Are you smarter than the experts?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
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?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #41

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:38 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:08 am The fossil evidence in sequential; dated strata (several radiometric methods) shows first rocks and then, as the earth cooled, rain precipitated out of the atmosphere and formed oceans.
Life formed in the Oceans, and when plants had appeared on land, insects and amphibians moved onto it. There were fish (according to the fossils) long before there was any plant life on land
Ok, I have not seen talking fossils. And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory. And in any case, if there would be that order and time scale, it could be because of many reasons. I think it is interesting how easily people believe the evolution theory.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:08 amAs to the sun, from what we know of astronomy the sun was the reason we had and have morning and evening. You do not get light and dark, morning and evening before there is the sun made....
Yes, now we have morning and evening because of the sun, but I think there is no intelligent reason to think no other light forms to make morning and evening exists, or never could have existed.
This encapsulates the evolution/creationism debate pretty well. The science advocate describes some of the data and the creationist responds by basically saying "I don't agree".

The more I step back into these "debates" (scare quotes because they're hardly actual debates) the more I appreciate how science and religion are completely different worlds with different rules and expectations, which in turn affects how each side approaches the "debate".
You said it for me. I have not seen talking forensic evidence and yet criminal convictions are secured because of it. Denial of Radiometric dating on the grounds that somehow constants would inexplicably change is denial with no evidence. isotope decay have never given any indication of varying and there is no mechanism for it to do so. We are in the same area as Satan (or God) salting fossils to mislead us.

Poster 1213 would have to give some sensible reasons why fossils would show a sequence and why (aside denying that radiometric dating is reliable) it would show an Old Earth when it wasn't old.

I see no intelligent reason to suppose that there was any light on earth before the sun. Where would it come from? This is aside from the science that says the sun was there before the earth even formed. I might point out that a lot of Creationists accept this and use a different apologetic - that the sun was already there but could not be seen because of cloud -cover (or perhaps an ice -shell).

Our posting pal really seems no alternative theory or mechanism, just denial of the evidence. As I see it, the name of the game is not to deny everything rather than alter what the believer was told (or read) but to make some kind of reasonable case.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #42

Post by TRANSPONDER »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:03 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:14 pm And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory.
Can you demonstrate that what you think about radiometric dating is actually true, or are you just brushing aside what would be inconvenient for your beliefs?
;) I'm betting on the latter.

RationalWiki has this entry about radiometric dating
Is radioactive decay constant?
Another creationist argument is to claim that rates of atomic decay are not constant through time.[13] If there was substantial variation, it would indeed be a problem. An enormous amount of research shows that in the lab decay rates are constant over time and wherever you are. Faced with this, creationists say that you can't extrapolate from this to deduce they are correct over billions of years.[13] This ignores the fact that over periods of thousands of years (used by carbon dating), dating can be calibrated using other methods like dendrochronology, ice cores, and historical records.

A few experiments have found small variations in decay rates, at least for some forms of decay and some isotopes.[14] In particular, research at Geological Survey of Israel found periodic variations in the decay of radon of up to 4%, although other research, such as a study on cesium at Gran Sasso, found no variation.[15] A 2017 study looking at various isotopes found no significant evidence of periodic variation.[16] If the phenomenon is real, any mechanism is unclear (a solar influence is tentatively suggested, although the variability in results between experiments means a local cause may be more likely). While it may require further investigation to see if this is a real phenomenon, even the biggest positive results do not offer anything like a variation that would allow the truth of young earth creationism.

Another thing (willfully) overlooked by YECs is that radiometric dating is relative. Whatever the rate of decay might have been at various points through time, the older the object, the more advanced the radioactive decay will be. If, for example, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, one would expect to find dinosaur remains more recent than the oldest human remains. No such remains have been discovered.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #43

Post by 1213 »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:03 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:14 pm And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory.
Can you demonstrate that what you think about radiometric dating is actually true, or are you just brushing aside what would be inconvenient for your beliefs?
For those who are interested, I think this explains well the problems.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... sumptions/

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #44

Post by TRANSPONDER »

1213 wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:30 am
brunumb wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:03 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:14 pm And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory.
Can you demonstrate that what you think about radiometric dating is actually true, or are you just brushing aside what would be inconvenient for your beliefs?
For those who are interested, I think this explains well the problems.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... sumptions/
Answers in genesis is the one to make the flawed assumption and they debunk their own argument. They use the analogy of sand falling in an hourglass. It falls consistently at the same rate, because gravity is a Constant. That is why we can use hourglasses to measure time.

We know that isotope decay is constant as explained in my extract. So it is the science - denier who has to prove that radioactive decay varies, since there is no reason why it should, any more than the fall of sand in an hourglass. What is more (as the extract I posted would have told you if you had bothered to read it) there are ways of cross - checking the dating, such as dendrochronology , Carbon 14 and ice cores with will give dates of a several thousands years at least.

