I'm sure Creationists would love to dismiss all of the experts in science, especially when there is consensous of scientific thought on the subject. In fact, this is what they MUST do in order to prevail in a debate. The question then becomes of what use is anything gained in a debate where ignorance of the things being debated is needed?
otseng
If you are implying that universities would be a good place to challenge conventional science, I would highly doubt it.
Universities and the research that occurs at them are an excellent place to challenge conventional science, but far from the only one.
And as a matter of fact, I would even say that here on this forum would be the best place to have the most freedom to challenge any field.
If by freedom one means being free to ignore the facts, I would agree. But if you mean free to determine the truth, not so much.
It is precisely because of the open nature of this forum that we can freely engage in debates.
It is precisely because of the relative ignorance of the facts, misunderstanding of the complex subject matter and religiously biased blindness and refusal to accept scientific conclusions that forums such as this are the last place to expect scientific reasoning. It's not that some of the participents CAN'T see reason, but that they WILL NOT accept things which go against their interpretations of ancient writtings.
At universities, there are little opportunities to challenge the establishment.
And yet new and unforseen insights are coming out of the Universities. If by challenge the establishment one means have their religious biases upheld, I guess you would be right, but it would not be for the reason you think, it would be because the paradigm you promote was falsified long ago and no new supporting evidence found. Face it, a flood myth is a poor substitute for actual evidence.
I would say that one's motive has no bearing on being justified to agree or disagree with the experts. Evidence and logic as well should be the justification to agree or disagree.
So what is one to do about dealing with someone who refuses to accept the evidence and logic? It's really frustrating to deal with the twists and turns of a determined, capable debater who simply refuses to admit that he is wrong. Of course, the same could be said of me, but I, at least, have the weight of the facts and a few hundred years of scientific understanding on my side. Creationists do not, no matter what they claim or how well they muddy the waters with rhetoric.
No, I'm not making any implications about SG. Rather, I'm stating that if the FM can be easily dismissed, then providing the evidence should not take much effort.
Actually, the FM was the accepted paradigm for centuries, it took decades of very hard scientific inquiry to falsify it, these years of hard work are NOT easily condensed into a format suitable for posting, though there have been poster who have done well at doing so. But faced by opponents who just WILL NOT see the reasoning behind the science and who have been well prepared by disinformation such as Brown and we are left with what we have.
Take a single claim, the water canopy. It is a fact that water falling from that height would arrive at the surface at several thousand degrees. Explaining exactly how hot would take mathematics that would glaze the eyes of all but a few here(including me). So, when you say it would be simple to refute a water canopy, you would be wrong. And that is really a very minor point. And, as you have demonstrated, you're not going to accept the facts anyway. It's a catch 22. It really doesn't matter how little or how much effort we expend, the results are the same. And you seem to be prone to assigning makework, knowing that no matter what level of effort we make it will change nothing. And your complaints about experts is seen as an attempt to reject all scientific knowledge not built painstakingly here on this forum, kind of leveling the field when in reality the FM is totally falsified.
As McCulloch said
The evidence they have presented in support of flood geology has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community. Flood geology contradicts scientific consensus in disciplines such as geology, physics, meteorology, chemistry, molecular genetics, biology, anthropology, archaeology and paleontology. 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.
He is correct, but convincing them of that is not that easy, especially given their propensity to deny any contrary evidence as an appeal to authority(falsely, as we are speaking of experts in the field involved and the consensus of all but a few of those professionals).
otseng wrote:
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
Is that ALL that is necessary for it to be a logical fallacy? Really? Would you like an opportunity to correct this so there will be no...flavor of...misdirection(I'm REALLY trying to be polite and respectful here). Are there other criteria for it to be a logical fallacy? I await your response(retraction).
Grumpy
