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?

[Grumpy]

otseng

Are you saying then that a subject is off-limits to challenge because it has been deemed too complex by the participants?

I think he was pointing out that the lay person simply does not have the ability to challenge every expert in a field of science. He's not saying the subject is off limits because it is deemed too complex by the participants, but that the field IS too complex for neos to participate in meaningful ways(short of education in the field). Sad but true. The Flood thread is a good example of why.

It would be the height of arrogance for me, as one without expert knowledge in such a field to declare that I have been able to interpret the evidence in such a way that virtually every existing expert in the field is completely wrong.

The measure of arrogance should not be a criteria on whether one can challenge the experts.

But the level of knowledge of the field and lack of religious bias sure would be.

If the evidence is so abundant, then it should be easy to refute the flood. So, why the need to resort to simply claiming what the experts believe?

The Flood has been refuted by what the experts KNOW, and what they have published in the textbooks. You reject all this not on grounds of science(despite your claims), but on grounds that you feel your religious beliefs are true and are spending conciderable effort misinterpreting the little you know about that science.

Surely it is more likely that the handful of religious amateurs are wrong in their analyses than the solid scientific consensus of all of those fields are in error.

It is a possibility. But, on what basis can this be determined? I say it is simply by evidence and logical arguments, not appealing to authority.

It is a fact that a group of religiously biased amateurs are wrong to dismiss experts in the fields involved out of hand based simply on their religious beliefs and they simply do not have the science itself on their side. The pseudo-science they try to foist on us is a fraud, it sounds just plausable enough to fool the flock(who, let's face it, WANT to be fooled), but it is a joke to those who have studied the evidence, a sad, sick joke that lowers the standards of scientific education in the U.S. because teachers dumb down their instructions to avoid controversy from the religious parents and community. Why does this only happen in biology class(evolution) and geology class(Flood, young Earth, etc.)? Because what science knows goes against what some interpret their book to say.

I'll give one more argument why it should center on evidence and logic - because we have all agreed to this rule in the forum.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

As we have done, and you have failed to do. Every single point you have tried to make has been refuted by the science involved. You and your sources go against whole fields of professional scientists and the knowledge they have gained, you make up unevidenced,wild scenarios(water canopy, underground oceans(a mud puddle at the bottom of a borehole does not an ocean indicate), water borne, rapid moving contenents, dry periods during a world wide flood, mountain building in a year, rapid deposition of miles of sediment seperated into thousands of layers of different composition and fossils, etc.) to rescue the foundering paradigm(Flood Geology)that even you have to admit is nothing more than speculation, not valid science.

Grumpy

[otseng]

As I have said a million times, you must have the knowledge in order to properly interpet and understand the evidence presented.

Yes, you have said this a million times. Saying it one more time does not make your claim any stronger.

Its not an appeal to authority if a person IS an authority. Its never a fallacy to use the accepted scientific view AS evidence for the truth of a proposition.

What exactly then do you think appeal to authority means?

Some definitions:
"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/releva ... authority/

"Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfall ... hority.htm

These definitions fit exactly what you all are claiming.

You can post ALL the evidence you want but if you dont understand it, its irrelevant.

By all means, please post all the evidence you want. Whether I understand it or not can be judged by the observers of the threads.

[otseng]

Do you really expect that a collection of people who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer technical questions about geology?

This is an open forum. Anyone is free to engage in any debate thread. If someone feels that they are not capable of participating in a thread, then they are under no obligation to participate. Further, if anyone wants to raise any question that is remotely related to religious issues, they are free to do so. There should not exist any barriers to free inquiry or debate.

I have to question your motives.

One's motives for participating on this forum is irrelevant. It would also be an ad hominem argument.

If the later, then do continue to make your arguments here, post more pretty pictures and assert your non-expert interpretations.

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm here?

If the evidence is so abundant, then it should be easy to refute the flood. So, why the need to resort to simply claiming what the experts believe?

Did I make the claim that this is a simple field of study?

No. Where did I state that I think you believe it is a simple field of study? What I'm saying is that if the FM is so easily dismissed by the experts, then it should be simple to provide the evidence that refutes the FM.

Except that I also claim that the experts are more likely to interpret the evidence correctly than we are.

Certainly you can believe that. But, it would not be part of a logical argument.

who are prone to newbie type errors.

If I make errors, then the response should be counter evidence and logic and not using logical fallacies to address those errors.

[otseng]

He's not saying the subject is off limits because it is deemed too complex by the participants, but that the field IS too complex for neos to participate in meaningful ways(short of education in the field).

Complexity is relative. I do not find geology to be so arcane that only the super elite can fathom its deep mysteries.

But the level of knowledge of the field and lack of religious bias sure would be.

These would not be criterias either. If you subscribe to this, I would then say this would disqualify you from challenging anything stated by religious experts.

The Flood has been refuted by what the experts KNOW, and what they have published in the textbooks.

