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]

There is a reason for universities, and there is a reason advanced degrees take so long to get.

Having an degree in a subject shows that one has a degree in a subject. Having a degree does not address whether or not the subject is logically coherent and supported by evidence.

Of course not. They offer degrees in Theology and Homeopathy.

I think that nygreenguy's point is that the time it takes to get advanced degrees in a subject is evidence that the subject is complex.

[Grumpy]

Fisherking

I think it's possible that anyone (minus some type of learning disability) can interpret evidence and that it is possible for anyone to fully understand a subject. People are not born being experts.

No, they are EDUCATED into being experts. Often for YEARS, including doing new research into the topic to earn their degrees(Doctorate). So, it will be a very unusual thing for rank amateurs to know more about the subject. Not unheard of, but very, very rare.

Fisherking wrote:
Claiming someone is misunderstanding theory/process (because they may disagree with the concensus) is different than showing that someone is misunderstanding a theory/ process.

Denying the consensus due to personal beliefs or prejudices is also not the same as showing that consensus as false. Denying the facts simply because they do not fit in your world view, ditto.

nygreenguy wrote:

...Many of these subjects, like evolution, cover a very wide range of topics
...can go into very deep detail.
...Many of these details are quite complex and cant always simply be "explained".
...IF these things could be explained on a message board, then we would see way more people getting their degrees online.

And he is absolutely correct, those dissagreeing with the consensus have the burden of showing why that consensus is not valid(falsification), and of showing how their explanation is valid(testing and verification their hypotheses fits ALL of the facts, not just the cherry picked ones).

There is a reason for universities, and there is a reason advanced degrees take so long to get.

Having an degree in a subject shows that one has a degree in a subject. Having a degree does not address whether or not the subject is logically coherent and supported by evidence.

It most certainly does! That taught at the legitimate Universities(ie those without religious bias and denial of the truth) has been rigorously confirmed and peer reviewed, to the best of our ability to know based on currently known facts. Only well established knowledge is taught as fact, research is conducted into that not yet confirmed in order to increase our knowledge but this research is subject to peer review before being accepted as valid. Again, if you are challenging the consensus it is your burden to first falsify it, then submit your alternative explanation to the same process.

Hard? Yes. But that is what you must do to disprove or challenge the consensus.


Grumpy

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm curious...

Grumpy states or implies that one must falsify and offer an alternative explanation for a given notion. Is it really required that an alternative be provided?

What if I could prove X wrong, but have no alternative explanation? Does the original wrong explanation stand?

I'm a layman for sure, but that seems off to me. Surely I'm missing something.

[Goat]

I'm curious...

Grumpy states or implies that one must falsify and offer an alternative explanation for a given notion. Is it really required that an alternative be provided?

What if I could prove X wrong, but have no alternative explanation? Does the original wrong explanation stand?

I'm a layman for sure, but that seems off to me. Surely I'm missing something.

It isn't enough to say that something is wrong. In such things as a well established theory that makes plenty of correct predictions, you have to show how it is not making right predictions, and propose a model that fits the evidence better.

You can show some things might have to be adjusted, but that is different that 'falsifying' everything.

Or, to make things clearer.. . when it comes to certain groups that oppose various theories on religious grounds, just because they are trying to falsify a theory doesn't mean their alternative is correct. To show that "I.D." is correct, you ahve to show how 'I.D.' explains the information better than the TOE. If the TOE is ever falsified, it doesn't automatically mean creationism or 'I.D.' is correct.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm curious...

Grumpy states or implies that one must falsify and offer an alternative explanation for a given notion. Is it really required that an alternative be provided?

What if I could prove X wrong, but have no alternative explanation? Does the original wrong explanation stand?

I'm a layman for sure, but that seems off to me. Surely I'm missing something.

It isn't enough to say that something is wrong. In such things as a well established theory that makes plenty of correct predictions, you have to show how it is not making right predictions, and propose a model that fits the evidence better.

You can show some things might have to be adjusted, but that is different that 'falsifying' everything.

Or, to make things clearer.. . when it comes to certain groups that oppose various theories on religious grounds, just because they are trying to falsify a theory doesn't mean their alternative is correct. To show that "I.D." is correct, you ahve to show how 'I.D.' explains the information better than the TOE. If the TOE is ever falsified, it doesn't automatically mean creationism or 'I.D.' is correct.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm still missing something...

A goofy example:
Lets say I conclusively, beyond all doubt and argument, show 1+1 does not equal 2.

So, I can show 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but I can't show what it actually does equal. What then?

The implication seems to be that not only must you show something false, but you must also offer an alternative. What if I can show where one notion is false, but I have no alternate explanation?

[nygreenguy]

I'm curious...

Grumpy states or implies that one must falsify and offer an alternative explanation for a given notion. Is it really required that an alternative be provided?

What if I could prove X wrong, but have no alternative explanation? Does the original wrong explanation stand?

I'm a layman for sure, but that seems off to me. Surely I'm missing something.

It isn't enough to say that something is wrong. In such things as a well established theory that makes plenty of correct predictions, you have to show how it is not making right predictions, and propose a model that fits the evidence better.

You can show some things might have to be adjusted, but that is different that 'falsifying' everything.

Or, to make things clearer.. . when it comes to certain groups that oppose various theories on religious grounds, just because they are trying to falsify a theory doesn't mean their alternative is correct. To show that "I.D." is correct, you ahve to show how 'I.D.' explains the information better than the TOE. If the TOE is ever falsified, it doesn't automatically mean creationism or 'I.D.' is correct.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm still missing something...

A goofy example:
Lets say I conclusively, beyond all doubt and argument, show 1+1 does not equal 2.

So, I can show 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but I can't show what it actually does equal. What then?

The implication seems to be that not only must you show something false, but you must also offer an alternative. What if I can show where one notion is false, but I have no alternate explanation?

It happens all the time.

[Grumpy]

joeyknuccione

What if I could prove X wrong, but have no alternative explanation? Does the original wrong explanation stand?

No, if you falsify a theory, it is false even if you don't present an alternative. But Creationists ARE proposing an alternative and so must support it.

Grumpy

[JoeyKnothead]

joeyknuccione

What if I could prove X wrong, but have no alternative explanation? Does the original wrong explanation stand?

No, if you falsify a theory, it is false even if you don't present an alternative. But Creationists ARE proposing an alternative and so must support it.

Grumpy

'Preciate it y'all. I wasn't reading the whole ID or other stuff into it, so I kinda got hung up.

[Sjoerd]

A naturalistic world view is one of the foundations of science.

Only recently has it been a "foundation" in science.

Everything that happens must be governed by *some* law and have *some* kind of observable cause.

Yes. However, in a naturalistic worldview, it automatically rejects any type of supernatural cause, even if there is empirical evidence for it.

However, I strongly object against presenting as science something that isn't. If it isn't compatible with the naturalistic worldview, it isn't science.

I would disagree. But, this is not really a part of this topic.

I have started a new topic on this question.

[otseng]

How would you counter the claims of flat-earthers? HOw would you respond to their accusations of bias on your part?

I would counter their claims based on logic and evidence. However, I would not use the argument that just because it is against the majority scientific consensus that it is wrong.

Can I ask for specifics.

What evidence or arguments would you put forth to prove the earth is not flat?

Could you provide any compelling evidence without invoking "the experts?"

For example, any pictures provided from space are dependent on the experts in rocket science, physics, etc. that created our ability for space flight.

Nope, you can't ask for specifics. This thread is not about me having to argue against a position that nobody here claims to be true and, even more importantly, is not relevant to the OP.