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?

[Scotracer]

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.

But I see that as exactly the issue - understanding the "basic points" and pointing out flaws you see in them doesn't make any sense because you don't have the whole picture. That's where the experts have a great advantage - they know a lot more in-depth about the subject and will almost definitely covered the "issues" you have found.

[McCulloch]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Again, I agree. However, it is not always easy. Pseudo-scientists will use some of the same jargon as the real scientists and properly refuting them often requires expert knowledge in how to interpret the evidence.

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.

And yet, you post supposed evidence, in the form of pictures, implying that they support the flood model rather than standard geology. People here are free to point out the errors in your interpretation of the evidence, but few of us are qualified to properly assess them.

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.

And I certainly would not wish to disallow it either. I am allowed to appeal the application of certain laws to the Supreme Court. It would be irrational and ill advised for me to do so without expert legal counsel.

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?

I often read Consumers Reports. If I am making a major purchase, I will refer to their ratings. If they unanimously and unambiguously recommend one particular model over all other competing models after doing their tests, I believe that it would be irrational of me to dispute their findings unless I become an expert myself (that is perform a series of tests to evaluate the performance of the various models in my setting). However, it is not reasonable to challenge the consensus of the experts in any field as complex as geology, hydrology, biology or cosmology, when you are not yourself an expert.

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

Not at all. People should be allowed to be as irrational as they wish.

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.

No it does not include the flood. The overwhelming consensus of geologists, hydrologists, climatologists, paleontologists, historians and anthropologists is that there has not been a world-wide flood any time during human history. The key tenets of flood geology have been refuted by scientific analysis and have no standing in the scientific community.

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.

I would disagree. There are enough people who have studied enough to be qualified as experts in the field of religion or theology, who are atheist.

[Goat]

I would disagree. There are enough people who have studied enough to be qualified as experts in the field of religion or theology, who are atheist.

I will even go as far as on the out on a limb that there are a number of people who are qualified to be experts on the field of religion or theology that became atheists because of their studies.

[Cathar1950]

I would disagree. There are enough people who have studied enough to be qualified as experts in the field of religion or theology, who are atheist.

I will even go as far as on the out on a limb that there are a number of people who are qualified to be experts on the field of religion or theology that became atheists because of their studies.

I would think there is that and everything in between atheists, agnostics and deist.
There also panentheist, pantheist and many we have not thought of yet.
There are also experts that are nothing more the apologists.

I could be an expert in magical spells even if they don't work I could know all about them.

[nygreenguy]

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.

I disagree. I can pretty much guarantee that I can fabricate up some scientific facts and you wont be able to catch them.

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

Religion is not at ALL the same as science.

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.

Not certainly! It is a 100% settled fact the flood NEVER HAPPENED. It is a scientific impossibility.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

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

Religion is not at ALL the same as science.

It's worth noting that there are at least two types of religious experts in academia. In the humanities, theologians often embrace a particular religion and reason under the assumption that the claims of their religion are true. In the social sciences, religious studies is a secular field that does not attempt to evaluate the truth claims of various religions. Rather, it is concerned with the historic and phenomenological aspects of religion: How has it changed? What dis/similarities exist? How do beliefs affect individuals, societies, cultures, etc?

In the latter discipline, academics may refer to objectively verifiable evidence much as in other social and natural sciences.

Graduates of religious higher education (e.g., seminary or divinity school) could also be considered experts on the doctrinal claims of their particular religion/denomination/sect. However, this expert status would not necessarily enable them to evaluate the truth of those claims. As someone who does not accept personal revelation or faith as valid methods of evaluating truth claims, I would defer to their expertise on the content of their beliefs but not the truth of their beliefs.

Now, back to the McCulloch's OP: I've been following this thread for a while and trying to come up with good scenarios where non-experts can reasonably challenge expert scientific consensus. In general, two cases have been mentioned where a challenge might be reasonable: If one believes the expert community might genuinely be incorrect or that the community might have an ulterior motive (beyond the search for truth) for propounding a particular idea.

In the first case, it is unlikely that a non-expert will have the knowledge and analytical skills to challenge experts. More likely, he or she was mistaken. However, I think it is unwise to automatically discount amateur scientific efforts. The democratization of science has been receiving lots of attention in scientific circles for the past decade or so. Especially in younger experimental sciences like biology, publishable research may be performed at the undergraduate level. With the plummeting costs of molecular biology equipment and sequencing services, and the nascent DIY bio movement, I would not be surprised if future amateur researchers made larger contributions (and more substantial challenges) to expert knowledge in academia.

