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?

[Goat]

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?

Disagreement should be based on evidence, and in the vast majority of time, the non-specialist does not know or understand what the evidence is.

[Fisherking]

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?

When logic and evidence contradict the consensus of the experts.

[micatala]

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?

I will offer one "when".


It is reasonable to disagree with the scientific experts when they are expressing views that are not backed up by science, especially when these views are outside of the realm of science.


For example, Richard Dawkins is famous for arguing that God does not exist, or at least that it is irrational to believe God exists. Dawkins argues for atheism.

Now, Dawkins alludes to his scientific work in making these arguments. However, the arguments themselves are in the realm of philosophy and theology and Dawkins is not an expert in these areas. One could criticize Dawkins for inappropriately applying science to other areas of study, and for attempting to use his credibility as a scientist to bolster his non-scientific arguments. Non-experts it seems to me, and especically if they are experts in these other fields, should certainly feel free to disagree with Dawkins.

Now, one might say this is just Dawkins, not a consensus of opinion among biologists, and that is a fair point. There probably is no consensus among biologists concerning religion. However, one could document there is a greater trend towards non-theism among biologists or scientists in general. To the extent there is a majority opinion on such views, the general public should feel free to disagree with the religious opinions that pre-dominate among scientists.

[Scotracer]

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?

I will offer one "when".


It is reasonable to disagree with the scientific experts when they are expressing views that are not backed up by science, especially when these views are outside of the realm of science.


For example, Richard Dawkins is famous for arguing that God does not exist, or at least that it is irrational to believe God exists. Dawkins argues for atheism.

Now, Dawkins alludes to his scientific work in making these arguments. However, the arguments themselves are in the realm of philosophy and theology and Dawkins is not an expert in these areas. One could criticize Dawkins for inappropriately applying science to other areas of study, and for attempting to use his credibility as a scientist to bolster his non-scientific arguments. Non-experts it seems to me, and especically if they are experts in these other fields, should certainly feel free to disagree with Dawkins.

Now, one might say this is just Dawkins, not a consensus of opinion among biologists, and that is a fair point. There probably is no consensus among biologists concerning religion. However, one could document there is a greater trend towards non-theism among biologists or scientists in general. To the extent there is a majority opinion on such views, the general public should feel free to disagree with the religious opinions that pre-dominate among scientists.

Dawkin's does qualify his statements however by beforehand (in The God Delusion) that any deity that has an affect on reality, must be measurable in some sense and as a result says it is completely relevant to science.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...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.

It should be the argument / evidence that matters, not a piece of paper. I do note the PhDs tend to have the most accurate knowledge on a given topic.

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?

When the consensus of the experts can be shown to be wrong.

[Goat]

From the OP:

...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.

It should be the argument / evidence that matters, not a piece of paper. I do note the PhDs tend to have the most accurate knowledge on a given topic.

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?

When the consensus of the experts can be shown to be wrong.

It has to be shown based on evidence though, and the vast majority of laypeople do not have the knowledge to produce or provide the evidence.

The times I think that it is beneficial to be able to challenge the experts is in the matter of health care, in specifically your own health care, and that of your loved ones. Then it's time to challenge the status quo, or be not totally trust brand new treatments. That does the experts are wrong, but when it comes to the matter of your own health, it is good to not accept answers without question.

That does not stop people from coming up with wacky theories. For example, there is a group of people who are linking autism and vaccines, despite the increasingly large amount of evidence that vaccines and autism are not related. As a matter of fact, there was a study done recently about autism in adults, even though the vast majority of identified patients are under 24. They found that adults with autism matched the same percentage as the younger crowd consistantly, no matter what age of the sample group. This shows autism has not increased over time, but only our diagnosing it. This includes people who were growing up before the age of vaccines.

[Cathar1950]

There is way to much information to not have experts.
But there is always peer review.
In the FM the evidence looks to be forced into the account or accounts of ancient myths.

The problem seems to be that there is no radical population loss in the last 50-70,00 years and that seems to be the result of volcanoes and not a flood.

[Coyotero]

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?

They can disagree all they want and that's fine... Just don't go teaching it as science.

[McCulloch]

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?

I will offer one "when".

I think I asked when it is reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field. Your example does not fit. Feel free to disagree with Dawkins when he steps outside of his field of recognized expertise, biology.

When logic and evidence contradict the consensus of the experts.

An example might be useful here. Is it reasonable to assume that the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field has been reached by ignoring contrary evidence and logic? How is it that you might feel better qualified to assess the evidence than the experts?

When the consensus of the experts can be shown to be wrong.

An example would be mighty helpful about now. Part of the process of building an expert consensus is that the other experts try their darndest to show that each new theory is wrong. Consensus only comes when such efforts come to naught. Can you think of an example where you might be able to outperform the experts who have already given it a try?

The times I think that it is beneficial to be able to challenge the experts is in the matter of health care, in specifically your own health care, and that of your loved ones. Then it's time to challenge the status quo, or be not totally trust brand new treatments. That does the experts are wrong, but when it comes to the matter of your own health, it is good to not accept answers without question.

The question was posed as the consensus of the experts in a field. If one expert suggests that you need surgery and another suggests a drug, then there is no consensus. If an expert says one thing, and you seek another expert opinion, that is not challenging the consensus of the experts.

They can disagree all they want and that's fine... Just don't go teaching it as science.

The question was not whether or not they can disagree but whether it is reasonable to disagree.