Are you smarter than the experts?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2597
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #1

Post by historia »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:45 am
I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.
This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #61

Post by The Nice Centurion »

Goat wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:39 pm
The Nice Centurion wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:44 pm
historia wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:33 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:45 am
I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.
This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?
Sorry, but . . . Argument from Authority is perhaps the most well known Logical Fallacy 😉
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
It also is the most misused one. There is nothing wrong to appeal to an expert, if , indeed they are actually an expert. For example, I would be more than happy to quote an infectious disease expert on what is currently understood about the state of a pandemic, particularly if they point to hard data that can support their viewpoint.

That is certainly more reliable than, for example, to push an untested cure by someone who has trouble completing a full sentence. The 'appeal to authority' is also what is known as 'an informal fallacy' . The authority might be wrong, but usually they have access to better training and data than the average person.
No one said it is wrong to appeal to Authority. But the OP Question seems to ask ""Why Oh Why, could one ever be so daring to critizice/question a consens of experts?
And this, if you allow, is Argument from Authority in full blossom!
Expert consens was once that the world is flat, that the sun orbits the earth, that it is impossible to build a fliying machine, that man can never go to the moon, that Panda Bears are a fairy tale and so on.

Now what you do here is adding two worse to defend one bad.
Argument from Authority is badly defended when you defend it with one or more Strawman Fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

First Strawman: You put words into my mouth I never said, that is wrote. ( I never wrote appealing to an Authority is wrong.)
Second Strawman: You bring up a person who cant utter a full sentence and comes complete with a pandemic cure. .Who might that be? Albert Schweitzers Half-Mute Grandson?
Last edited by The Nice Centurion on Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again.”

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon!"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #62

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Yes. I think we covered this.

a) the experts can be wrong
b) but they generally know better than the non -experts
c) Science (experts) can change their minds
d) any authority can be questioned.

And yet, the last serious science Theory or Law was the Ptolemaic system. Once the sun was put at the centre of the solar system, everything else (that there were stars beyond, that the orbits were elliptical, black holes etc.) just added information, it didn't overturn it.

And 'they denied powered flight' is another well used fallacy (a variant of the black swan fallacy). The principles of flight were already known and that it was possible to have powered flight was a claim (like Relativity, for instance) that required verification before it was accepted as true. If it wasn't done that way, cold fusion would have been accepted as true without checking, the China Fake fossil would not have been shown fake and for that matter, we would still accept Piltydown man and the crystal skulls as genuine.

The upshot is that questioning authority is always valid, and validated data becomes better when the questions are answered. This does not validate rejection of well validated data confirmed by science, especially on faith based dogmatic grounds.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11292
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 354 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #63

Post by 1213 »

Goat wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:06 am ...We have the green river vars, that record the sediment that built up over time, and the covers millions of years....
But no proof that it really covers millions of years.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #64

Post by TRANSPONDER »

1213 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:59 am
Goat wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:06 am ...We have the green river vars, that record the sediment that built up over time, and the covers millions of years....
But no proof that it really covers millions of years.
Yes, there is. And you have no excuse for not knowing the evidence, even if you question it.

It's easy to look it up and this is from something as accessible as the national geographic.

After the various cases for relative dating which showed that the earth had to be older than any Bible -based time, Radiometric dating became a more accurate method.

"As advances in chemistry, geology, and physics continued, scientists found a method by which the absolute age—an actual number of years—of a rock or mineral sample could be determined. This method is called radiometric dating, and it involves the decay, or breakdown, of radioactive elements. Using radiometric dating techniques, it became possible to determine the actual age of a sample.

Radiometric dating requires an understanding of isotopes. Isotopes are variations of an element differentiated by the number of neutrons in their nuclei. The isotopes of unstable radioactive elements—known as parent isotopes—eventually decay into other, more stable elements—known as daughter isotopes—in a predictable manner, and in a precise amount of time called a half-life. The half-life of an element is the amount of time required for exactly half of a quantity of that element to decay. The age of a sample can be determined based on the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes within the sample.

