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?

[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.

[Miles]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

[Cathar1950]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

But it is more reasonable for others to doubt him.
What is scientific dogma?

[Miles]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

But it is more reasonable for others to doubt him.

Absolutely! Any isolated and unique personal experience just about demands doubt.

What is scientific dogma?

Scientific dogma is typically a pretty well established belief, or opinion, and sometimes even a "fact."

[Scotracer]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

But it is more reasonable for others to doubt him.

Absolutely! Any isolated and unique personal experience just about demands doubt.

What is scientific dogma?

Scientific dogma is typically a pretty well established belief, or opinion, and sometimes even a "fact."

It's an oxymoron to say "Scientific Dogma". Dogma is something that is not to be challenged or deviated from. Everything in science is open to challenge.

[Cathar1950]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

But it is more reasonable for others to doubt him.

Absolutely! Any isolated and unique personal experience just about demands doubt.

What is scientific dogma?

Scientific dogma is typically a pretty well established belief, or opinion, and sometimes even a "fact."

It's an oxymoron to say "Scientific Dogma". Dogma is something that is not to be challenged or deviated from. Everything in science is open to challenge.

I was going to say the same thing which is why I asked what it was.
Which is why science has been such a good tool challenging dogma.
Granted some will hang on to old paradigms but science marches on and eventually it is understood and sometimes even extending the knowledge and explanations not restricting them as with dogma or even doctrine.
I find it interesting that the words "Scientific Dogma" were used and always wonder the source of such phrases and the purpose.
We need to start pools.


I am not paranoid; it would take me years of behavioral conditioning to get where I was just paranoid.

[Miles]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

But it is more reasonable for others to doubt him.

Absolutely! Any isolated and unique personal experience just about demands doubt.

What is scientific dogma?

Scientific dogma is typically a pretty well established belief, or opinion, and sometimes even a "fact."

It's an oxymoron to say "Scientific Dogma". Dogma is something that is not to be challenged or deviated from. Everything in science is open to challenge.

Really! As you must be aware words often carry more than one meaning. "Dogma" is just one such word.




dogma Pronunciation [dawg-muh, dog-]

–noun, plural -mas, -mata

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

source

____________________________________________________________________

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)

NOUN:
pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta
A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).


source

____________________________________________________________________

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

source

____________________________________________________________________

And probably the most enlightening definition: ↓ ↓ ↓____________________________________________________________________

Dogma
Dog"ma , n.; pl. E. Dogmas (#), L. Dogmata (#). [L. dogma, Gr. , pl. , fr. to think, seem, appear; akin to L. decet it is becoming. Cf. Decent.]

1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.

2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet.

3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

Syn. -- tenet; opinion; proposition; doctrine. -- Dogma, Tenet. A tenet is that which is maintained as true with great firmness; as, the tenets of our holy religion. A dogma is that which is laid down with authority as indubitably true, especially a religious doctrine; as, the dogmas of the church. A tenet rests on its own intrinsic merits or demerits; a dogma rests on authority regarded as competent to decide and determine. Dogma has in our language acquired, to some extent, a repulsive sense, from its carrying with it the idea of undue authority or assumption. this is more fully the case with its derivatives dogmatical and dogmatism.


source

[micatala]

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.

I accept my example does not fit, and in fact, acknowledged that after bringing it up.


I'll try again.


I'll also say up front you may disallow this as it involves medical consensus, not scientific consensus. You can decide to what extent medicine counts as a science.



In this country, the medical establishment is overwhelming opposed to home birth. There are very few doctors who are willing to assist a woman having birth intentionally at home. Doctors often claim home birth is unsafe, and this is the reason they are unwilling to assist with home births. In many cases, the doctors and nursing organizations actively try to stamp out home birth by prosecuting lay midwives who are willing to assist with home births and refusing to serve in collaborative relationships with certified nurse midwives who would be willing to assist with home births.


Now, I will make some tentative claims that others can challenge me regarding this example. My first claim is that the data does not support the claim that home birth is unsafe. My second claim is that at least some of the opposition to home birth among the medical establishment is for economic reasons. A lot of women having home births would cut into the revenue of obstetricians, hospitals, anasthesiologists, etc.



It is certainly worth highlighting that this example brings up one possible general reason for disagreeing with the consensus of the experts. If the experts have a tangible monetary or other interest in supporting a particular view, they might support this view even if the data or science does not. It could be that the data or science is inconclusive, which is probably more common, or that it is in fact counter the claims of the experts.



How often might this happen? Probably not too often. Certainly I can't see any economic reason why the consensus of biologists would claim evolution is true, for example. More often, I think what happens is some cadre of experts, usually a minority, will make claims counter what the evidence shows for economic reasons. Global warming would be one example. In past times, the risks of smoking might be another.


Thus, I would say that, to the extent a clearly identifiable economic interest among a large majority of the experts in the field exists, non-experts would have a reason to question the claims of the experts. Since we are talking about consensuses (consenses?), the interest would have to involve at least a large majority of the experts in the area. Also, I think an additional caveat would be that agreement on the scientific claims would need to be important to maintaining the economic benefit for our disagreement with them to make sense.

[micatala]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

But it is more reasonable for others to doubt him.

Absolutely! Any isolated and unique personal experience just about demands doubt.

What is scientific dogma?

Scientific dogma is typically a pretty well established belief, or opinion, and sometimes even a "fact."

It's an oxymoron to say "Scientific Dogma". Dogma is something that is not to be challenged or deviated from. Everything in science is open to challenge.

I was going to say the same thing which is why I asked what it was.
Which is why science has been such a good tool challenging dogma.
Granted some will hang on to old paradigms but science marches on and eventually it is understood and sometimes even extending the knowledge and explanations not restricting them as with dogma or even doctrine.
I find it interesting that the words "Scientific Dogma" were used and always wonder the source of such phrases and the purpose.
We need to start pools.


I am not paranoid; it would take me years of behavioral conditioning to get where I was just paranoid.

I would point out that where one might legitimately point to scientific claims as being treated as "dogma", this dogma was over-turned not by non-experts, but by scientists.

The geocentric paradigm for the solar system was overthrown by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, all experts in their day.

The Newtonian paradigm for gravity was overthrown by Newton.

Ancient, medival and even Renaissance era paradigms on disease were overthrown by Pasteur.



Can anyone think of a historical scientific consensus that was overthrown by non-experts?

[Goat]

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

It's not reasonable, unless one has had a personal experience that clearly flies in the face of scientific dogma. However, a person may well have interpreted that experience as being contrary to established scientific claims when it truly wasn't, but that doesn't rob him of a reasonable presumption to mount his challenge.

There are many times someone might experience something they believe flys in the face of established scientific investigation. That does not mean they are right. I know a lot of people who claim to have seen ghosts. One time, someone very excitedly pointed one out to me, until I pointed out it was actually the reflection of the street lamp in the window.