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?

[Sjoerd]

McCulloch and Cathar:
I agree with you that it is unpractical to follow your own judgment on everything, since we don't have the time to make informed decisions all the time, and that we more and more rely on experts to take this burden.

However, I still hold the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the experts on any particular issue, especially with the wealth of information that can be found on the Internet nowadays, as long as you are open-minded and unbiased enough.

sjored, come on now.You, as a scientist should know better than this. Yes, the internet contains a WEALTH of information but this can not, and does not replace rigorous academic studies and the experience and observations gained from field work. Armchair internet "scientists" simply lack all of the basic fundamentals that would allow them to properly debate a point. NPR had a story on this some years back about how these wannabe "physicists" were thinking there were proving the professionals wrong, only to have the physicists point out there simply, fundamental mathematical errors. We also see the same thin in the prisons. Prisoners have a vast wealth of knowledge in legal books and somehow think by reading these they no longer need lawyers and they can find loopholes to get themselves out. However, they all end up getting laugh at when they present their cases because of their simply, fundamental errors in understanding.

There is a reason it takes 8 years to get ones PhD.

Now, I should make the distinction between people who challenge because they think the professionals are wrong, and those who challenge to actually learn.

I agree that many people lack the intelligence and commitment to dig deep enough into a matter in order to challenge an expert. Still, that doesn't mean that it cannot be done. History is a bit of a hobby of mine; a friend of mine has studied medieval history and another friend Celtic history and language. I have both corrected them on occasion, even though of course it is far more often the other way around.

If everyone challenges the experts, you get stupidity and intellectual stagnation.
If no one ever challenges the experts, you get stupidity and intellectual stagnation.
If only experts may challenge the experts, you get very little challenges because they all know each other (that's why peer review is anonymous), leading to intellectual stagnation.
If it is decided by committee if someone is informed enough to make a challenge, who would be on that committee? The experts. Would they promote challenges? No. Again, intellectual stagnation.




In addition

[McCulloch]

However, I still hold the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the experts on any particular issue, especially with the wealth of information that can be found on the Internet nowadays, as long as you are open-minded and unbiased enough.

However, I still hold the opinion that it is not reasonable to disagree with the consensus of the experts on any particular issue unless you are an expert in that field. In a field where the experts disagree, then in order to have an opinion at all, you must disagree with some of the experts. Do you agree?

Do I agree? Depends what the experts have to say of it

Here's a nice paradox:

If the consensus among the relevant experts would be that it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the consensus of the experts... Would you agree?

Philosophical paradoxes are a lot of fun but hardly relevant to this debate. I would think that for any specific question where the experts have actually reached a consensus, they would not think that it would be perfectly reasonable for a non-expert to disagree. So your question is most likely moot.

For example, astronomers have reached a consensus that the earth orbits the sun. Would it be reasonable for someone without expertise in astronomy to disagree? Historians have reached a consensus that the Nazis carried out a program attempting to eradicate Jews from Europe. How reasonable is it for someone without training in evaluating historical evidence to disagree with that consensus? Biochemists have reached a consensus that nucleotide chains (DNA and RNA) convey genetic information. How seriously would you take the arguments from someone without biochemical expertise who disagreed with that consensus? There is a consensus among microbiologists that people with liver disease are especially susceptible to infections from Vibrio vulnificus, which can be found in oysters or crabs. Would you agree with me that it could be dangerous for a lay person to disagree?

[nygreenguy]

If only experts may challenge the experts, you get very little challenges because they all know each other (that's why peer review is anonymous), leading to intellectual stagnation.
If it is decided by committee if someone is informed enough to make a challenge, who would be on that committee? The experts. Would they promote challenges? No. Again, intellectual stagnation.

Science in America must be TOTALLY different than science where your at. 2 great scientists, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould were KNOWN for their epic battles. Scientists LOVE to argue and battle. Any scientist who doesnt want to be challenged and who doesnt challenge isnt a scientist, I dont care what their degree says. What you speak of above is ABSOLUTELY not what I see here in N. America or Europe.

[Sjoerd]

I would think that for any specific question where the experts have actually reached a consensus, they would not think that it would be perfectly reasonable for a non-expert to disagree.

For example, astronomers have reached a consensus that the earth orbits the sun. Would it be reasonable for someone without expertise in astronomy to disagree? Historians have reached a consensus that the Nazis carried out a program attempting to eradicate Jews from Europe. How reasonable is it for someone without training in evaluating historical evidence to disagree with that consensus? Biochemists have reached a consensus that nucleotide chains (DNA and RNA) convey genetic information. How seriously would you take the arguments from someone without biochemical expertise who disagreed with that consensus? There is a consensus among microbiologists that people with liver disease are especially susceptible to infections from Vibrio vulnificus, which can be found in oysters or crabs. Would you agree with me that it could be dangerous for a lay person to disagree?

I can agree that if someone disagrees with a consensus of experts, 99.9% of the time this is unreasonable because the disagreeing person is just being stupid. I object to the fact that would be 100 %, though. Experts are only human and are also subject to group think, struggle for funding, political pressure and simple human biases.