One problem with this approach to dating rocks and minerals on Earth is the presence of the rock cycle. During the rock cycle, rocks are constantly changing between forms, going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary. Old rocks may even be destroyed as they slide back into Earth’s mantle, to be replaced by newer rocks formed by solidified lava. This makes finding an exact age for Earth difficult, because the original rocks that formed on the planet at the earliest stages of its creation are no longer here. The oldest rocks that have been found are about 3.8-billion years old, though some tiny minerals have been dated at 4.2 billion years.

To get around the difficulty presented by the rock cycle, scientists have looked elsewhere in the solar system for even older rock samples. They have examined rocks from the moon and from meteorites, neither of which have been altered by the rock cycle. The same techniques of radiometric dating have been used on those rocks. All the data from Earth and beyond has led to the estimated age of 4.5 billion years for our planet.
absolute dating
."

I recall that I already posted a debunk of the stock YE Creationist niggles about Radiometric inaccuracies.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #65

Post by Goat »

1213 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:59 am
Goat wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:06 am ...We have the green river vars, that record the sediment that built up over time, and the covers millions of years....
But no proof that it really covers millions of years.
Why yes, it does.

There is this thing known as 'radiometic dating.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11292
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 354 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #66

Post by 1213 »

Goat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:45 pm ...
There is this thing known as 'radiometic dating.
We have no way to confirm it gives correct dates.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #67

Post by TRANSPONDER »

1213 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:32 am
Goat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:45 pm ...
There is this thing known as 'radiometic dating.
We have no way to confirm it gives correct dates.
Yes there is. And even if not, logically since there is no mechanism for variation in natural physical processes and not even any logical reason for a supernatural effect to fiddle with it, the burden of proof would be on you to show that it wasn't constant, rather than on science to show that it was. And yet it had.

This is the problem with Genesis -literalist YE Creationists. The burden of proof is on them to make the case for creation. That is, effectively ID - the fingerprints of a god, in nature. These days there is no real gap for a god in natural processes. You have no evidence.

Science (evolution, in the broadest sense) has all the evidence and your improbable doubts, such as 'perhaps radioactive decay varies for no apparent reason' are without merit until you show that happens. But dendrochronology, ice cores and indeed the evidence of old earth shown by strata and (as mentioned) varves, is all confirmation that the old earth evidence is reliable and creationism has nothing.

RATE - the attempt to discredit Radiometric dating failed,The attempt to push ID failed in a law court at Kitzmiller vs Dover. The Creationist case has failed everywhere and the only method they have now is propaganda and pushing for political control that will push it through that way and never mind the evidence.

p.s And here we are, yet again, with a Believer trying to deny science so as to validate Genesis Literalism which is what all this is about and all that it is ever about.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #68

Post by Goat »

1213 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:32 am
Goat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:45 pm ...
There is this thing known as 'radiometic dating.
We have no way to confirm it gives correct dates.
You are wrong. While there is a margin of error, it is highly accurate way of doing it.

https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11292
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 354 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #69

Post by 1213 »

Goat wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:53 pm
1213 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:32 am
Goat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:45 pm ...
There is this thing known as 'radiometic dating.
We have no way to confirm it gives correct dates.
You are wrong. While there is a margin of error, it is highly accurate way of doing it.

https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901
That may be assuring for those who believe, but not confirming for those who are not gullible.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #70

Post by TRANSPONDER »

There is a difference in Believe (credit the evidence) or Faith (believe without evidence or in spite of it) and Gullibility applies more to those who dismiss the validated evidence because it's not what the want to hear. You see, what you are doing all wrong is saying that you know better than the experts, even though you have no evidence.

But mainly, you think that all you need to do is deny everything and somehow you win. Because you think that keeping your Faith no matter what the evidence is, is all you have to do.

No. Denial and dismissal of evidence means you lose, and it is those who do not believe Genesis YE Creationism (even if they believe in a god or even Jesus) will see that you have no case but denial.

Am I falling into the same trap (topic :P ) I don't think so. ALL I do is present my evidence and I only do it because I can't cut and paste it from anywhere else. I would if it was there :D I have to do this because it looks like nobody else does.

Post Reply