The second case is interesting in the context of two contentious topics in this subforum: flood geology and evolution. I haven't noticed it on this forum, but I've seen several real-life young earth creationists who believe that scientists do have an ulterior motive (whether or not they consciously realize it): Evolution justifies atheism, thereby freeing experts from the constraints of traditional Christian morality. It's infrequent, but these individuals will show up at academic talks (especially publicly advertised evolutionary bio talks) and question the presenter's motives during the Q&A. Such criticism may be reasonable within the worldview and assumptions of the critic, but probably stems from a lack of understanding of the scientific method and peer review (even allowing for the inevitable internal politicking mentioned by Sjoerd).

[nygreenguy]

I just got dont listening to Dr. Neil Tyson radio show Star Talk and they were talking about pseudoscience, and its perfect for this discussion. Its a free download/stream

http://startalkradio.net/2009/08/02/cosmic-quackery

[otseng]

But I see that as exactly the issue - understanding the "basic points" and pointing out flaws you see in them doesn't make any sense because you don't have the whole picture. That's where the experts have a great advantage - they know a lot more in-depth about the subject and will almost definitely covered the "issues" you have found.

I don't claim to have the whole picture. I'm simply raising points on issues that I see. And if my understanding is flawed (which very well could be), people are free to point out the facts to correct my understanding. Also if the experts have already covered the issues I've raised, then that data could be raised for us to discuss.

[nygreenguy]

I don't claim to have the whole picture. I'm simply raising points on issues that I see. And if my understanding is flawed (which very well could be), people are free to point out the facts to correct my understanding. Also if the experts have already covered the issues I've raised, then that data could be raised for us to discuss.

You know, in college there is a reason for having 400 level, 300 level, 200 level and so on classes.

The 100 level and 200 levels build a solid foundation for the 300,400 and up. If you try to take a 400 level without first taking the basics, it simply wont make much sense (most of the time) even if someone tries to explain it to you.

[otseng]

And yet, you post supposed evidence, in the form of pictures, implying that they support the flood model rather than standard geology. People here are free to point out the errors in your interpretation of the evidence, but few of us are qualified to properly assess them.

That might be true that few are qualified to properly assess my arguments, but that doesn't mean that I should not be free to present my arguments. Or that is is irrational or unreasonable on my part to do so.

And I certainly would not wish to disallow it either. I am allowed to appeal the application of certain laws to the Supreme Court. It would be irrational and ill advised for me to do so without expert legal counsel.

If I were to argue in front of the Supreme Court, I would also hire expert counsel. But, we're nowhere close to the stature of the Supreme Court here on this lowly little forum.

I often read Consumers Reports. If I am making a major purchase, I will refer to their ratings. If they unanimously and unambiguously recommend one particular model over all other competing models after doing their tests, I believe that it would be irrational of me to dispute their findings unless I become an expert myself (that is perform a series of tests to evaluate the performance of the various models in my setting).

Consumer Reports has a high degree of impartiality and is fairly immune from monetary influence. But, if someone wants to challenge their ratings and can provide evidence, he should be free to do so. And if he does present evidence that is contrary to Consumer Report findings, then it is entirely possible that Consumer Reports was incorrect.

However, it is not reasonable to challenge the consensus of the experts in any field as complex as geology, hydrology, biology or cosmology, when you are not yourself an expert.

To simply say that something is correct because the experts agree would actually be a logical fallacy. If evidence and logic is presented to support (or attack) a position, no matter who it is from, it would be entirely reasonable.

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

Not at all. People should be allowed to be as irrational as they wish.

To clarify, are you saying that when a non-expert on religion debates here and attacks a position of the religious experts, that would be irrational?

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.

The overwhelming consensus of geologists, hydrologists, climatologists, paleontologists, historians and anthropologists is that there has not been a world-wide flood any time during human history. The key tenets of flood geology have been refuted by scientific analysis and have no standing in the scientific community.

Of course all the conventional geologists would discount the flood. My point is that there is no "settled consensus" among all experts regarding the flood. There exists a set of geologists that accept a flood.

Further, if key tenets of the flood have been refuted already by scientific analysis, the debate should center on those pieces of evidence, not on the qualifications of the participants.

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.

I would disagree. There are enough people who have studied enough to be qualified as experts in the field of religion or theology, who are atheist.

I'm not so sure someone who is "qualified" as an expert would be the same as a recognized expert. But, no matter.

In debating, it does not matter who is presenting the argument. It does not matter whether he is an expert or not. The only thing that matters is presenting logic and evidence. It doesn't even matter if in reality I am a chimpanzee in an experimental research facility.