I think the Holocaust is a very bad example for your case. Holocaust denial is unreasonable not because of any expert consensus, but because the overwhelming amount of tragic evidence that is there for anyone to see, expert or non-expert. If, for any reason, the experts would suddenly all start denying the Holocaust, I would still stand by my own judgment.

As for your other examples:

- Planets do not orbit the Sun. The simplest description is that they orbit around the barycenter, which is actually outside of the Sun in case of Jupiter. Also, Tycho Brahe demonstrated, you can choose an Earth-centered reference frame to describe the movement of all astronomical bodies.

- Not all hereditary information is carried in the nucleotide chains. For example the cilia orientation in Paramecium can be modified and it will reproduce into the next generation, without changing any DNA.

An appreciation of these cases requires a degree of study, but no formal education. I learned the biochemistry example during my studies, but before obtaining my bachelor's degree. I do not hold a bachelor's degree in astronomy. I refuse to accept that this would exclude me from disagreeing with an expert if he accidentally makes a "planets orbit the sun" statement. In a discussion with someone who is an expert on a particular subject, I show a degree of humility, but I refuse to believe blindly everything they say.

[Sjoerd]

If only experts may challenge the experts, you get very little challenges because they all know each other (that's why peer review is anonymous), leading to intellectual stagnation.
If it is decided by committee if someone is informed enough to make a challenge, who would be on that committee? The experts. Would they promote challenges? No. Again, intellectual stagnation.

Science in America must be TOTALLY different than science where your at. 2 great scientists, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould were KNOWN for their epic battles. Scientists LOVE to argue and battle. Any scientist who doesnt want to be challenged and who doesnt challenge isnt a scientist, I dont care what their degree says. What you speak of above is ABSOLUTELY not what I see here in N. America or Europe.

I am a scientist in Europe, and I am not aware of any large difference with America. The hundreds of scientists I have spoken who have worked in America, including my boss, and my own visits to America, have given me the impression that science is much the same over there.

Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould are hardly representative scientists. They are/were so famous and influential that they can/could speak their minds freely without fear of damage to their careers or their relations with other scientists.
However, most scientist are continuously struggling to get funding and to get their work published. Who gets the funding/publication is decided by other scientists, through peer review.

Peer review is anonymous, but for any given scientific (sub)field there are no more than fifty labs worldwide working on it, sometimes just three or so. Did you ever do peer review on behalf of your boss? I did many. Whenever I was critical of a submitted paper, my boss made me go through great lengths to prevent anyone from guessing that it was our lab giving the criticism. Sometimes they guessed anyway. Then you have made an enemy: when it is *their* turn to review *your* work, they may take revenge. In any case, the editor once overruled my critical peer review just because the paper was coming from a famous lab, and I have heard the same thing many times from other scientists. Big bosses know how to pull some strings and to cash in favors.

I say, a scientist who doesn't like to challenge or be challenged is just a human being.

[McCulloch]

I refuse to accept that this would exclude me from disagreeing with an expert if he accidentally makes a "planets orbit the sun" statement. In a discussion with someone who is an expert on a particular subject, I show a degree of humility, but I refuse to believe blindly everything they say.

I agree, but the thrust of this debate was intended to be on when it would be reasonable for a non-expert to disagree with the general widespread consensus of experts on a topic. Your examples either expose my own ignorance of the topic in question, or where a particular expert is in error. I too refuse to believe a particular expert blindly. I'll even go as far as to say that the consensus of the experts in some field may turn out to be wrong. But as a non-expert, I am not in a position to predict which field and which consensus that may be that is in error.

My contention is that it is not reasonable for anyone who is not an expert, to disagree with the consensus of experts, where such a consensus has been reached. Evolution happened. The stars are billions of years old. There was no world-wide flood during human history. Wash your hands. Eat your vegetables.

[McCulloch]

One reason why I have not posted much in the Deluge of Evidence for the Flood thread is that I am not qualified to assess the evidence posted there. For me to claim that the historical, geological, paleontological means anything other than what the overwhelming consensus of the experts claim that it means is completely unreasonable.

Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.

I don't believe that the posters in Wikipedia are misrepresenting the consensus of the scientific community. In order to have any kind of credibility to me, a contrary opinion would have to have some pretty incredible evidence and would have to have the support of not just a few experts in their respective fields.

I don't go to a homeopath to diagnose ailments, and neither am I personally qualified to do it myself. I will seek qualified medical advise.

[otseng]

Everything in science is open to challenge.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 667#264667

Agreed. Otherwise it would not be science.

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.

How often might this happen? Probably not too often. Certainly I can't see any economic reason why the consensus of biologists would claim evolution is true, for example. 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. In past times, the risks of smoking might be another.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 685#264685

I think it would be almost impossible for any scientist to not be under some sort of monetary influence (whether it be from grants, customers, a raise, etc).

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.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 772#264772

Agreed.