Then present what they published in these textbooks and we can then review them.

[T-mash]

What exactly then do you think appeal to authority means?

Some definitions:
"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/releva ... authority/

"Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Just passing by but from that site:
"However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited."

Saying that humans aren't animals because your math teacher says it and he is a smart guy and a teacher = a fallacy
Saying that humans are animals because biologists have conclusively proven this fact = not a fallacy.

Or as wikipedia says it:

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.


Sorry for the off-topic post

[McCulloch]

Do you really expect that a collection of people who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer technical questions about geology?

This is an open forum. Anyone is free to engage in any debate thread. If someone feels that they are not capable of participating in a thread, then they are under no obligation to participate. Further, if anyone wants to raise any question that is remotely related to religious issues, they are free to do so. There should not exist any barriers to free inquiry or debate.

I agree with your statements, however, they do not seem to address the issue. If someone wanted to learn the fundamentals of the science of geology to find out whether claims of flood geology are valid or just pseudo-science, where is it that you think you would get the best quality answers to your questions? In an open forum where people who believe that they are neanderthals are free to post. Or in an accredited educational and research facility where the instructors have legitimate credentials and there results are subject to validation and review by other experts in the field?

I have to question your motives.

One's motives for participating on this forum is irrelevant. It would also be an ad hominem argument.

Yes, your motives are irrelevant to whether your arguments regarding flood geology are correct. But one's motives are relevant to the question of whether an amateur is justified to disagree with the consensus of every expert in several fields of study.

If the later, then do continue to make your arguments here, post more pretty pictures and assert your non-expert interpretations.

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm here?

You're being too polite. My comment was quite sarcastic. It is difficult not to be sarcastic. You present argument after argument, which with a little (or sometimes a lot) of research are repeatedly refuted by legitimate experts in their fields.

If the evidence is so abundant, then it should be easy to refute the flood. So, why the need to resort to simply claiming what the experts believe?

Did I make the claim that this is a simple field of study?

No. Where did I state that I think you believe it is a simple field of study?

In stating that it would be easy to refute the flood, you are implying that geology is a simple field of study.

What I'm saying is that if the FM is so easily dismissed by the experts, then it should be simple to provide the evidence that refutes the FM.

I disagree. Not all error is so easy to refute. For example, the four color problem can be stated rather simply. Yet, the proof involved reducing the infinitude of possible maps to 1,936 reducible configurations which had to be checked one by one by computer and took over a thousand hours.

Except that I also claim that the experts are more likely to interpret the evidence correctly than we are.

Certainly you can believe that. But, it would not be part of a logical argument.

To continue with the four color problem cited above. There were several early failed attempts at proving the theorem. One proof was given by Alfred Kempe in 1879 yet it was not until 1890 that Kempe's proof was shown incorrect by Percy Heawood. I have read Kempe's proof and it would have convinced me. And I know a bit about mathematics.

Creationists, masquerading as scientists, present selected and filtered information, sometimes outright misinformation and plausible sounding theories. Sometimes they can convince those who are not experts in the field. I am sure that you have experienced that in your own lectures on the topic. Have you looked for refutations of your ideas in the texts and the journals of geology? Do you really expect that your ideas will be more adequately and rigorously tested by web forum users armed with Google and Wikipedia than by qualified experts in the relevant fields of study?

who are prone to newbie type errors.

If I make errors, then the response should be counter evidence and logic and not using logical fallacies to address those errors.

We will continue to do that. However, since most of us are also newbies in geology, I have little confidence that we will catch every mistake. Do you?

[micatala]

No. Where did I state that I think you believe it is a simple field of study? What I'm saying is that if the FM is so easily dismissed by the experts, then it should be simple to provide the evidence that refutes the FM.

I would humbly submit that this has been done to the NTh degree on the other thread. I realize otseng does not accept my characterization of the evidence and the debate, but simply refusing to accept that the evidence presented proves the falsity of the FM beyond any reasonable doubt does not mean that the evidence does not indicate this.

[Goose]

Do you really expect that a collection of people who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer technical questions about geology?

This is an open forum. Anyone is free to engage in any debate thread. If someone feels that they are not capable of participating in a thread, then they are under no obligation to participate. Further, if anyone wants to raise any question that is remotely related to religious issues, they are free to do so. There should not exist any barriers to free inquiry or debate.

I agree with your statements, however, they do not seem to address the issue. If someone wanted to learn the fundamentals of the science of geology to find out whether claims of flood geology are valid or just pseudo-science, where is it that you think you would get the best quality answers to your questions? In an open forum where people who believe that they are neanderthals are free to post. Or in an accredited educational and research facility where the instructors have legitimate credentials and there results are subject to validation and review by other experts in the field?

I smell some sour grapes. But this cuts both ways. Consider your earlier statement with a little editing...

