you were to tell me something that disagreed with the vast majority of experts, and provide loads of evidence, I would still take the experts side even if i did not know why you were wrong. This is simply because, what with them being experts and all, they are much more likely to have information that you don't.

With that said, if you did provide evidence that I could not confidently counter using scientific explanations, I would do one of two things: research the topic myself or let someone else refute it. I know the limits of my knowledge, and if something is well out of its reach I will gracefully bow out of the debate.

Also osteng, I do not know what you are referring to when you state:

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?

From the little that I've seen of your debates, they are often refuted with evidence, not simple statements of "you're wrong because **** says so."

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

This was just a generality that I admit was probably not necessary. However, the fact remains that a lot of otherwise extremely extraneous assumptions are made to explain phenomenon for no other reason then that they are written in the bible. Since i expect an example will be the first thing demanded, I'll start with the global flood hypothesis since it is the first that comes to mind. I'm sure I could name plenty more if I tried.

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

I think Bertrand Russell of all people would acknowledge that this is only a generality. The incredibly small number of biologists that are in favor of intelligent design theory, for example, hardly constitute enough to consider the experts disagreed. I'd say past 99% you can call it an agreement, and probably much sooner.

[McCulloch]

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.

I have two somewhat contradictory responses.

1. If true, then your position is not the subject of this debate. We are debating whether it is reasonable for a non-expert to disagree with the consensus of the experts.
2. Really? Who?

[thatoneguy]

Quick question: when does one go from "expert out of the mainstream" to "not really an expert at all?"

Do we consider Michael Behe an expert, when during the Dover trial it was demonstrated that he hadn't even made an attempt to find answers to questions which he claimed science couldn't answer? It is true he has a degree in biology, but he never even looked at the scores of journals and even books that explain the develop of the immune system before he claimed that science had no answer.

Perhaps it's just me, but I consider disagreement among experts to happen when both have access to the same information and come to different conclusions. If an expert ignores information, does that really make him an expert?

[Abraxas]

For my money, to answer your question, we first have to define what an expert is. To me, an expert is one with a sufficiently great deal of understanding regarding the facts of a certain field, the exact cutoff point for expert being really neither here nor there for this debate. They may not agree with the conclusions the mainstream draws from those facts, but they are at least aware of them. They may not even accept the facts as being accurate in the case of an expert on, say, religions, but the understanding of the principles is enough in my book to qualify one as an expert.

Thus, to lose one's status as an expert, you would have to cease to understand the field to a sufficient degree. I suppose a revolutionary breakthrough in the field that an individual was unable to keep up with, a gradual falling behind through failing to keep current, or perhaps a head injury, could cause one to lose the title, however, I don't think any of those fit Mr. Behe.

In his case, he was never really an expert to begin with, at least not on what was being discussed. Yes, he holds some knowledge of biology in general, but in the specific claims regarding the development of the immune system and the history of evolution, he has never demonstrated anything more than ignorance of the science done to answer exactly that. A general expert on biology, but not a specialized expert in immune system development just makes him another slightly better than layman individual commenting on things he never understood.

[Sir Rhetor]

It especially annoys me when people go into the epistemological safe zone and say "you don't have the proper credentials to question this guy". Hogwash! Judge a statement not by how many years he went to school but by the words he says. If a hypothesis is sturdy (I am treating theism as a hypothesis), it should stand up to reason. Pointing to the number of abbreviations next to someone's name is not a way to debate! It is an escape route. In a perfect world, atheists/scientists would explain everything patiently, as if time did not exist. But in reality, people loose patience, especially when the other guy has an agenda. So they say what I wrote above, but for different reasons than Creationists would. The reason is that if the person payed attention in bio class, there would be less to explain, and the foundations would already be laid. It's like going to a foreign country and then asking your guide what the man just said. Someone with a Spanish background may only need to know what the noun meant, but a layman would need the whole sentence translated. Not only that, though, because saying it in simpler terms may not be enough.

[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.

I have two somewhat contradictory responses.

1. If true, then your position is not the subject of this debate. We are debating whether it is reasonable for a non-expert to disagree with the consensus of the experts.
2. Really? Who?

I agree that it's not the subject of this debate. I'm simply responding to your statement about support of no current expert.