However, I still hold the opinion that it is not reasonable to disagree with the consensus of the experts on any particular issue unless you are an expert in that field. In a field where the experts disagree, then in order to have an opinion at all, you must disagree with some of the experts. Do you agree?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 261#265261

I would agree that it is not reasonable to simply disagree with the experts just because you don't like what the experts say. Also, it is not reasonable to accept what the experts say simply because you like what they say.

What is reasonable is when any party (either experts or non-experts) can present their arguments based on logic and evidence to support their case. And if it can be free from political, monetary, and career motives, even better.

I maintain that any non-expert can challenge anything as long as they can present logical arguments and evidence. I think we can agree that this is the absolute standard to determine what is true or not. It is not simply based on the consensus of any group. And it is not based on personal opinions.

Also, if a non-expert did decide to challenge the experts, and the experts are truly correct, then it should be easy to refute the non-expert. So, why would anyone then be so concerned about what the non-expert thinks?

Finally, challenging the experts and the consensus is what this forum is about. If people are going to claim that non-experts cannot challenge experts, then this would exclude practically everyone from participating on this forum, including those who are not religious experts.

[McCulloch]

I maintain that any non-expert can challenge anything as long as they can present logical arguments and evidence. I think we can agree that this is the absolute standard to determine what is true or not. It is not simply based on the consensus of any group. And it is not based on personal opinions.

Agreed. But it is in assessing the validity of the arguments and the interpretation of the evidence where the expertise is required.

Also, if a non-expert did decide to challenge the experts, and the experts are truly correct, then it should be easy to refute the non-expert. So, why would anyone then be so concerned about what the non-expert thinks?

No. It is not always easy to refute clever challenges to a field posed by pseudo-scientists. In many fields, an untruth, a misrepresentation can be put forth convincingly with a few short sound-bites and some well chosen examples. A fully balanced understanding and a complete refutation may require a deeper understanding and may require some background.

Finally, challenging the experts and the consensus is what this forum is about. If people are going to claim that non-experts cannot challenge experts, then this would exclude practically everyone from participating on this forum, including those who are not religious experts.

I disagree. I do not believe that debate is about challenging the experts. Debate is about arguing the strengths of alternate positions on issues. Each side, especially when represented by non-experts, should do their utmost to show that their position is supported by the experts in the relevant fields and why.

I am not making the claim that non-experts cannot or should not challenge experts. I am, however, making the claim that it is not rational or reasonable for a non-expert to challenge the consensus of the experts in any field. The consensus of the experts may even be wrong, but with out expertise in the specific field, we are more likely to fall prey to pseudo-scientific diversions than uncover an error in the existing consensus.

Further, there are many areas where there is no settled consensus, even among the experts. Certainly, that leaves a whole lot of room for reasonable rational debate. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of religion. Is there any religious principle or theological question where there is a consensus of the experts?

[otseng]

I maintain that any non-expert can challenge anything as long as they can present logical arguments and evidence. I think we can agree that this is the absolute standard to determine what is true or not. It is not simply based on the consensus of any group. And it is not based on personal opinions.

Agreed. But it is in assessing the validity of the arguments and the interpretation of the evidence where the expertise is required.

A level of understanding is certainly required to properly engage in a debate. But I don't think one needs to be an "expert" in order to understand and assess the arguments. Certain areas might go beyond one's ability to comprehend (like if it goes into advanced math), but one should be able to understand the basic points.

Also, if a non-expert did decide to challenge the experts, and the experts are truly correct, then it should be easy to refute the non-expert. So, why would anyone then be so concerned about what the non-expert thinks?

No. It is not always easy to refute clever challenges to a field posed by pseudo-scientists.

I think you give pseudo-scientists too much credit. If they present something in error, no matter how clever it is, it can be exposed.

In many fields, an untruth, a misrepresentation can be put forth convincingly with a few short sound-bites and some well chosen examples.

However, we are not bound by sound-bites here. There are no limitations on post lengths here. And if examples are given that are suspect, people here are also free to point that out.

A fully balanced understanding and a complete refutation may require a deeper understanding and may require some background.

It certainly may. But, that still doesn't disallow a non-expert from challenging the scientific consensus.

I am not making the claim that non-experts cannot or should not challenge experts. I am, however, making the claim that it is not rational or reasonable for a non-expert to challenge the consensus of the experts in any field.

I do not see the difference here. Is it the fact that there is "consensus" that it is not reasonable to challenge them?

Finally, challenging the experts and the consensus is what this forum is about. If people are going to claim that non-experts cannot challenge experts, then this would exclude practically everyone from participating on this forum, including those who are not religious experts.

I disagree. I do not believe that debate is about challenging the experts.

When a non-expert on religion is debating here, he/she is going against the religious experts. Should this be disallowed?

Further, there are many areas where there is no settled consensus, even among the experts. Certainly, that leaves a whole lot of room for reasonable rational debate.

Certainly. And this includes what I'm debating now, the flood.

Is there any religious principle or theological question where there is a consensus of the experts?

I would say there is a consensus among religious experts that a supernatural deity of some sort exists. And I would also suspect there is a large majority of Christian experts that believe the Bible is a source of authority.