No. I am saying that as a non-expert, perhaps you should be raising your questions with those who are experts rather than in an open forum. Do you really expect that a collection of [strike]people[/strike][laymen, atheists, agnostics, and sceptics] who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer [strike]technical[/strike] [difficult] questions about [strike]geology[/strike] [theology]? I have to question your motives. Are you attempting to get to the bottom of the issues and gain a truer, fuller understanding of the topic or are you just trying to convince some people of the truth of your particular [non-]faith? If the former, then I suggest that you read some advanced [strike]geology[/strike] [theology] texts, take some [strike]geology[/strike] [theology] courses, correspond with some [strike]geologists[/strike] [theologians], subscribe to some [strike]geology[/strike][theology] journals. If the later, then do continue to make your arguments [strike]here[/strike] [in the apologetics sub-forum], post more [strike]pretty pictures [/strike] [already debunked arguments] and assert your non-expert interpretations.

We can all go home now...

[Goat]

Do you really expect that a collection of people who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer technical questions about geology?

This is an open forum. Anyone is free to engage in any debate thread. If someone feels that they are not capable of participating in a thread, then they are under no obligation to participate. Further, if anyone wants to raise any question that is remotely related to religious issues, they are free to do so. There should not exist any barriers to free inquiry or debate.

I agree with your statements, however, they do not seem to address the issue. If someone wanted to learn the fundamentals of the science of geology to find out whether claims of flood geology are valid or just pseudo-science, where is it that you think you would get the best quality answers to your questions? In an open forum where people who believe that they are neanderthals are free to post. Or in an accredited educational and research facility where the instructors have legitimate credentials and there results are subject to validation and review by other experts in the field?

I smell some sour grapes. But this cuts both ways. Consider your earlier statement with a little editing...

No. I am saying that as a non-expert, perhaps you should be raising your questions with those who are experts rather than in an open forum. Do you really expect that a collection of [strike]people[/strike][laymen, atheists, agnostics, and sceptics] who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer [strike]technical[/strike] [difficult] questions about [strike]geology[/strike] [theology]? I have to question your motives. Are you attempting to get to the bottom of the issues and gain a truer, fuller understanding of the topic or are you just trying to convince some people of the truth of your particular [non-]faith? If the former, then I suggest that you read some advanced [strike]geology[/strike] [theology] texts, take some [strike]geology[/strike] [theology] courses, correspond with some [strike]geologists[/strike] [theologians], subscribe to some [strike]geology[/strike][theology] journals. If the later, then do continue to make your arguments [strike]here[/strike] [in the apologetics sub-forum], post more [strike]pretty pictures [/strike] [already debunked arguments] and assert your non-expert interpretations.

We can all go home now...

There is one big difference. When it comes to theology , you can find a great deal of diversity even among people who profess the same religion.

Well, make that several big differences. When it comes to religion there is this little thing known as 'evidence'. Religion and theology often deal with metaphysical claims. Science deals with this little thing known as 'reality'

[McCulloch]

Consider your earlier statement with a little editing...

No. I am saying that as a non-expert, perhaps you should be raising your questions with those who are experts rather than in an open forum. Do you really expect that a collection of [strike]people[/strike][laymen, atheists, agnostics, and sceptics] who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer [strike]technical[/strike] [difficult] questions about [strike]geology[/strike] [theology]? I have to question your motives. Are you attempting to get to the bottom of the issues and gain a truer, fuller understanding of the topic or are you just trying to convince some people of the truth of your particular [non-]faith? If the former, then I suggest that you read some advanced [strike]geology[/strike] [theology] texts, take some [strike]geology[/strike] [theology] courses, correspond with some [strike]geologists[/strike] [theologians], subscribe to some [strike]geology[/strike][theology] journals. If the later, then do continue to make your arguments [strike]here[/strike] [in the apologetics sub-forum], post more [strike]pretty pictures [/strike] [already debunked arguments] and assert your non-expert interpretations.

We can all go home now...

Theology is a subset of the field of human study called philosophy. If all philosophers were (or even theologists) were as united on any point as the geologists are against the alleged evidence of a global universal flood during human history, then you would have a point. The question for debate, if you recall, is When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field? Since philosophy and theology are not sciences, it does not apply. As well, I would agree, in principle, that it would be irrational for a layperson to disagree with a unanimous or even a nearly unanimous consensus of philosophers. I strongly suspect that my agreement here is moot, in that such a consensus is unlikely.

This all goes to what we can expect to achieve through debate. In any sufficiently advanced field where there is a virtual consensus of the experts on a point, there is little or nothing to be gained by our debates. The debate is either over, or it will take someone with significant insight and depth of knowledge to re-open it. Should we then forgo debating? Not at all. There are many areas where, in spite of their best efforts, the experts are still divided. Let us debate those issues rather than quixotically debating that which has already been concluded. But even then, unless we are experts in the particular field, we should bring to bear what we can from the acknowledged experts in any field we may be debating.