Do we consider Michael Behe an expert, when during the Dover trial it was demonstrated that he hadn't even made an attempt to find answers to questions which he claimed science couldn't answer?

Yes, I would consider Behe an expert. The most that the Dover case would show is that ID shouldn't be taught as science in public schools. It would not show that he is not an expert. If someone is a professor at a major university, has twelve published journal articles, two pubished books, and numerous other popular articles and is not considered an expert, then what would be the requirement to be an expert? Come to think of it, is there even an accepted standard for qualifications of being considered an expert?

It especially annoys me when people go into the epistemological safe zone and say "you don't have the proper credentials to question this guy". Hogwash! Judge a statement not by how many years he went to school but by the words he says. If a hypothesis is sturdy (I am treating theism as a hypothesis), it should stand up to reason. Pointing to the number of abbreviations next to someone's name is not a way to debate!

I agree!

[Abraxas]

Do we consider Michael Behe an expert, when during the Dover trial it was demonstrated that he hadn't even made an attempt to find answers to questions which he claimed science couldn't answer?

Yes, I would consider Behe an expert. The most that the Dover case would show is that ID shouldn't be taught as science in public schools. It would not show that he is not an expert. If someone is a professor at a major university, has twelve published journal articles, two pubished books, and numerous other popular articles and is not considered an expert, then what would be the requirement to be an expert? Come to think of it, is there even an accepted standard for qualifications of being considered an expert?

There is, however, an important distinction to be made between being an expert and being an expert in the field under deliberation. Mr. Behe may well be an expert in some ways, but in the field of evolution, as has been demonstrated every time he has decided to weigh in on the topic, he isn't. He made a number of untrue statements, statements someone well researched into the topics he was commenting on would not have made (at least not have made without being deliberately deceptive); such as saying that the clotting system cannot do with any fewer factors than it has when in fact a number of such systems do exist in nature.

Using those criterion you listed, the chair of the local Philosophy department more than qualifies as an expert but would I be incorrect in assuming you would not put any statements he made on, say, engineering, on lesser footing than someone with equal or greater experience, credentials, and accomplishments in the actual field of engineering?

The question is not whether Behe is an expert, he probably is on something, but whether he is an expert on this. History demonstrates the answer to that question is no.

[otseng]

There is, however, an important distinction to be made between being an expert and being an expert in the field under deliberation. Mr. Behe may well be an expert in some ways, but in the field of evolution, as has been demonstrated every time he has decided to weigh in on the topic, he isn't.

Well, the Dover case was about ID. And I'd certainly say Behe is considered an expert on that. As for Behe being an expert on evolution, I cannot say one way or the other.

[nygreenguy]

Well, the Dover case was about ID. And I'd certainly say Behe is considered an expert on that. As for Behe being an expert on evolution, I cannot say one way or the other.

Being an expert in ID is like being an expert in dragons. Its an utterly useless distinction. Behes entire argument is based upon ignorance. For example, he stated he cant see how the immune system could have evolved and the other lawyer then proceeded to pile book, upon book, upon book, upon book about immune system evolution. Its all willful ignorance.

[Abraxas]

There is, however, an important distinction to be made between being an expert and being an expert in the field under deliberation. Mr. Behe may well be an expert in some ways, but in the field of evolution, as has been demonstrated every time he has decided to weigh in on the topic, he isn't.

Well, the Dover case was about ID. And I'd certainly say Behe is considered an expert on that. As for Behe being an expert on evolution, I cannot say one way or the other.

Nygreenguy mostly covered it, but I don't think there is a distinction to be made between being an ID expert and an evolution expert. Most of the arguments "for" ID stem from the statement "evolution couldn't do that" which inherently entails knowing about evolution. Take for example his pet argument, irreducible complexity, which is more or less a statement certain features, such as the immune system, cannot operate without all their component parts (or at least almost all of them) and so could not have evolved gradually. In order to make that claim you would first have to be highly familiar with the mechanisms of evolution and the research regarding the development and diversity of immune systems.

If there were a substantial portion of the ID ideology that had some sort of positive backing, something powered by its own merit, yeah, you could draw that distinction. However, as it sits now, most, if not all, of ID is merely the rejection of evolution, so in order to be an expert on it you would need to be an expert on evolution first.