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?

[Miles]

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.

Questioning everything may be a nice catch phrase and sound wise, but it's hardly practical.

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.

So, then it isn't always reasonable. If one has a limited understanding of a subject or issue then it's hardly reasonable to disagree with its proponents. In fact, it's rather foolish.

[Sjoerd]

So, then it isn't always reasonable. If one has a limited understanding of a subject or issue then it's hardly reasonable to disagree with its proponents. In fact, it's rather foolish.

It isn't foolish. It is good to state your disagreement and argue for it the best you can, and then listen to what the proponents have to say. If your understanding is limited, they won't leave a shred of it, and you will have learned. The foolishness only kicks in when you are stubborn and close-minded and refuse to listen.

[Miles]

So, then it isn't always reasonable. If one has a limited understanding of a subject or issue then it's hardly reasonable to disagree with its proponents. In fact, it's rather foolish.

It isn't foolish. It is good to state your disagreement and argue for it the best you can, and then listen to what the proponents have to say. If your understanding is limited, they won't leave a shred of it, and you will have learned. The foolishness only kicks in when you are stubborn and close-minded and refuse to listen.

It's foolish when the alternative is there: ASK! If I know the person to whom I'm talking with is far more knowledgeable about a subject or issue, it's much wiser (read: not foolish) to ask about those specifics that seem to point in another direction than to disagree by claiming such specifics do, in fact, point away. Tactics like this tend to paint a person as knee-jerk yahoo, rather than someone deserving of a considerate explanation. Ever been in a situation where someone argues a point you know, and he knows, he isn't up to speed on? I have, and it's frustrating to have to keep correcting their misstatements. I much prefer that they simply ask about A, B, and C at the outset.

[Sjoerd]

So, then it isn't always reasonable. If one has a limited understanding of a subject or issue then it's hardly reasonable to disagree with its proponents. In fact, it's rather foolish.

It isn't foolish. It is good to state your disagreement and argue for it the best you can, and then listen to what the proponents have to say. If your understanding is limited, they won't leave a shred of it, and you will have learned. The foolishness only kicks in when you are stubborn and close-minded and refuse to listen.

It's foolish when the alternative is there: ASK! If I know the person to whom I'm talking with is far more knowledgeable about a subject or issue, it's much wiser (read: not foolish) to ask about those specifics that seem to point in another direction than to disagree by claiming such specifics do, in fact, point away. Tactics like this tend to paint a person as knee-jerk yahoo, rather than someone deserving of a considerate explanation. Ever been in a situation where someone argues a point you know, and he knows, he isn't up to speed on? I have, and it's frustrating to have to keep correcting their misstatements. I much prefer that they simply ask about A, B, and C at the outset.

This is a matter of taste. I prefer the dialectic method, provided open-mindedness, humility and civility.

[Sjoerd]

So, then it isn't always reasonable. If one has a limited understanding of a subject or issue then it's hardly reasonable to disagree with its proponents. In fact, it's rather foolish.

It isn't foolish. It is good to state your disagreement and argue for it the best you can, and then listen to what the proponents have to say. If your understanding is limited, they won't leave a shred of it, and you will have learned. The foolishness only kicks in when you are stubborn and close-minded and refuse to listen.

It's foolish when the alternative is there: ASK! If I know the person to whom I'm talking with is far more knowledgeable about a subject or issue, it's much wiser (read: not foolish) to ask about those specifics that seem to point in another direction than to disagree by claiming such specifics do, in fact, point away. Tactics like this tend to paint a person as knee-jerk yahoo, rather than someone deserving of a considerate explanation. Ever been in a situation where someone argues a point you know, and he knows, he isn't up to speed on? I have, and it's frustrating to have to keep correcting their misstatements. I much prefer that they simply ask about A, B, and C at the outset.

This is a matter of taste. I prefer the dialectic method. With open-mindedness, humility and civility, of course.

[nygreenguy]

"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?

You are right that english doesnt limit itself to that which is most popular. However, when you are trying to convey a point, it is unwise to use the more abstract definition. You can take a pool and I can guarantee that the definition of dogma YOU want to use is not what the public would select.

Not those "facts" you make up in order to save face.

Its far from being a made up fact the the most common useage of a definition is written first.

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.

Ive taken a few philosophy of science classes, and even one field one! Now that was fun!

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

Botany.

