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?

[otseng]

What I mean by that is while you may think you have evidence to support your point, its simply a misunderstanding of the whole theory/process.

It is certainly possible. But the correct way to point that out would be to present the evidence to correct the misunderstanding, not to simply claim that I'm undereducated.

[micatala]

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.

It is absolutely relevant to the OP. The Flat Earth Society is an example of a group that argues against the experts.

For those who think it is OK to disagree with the experts, they are in some sense on the same side as the Flat Earth Society members.

For those who think it is reasonable for non-experts to be able to make the experts' arguments for them, without having the expertise and without simply saying "the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion" is on their side, the implication is one should be able to argue against the Flat Earth Society on behalf of the expert consensus view without appealing to the authority of the experts.

If one believes it is OK to dismiss the expert opinion unless the lay people holding the same opinion can support that position on their own, then it seems to me it is OK to dismiss modern astronomy unless one can counter the Flat Earth arguments without relying on the experts, using only, as you say, evidence and logic.



I repeat, it seems to me it is absolutely relevant and on topic to ask you to indicate how you would defend modern astronomy against Flat Earthers without appealing to experts or evidence provided by their expertise.

It is a highly relevant example to the general issue that is the topic of the thread.

[nygreenguy]

What I mean by that is while you may think you have evidence to support your point, its simply a misunderstanding of the whole theory/process.

It is certainly possible. But the correct way to point that out would be to present the evidence to correct the misunderstanding, not to simply claim that I'm undereducated.

We have, but you dont think its adequate. This is because you are not familiar with the science. As I said before, if I could explain geology on an internet message board, then no one would need to go to university.

At some point, you must realize you dont know it all and you cant and you MUST fall back on expert opinion.

[otseng]

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.

It is absolutely relevant to the OP. The Flat Earth Society is an example of a group that argues against the experts.

If the thread was about "is the earth flat?", then it would be relevant to get into specifics. But we're not debating that topic.

On the issue of going against the experts, again the point is that the debates should center on the evidence and logic. Are you disagreeing with this statement?

I repeat, it seems to me it is absolutely relevant and on topic to ask you to indicate how you would defend modern astronomy against Flat Earthers without appealing to experts or evidence provided by their expertise.

Certainly one can use evidence provided by the experts. But that is different from appealing to authority.

[McCulloch]

On the issue of going against the experts, again the point is that the debates should center on the evidence and logic. Are you disagreeing with this statement?

And yet for any sufficiently complex subject there can be quite a bit of evidence, and significant complexity in interpreting the meaning of the evidence. There are people who have spent considerable time and effort studying these fields. Their work has been scrutinized by others with expertise in the subject.

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. And yet, in so many fields of study, amateurs armed with selected bits of information and odd improbable interpretations continue to claim that they have uncovered the secret truths that have evaded every expert in the field. Homeopathy, for example, has absolutely no scientific basis, yet its advocates and apologists will trot out a confusing array of supporting evidence. Now, most of us have not the resources nor the expertise to test the claims of Homeopathy. The collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence is completely against Homeopathy. Systematic reviews of all the published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy. All bona fide medical experts, without exception, have concluded that Homeopathy is bunk. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for me, to even entertain that it has any merit. I have not the expertise to generate nor to evaluate the evidence. And if I did, I would probably agree with what has already been done. If I came up with contrary results it would be more likely that I had made an error in testing or interpretation than I had discovered a fundamental error in the methodology of an entire field of study.

Similarly with Flood Geology. 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.

[otseng]

On the issue of going against the experts, again the point is that the debates should center on the evidence and logic. Are you disagreeing with this statement?

And yet for any sufficiently complex subject there can be quite a bit of evidence, and significant complexity in interpreting the meaning of the evidence.

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

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.

The evidence they have presented in support of flood geology has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community.

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?

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.

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.

[Scotracer]

On the issue of going against the experts, again the point is that the debates should center on the evidence and logic. Are you disagreeing with this statement?

And yet for any sufficiently complex subject there can be quite a bit of evidence, and significant complexity in interpreting the meaning of the evidence.

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

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.

The evidence they have presented in support of flood geology has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community.

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?

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.

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.

The problem is, without being part of a geological institute, we don't have access to all the data or the understanding to interpret that data properly.

If you think what you believe contradicts almost all the experts in the field, I think it's pretty likely you're wrong. Especially considering they have access to more data than you do.

[otseng]

The problem is, without being part of a geological institute, we don't have access to all the data or the understanding to interpret that data properly.

I would grant that experts have better access to information in their own field than do the layman. But, that doesn't mean that all the information is locked up and not accessible to us. We can still debate on what we have access to and can provide references for. And there's plenty of that for us to base our debates on.

If you think what you believe contradicts almost all the experts in the field, I think it's pretty likely you're wrong. Especially considering they have access to more data than you do.

Again, it's a possibility. But, simply stating that you think I'm wrong would be a matter of personal opinion. Ad even if everyone else in the world thinks I'm wrong, it would likewise be opinions. But, if one can show through evidence and logic that I'm wrong, it would then no longer be just an opinion.

[nygreenguy]

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Many people say that global warming is good, and a part of this reason is many plants experience increased growth in high co2 environments. However, because they lack the understanding in plant physiology what they dont realize is yes, the crops will grow bigger, but the fruit which they produce will NOT increase. Only the plant biomass increases so we actually end up with plants that use more water and need more nutrients to support their increased growth, which may actually be a determent to fruit output.

See, they though they had the evidence, and they presented it. The problem was, they didnt understand any of the theory or anything behind it. That takes something called an education. Its disgustingly arrogant to think that you can read a few blogs and think you can somehow "know" the earth is only thousands of years old and all of science is wrong. If you are uneducated on a topic you MUST resort to expert opinion. After all, thats WHY we go to school. To learn from those who have experience.

[McCulloch]

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

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 people who have gathered to debate things religious would be the best group of people to answer technical questions about geology? 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 faith? If the former, then I suggest that you read some advanced geology texts, take some geology courses, correspond with some geologists, subscribe to some geology journals. If the later, then do continue to make your arguments here, post more pretty pictures and assert your non-expert interpretations.

The evidence they have presented in support of flood geology has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community.

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? If you believe that I have done so, then I apologize for my mis-communication. Geology is a difficult and complex field of study. I will not pretend that it can be understood properly with a few pictures and some postings on an internet site. However, there are certain things which are universally accepted by those who have given the field serious study. If there was some disagreement among the experts in this field, I would say that your case had some merit. However, since there is none, it is more likely that whatever selected evidence and arguments you post are misleading than it is that you are correct. And I don't have the training to properly assess that information any more than you could validate the solution to the four color problem.

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.

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

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.

And yet, evidence and logic supports the assertion that a consensus of all available experts on a complex topic are more likely to have interpreted the evidence correctly than a some non-experts, who are prone to newbie type errors.