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?

[Cathar1950]

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?

It is the experts we count on to do just what Sjoerd advocates.
We are more and more dependent upon the experts and it may be one of the prices paid for our complex civilizations. Even when we were just tribes and families our peoples depended upon experts (the older ones) and as we grew in numbers religious experts were needed, how else you going to keep track of the gods we cant all be experts except in a more simple life.

That is what is so nice about books and even computers; we can have experts at our disposal. But experts can also have a way of doing more by shaping the questions we ask and the answers we find. That is why we have experts at looking ay experts as it more critical studies.
We need sh*t detectors.

[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.

[nygreenguy]

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.

[Cathar1950]

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.

Of course there is always the relationship between technology, science and the markets. I have read where it is the porno industry that has driven much of our new Internet technologies.
In some academic areas people spend a lifetime on just one small aspect of a problem.
I personally get a lot of pleasure reading about conspiracies and weird technology.

[Goat]

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.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of very very bad sources out there. A lot of people can not separate the wheat from the chafe.

[Nilloc James]

I very much depends on why you challange an expert.

Challanging an expert because you see a flaw in their logic or work is better than challanging an expert because their conclusions differ from a religous book is ignorant and counter-productive.

[Cathar1950]

I very much depends on why you challange an expert.

Challanging an expert because you see a flaw in their logic or work is better than challanging an expert because their conclusions differ from a religous book is ignorant and counter-productive.

Of course the experts love to challenge the experts.
How many experts challenge purely because some one's interpretation of an ancient book say all the data must be wrong?

[Goat]

I very much depends on why you challange an expert.

Challanging an expert because you see a flaw in their logic or work is better than challanging an expert because their conclusions differ from a religous book is ignorant and counter-productive.

Sometimes, reasons to challenge the experts takes a life of their own, and despite increasing evidence against the challenge, the 'laymen' can not be convinced.

For example, there has been increasing amount of evidence that vaccines do not have a link with autism. An example of this is a survey in England done to see the percentage of adults that had autism to see how the percentage of adults who have the symptoms increased or decreased over the years. They found that the percentage of the population who had autism stayed the same, no matter what age bracket. This includes people who grew up before the time frame that vaccines were given to school children.

This shows that 1) the percentage of people in the population that have autism has not increased over the years, it is just that it is diagnosed now.
and 2) Since this includes ages of people who grew up before the time vaccines were given to children as routine the vaccines were not the trigger.

[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?

[Sjoerd]

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?