[Miles]

You are right that english doesnt limit itself to that which is most popular. However, when you are trying to convey a point, it is unwise to use the more abstract definition. You can take a pool and I can guarantee that the definition of dogma YOU want to use is not what the public would select.

What can I say? In the crowd I run with the meaning I cited is accepted without question. Obviously, here on CD&R it's not. I guess I just have to get to know the people here a bit better.

Its far from being a made up fact the the most common useage of a definition is written first.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your."Dogma is generally regarded as a set of rules or doctrine." Perhaps if you hadn't written each as a separate paragraph your intended reference would have been clearer.

Ive taken a few philosophy of science classes, and even one field one! Now that was fun!

Hey! Good for you. And I mean that with sincerity.

Botany.

Cool. Now that's one fascinating field. I was surprised to learn that while the fungi and algae of lichens exist as symbiotic partners, the British Soldier lichen is sort of an oddity. Its algae are destroyed as they nourished the fungus, and it is only by the continued replication of the yet-untouched cells that the algae population is able to keep up with its mortality rate.

[micatala]

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.

I would not disagree with this.

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.

I would say it is both, at least to some extent.

There is an emerging consensus among those experts who actually do the research into this field.

• Ole Olsen MSc, research fellow at the Department of Social Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

  Home birth is an acceptable alternative to hospital confinement for selected pregnant women, and leads to reduced medical interventions. (BIRTH 24:1, March 1997)

• [url=http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/3/450]American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 82, Issue 3 450-453, Copyright © 1992 by American Public Health Association

  the results suggest that, under certain circumstances, home births attended by lay midwives can be accomplished as safely as, and with less intervention than, physician-attended hospital deliveries.

• Perineal Outcomes in a Home Birth Setting
  Patricia Aikins Murphy, CNM, DrPH & Julie Baker Feinland, CNM, MS, MPHPatricia Aikins Murphy is an Associate Research Scientist in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York. Julie Baker Feinland is with Hampshire Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, Inc., of Northampton, Massachusetts.

  The results of this study suggest that it is possible for midwives to achieve a high rate of intact perineums and a low rate of episiotomy in a select setting and with a select population.

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.

Thanks for the leg work.

I will point out that the first article is from Denmark (I could not actually get this first article open). I had specifically limited by comments to the U.S. Homebirth has long been more prevalent in Europe, most especially the Netherlands.

However, I will also admit my information is based on research and my experience from a number of years ago, and even the U.S., the situation does seem to be changing, at least in some areas of the country. Unfortunately, this has not been happening to any great extent in my state.

I am hopeful the health care debate may change this. The birthing industry is ripe for cost savings and reform. Many standard birthing practices have little to do with producing good outcomes for mothers and babies. Our Ceasarean rate, for example, is simply not justified from a health and safety standpoint.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Yes, I did not mean to apply there ever was any consensus against global warming among the experts, only that some of the experts allowed themselves to be hired out to the anti-global warming lobby.

[nygreenguy]

What can I say? In the crowd I run with the meaning I cited is accepted without question. Obviously, here on CD&R it's not. I guess I just have to get to know the people here a bit better.

And thats very true, meanings change depending on where you are. Look at the word fag. In england it has 2 common meanings ,an errand boy or a cigarette. In america is an offensive term for homosexuals!

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your."Dogma is generally regarded as a set of rules or doctrine." Perhaps if you hadn't written each as a separate paragraph your intended reference would have been clearer.

sorry.

Hey! Good for you. And I mean that with sincerity.

Thanks. I only wish I could have taken more. I find curriculum too often get in the was of real learning.

Cool. Now that's one fascinating field. I was surprised to learn that while the fungi and algae of lichens exist as symbiotic partners, the British Soldier lichen is sort of an oddity. Its algae are destroyed as they nourished the fungus, and it is only by the continued replication of the yet-untouched cells that the algae population is able to keep up with its mortality rate.

Botany, especially field botany is literally a dying field. Everyone is becoming so specialized now, there are fewer and fewer who can identify all the things around them.

[McCulloch]

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.

This is not practical. I do not have the time to question everything. My doctor prescribes a pill, I don't have to become a expert pharmacologist. The mechanic recommends a new transmission, I must become an expert at car repair. I want to know what to plant in my garden, I become an expert botanist. What book to read next, I'll become an expert in literary criticism. How to feed my family, I'll become a registered dietitian.

It is always reasonable to disagree with any expert.

OK, what about disagreeing with the consensus of the experts? Is that reasonable, when you are not trained and qualified to assess the evidence?