I would suggest that you don't rely on flawed, biased and irrational sources like AiG, because those bods are definitely not smarter than the experts.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #45

Post by Jose Fly »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:42 am
Jose Fly wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:38 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:08 am The fossil evidence in sequential; dated strata (several radiometric methods) shows first rocks and then, as the earth cooled, rain precipitated out of the atmosphere and formed oceans.
Life formed in the Oceans, and when plants had appeared on land, insects and amphibians moved onto it. There were fish (according to the fossils) long before there was any plant life on land
Ok, I have not seen talking fossils. And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory. And in any case, if there would be that order and time scale, it could be because of many reasons. I think it is interesting how easily people believe the evolution theory.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:08 amAs to the sun, from what we know of astronomy the sun was the reason we had and have morning and evening. You do not get light and dark, morning and evening before there is the sun made....
Yes, now we have morning and evening because of the sun, but I think there is no intelligent reason to think no other light forms to make morning and evening exists, or never could have existed.
This encapsulates the evolution/creationism debate pretty well. The science advocate describes some of the data and the creationist responds by basically saying "I don't agree".

The more I step back into these "debates" (scare quotes because they're hardly actual debates) the more I appreciate how science and religion are completely different worlds with different rules and expectations, which in turn affects how each side approaches the "debate".
You said it for me. I have not seen talking forensic evidence and yet criminal convictions are secured because of it. Denial of Radiometric dating on the grounds that somehow constants would inexplicably change is denial with no evidence. isotope decay have never given any indication of varying and there is no mechanism for it to do so. We are in the same area as Satan (or God) salting fossils to mislead us.

Poster 1213 would have to give some sensible reasons why fossils would show a sequence and why (aside denying that radiometric dating is reliable) it would show an Old Earth when it wasn't old.

I see no intelligent reason to suppose that there was any light on earth before the sun. Where would it come from? This is aside from the science that says the sun was there before the earth even formed. I might point out that a lot of Creationists accept this and use a different apologetic - that the sun was already there but could not be seen because of cloud -cover (or perhaps an ice -shell).

Our posting pal really seems no alternative theory or mechanism, just denial of the evidence. As I see it, the name of the game is not to deny everything rather than alter what the believer was told (or read) but to make some kind of reasonable case.
Yup, you nailed it....denial. "X conflicts with my religious beliefs, therefore I must deny X". That's the core factor behind just about everything from creationists.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

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 #46

Post by Goat »

1213 wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:05 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:53 am ... But science has debunked genesis ...
How? I think that is a very silly belief.
By showing that the age of the earth is much older, that the sun existed before the earth, that the order of formation of the various things are in a different, that it wasn't 6 days of creation, there was no world wide flood during the existance of man.
“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
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #47

Post by theophile »

historia wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:07 am
theophile wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 9:22 pm
Expert consensus evolves over time. It's not the same now as it was 10 years ago, let alone 100.
Indeed, the scholarly consensus can, and does, change over time. Always deferring to the consensus of experts would mean that we, as non-experts, would also change our position over time to match the current consensus.

To be clear, what I'm asking here is: On what conditions should a non-expert disagree with the consensus of experts when it comes to the Bible?
theophile wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 9:22 pm
If new facts are discovered, or underlying biases exposed, there may be sufficient conditions to disagree with the experts.
That makes sense for why an expert might disagree with the consensus of experts. But we, as non-experts, are not in a good position to discover new facts or expose potential biases that would be sufficient to overturn the consensus of experts. So this doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in which non-experts might rightly disagree with the consensus of experts.
Apologies for the delay in responding. I generally agree with everything you say here.

Two potential answers to your question on conditions:
1. The non-expert is genius and discovered something that no expert to date has done. (Again, the genius factor I raised from the get-go.)
2. The non-expert has latched onto the discovery of another expert / genius that is not yet consensus view, but that provides sufficient backing to challenge the current consensus.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #48

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Goat wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:10 pm
1213 wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:05 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:53 am ... But science has debunked genesis ...
How? I think that is a very silly belief.
By showing that the age of the earth is much older, that the sun existed before the earth, that the order of formation of the various things are in a different, that it wasn't 6 days of creation, there was no world wide flood during the existance of man.
:D That's what I'm claiming for myself. I can't help it. I can only explain the case and wait to be called on it. As to scientific debunks of Genesis, the denial of the science requires more than 'perhaps the science is wrong'. We need evidence before that is even a hypothesis, let alone proven.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #49

Post by The Nice Centurion »

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
“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❗"

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Are you smarter than the experts?

Post #50

Post by historia »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:44 pm
Sorry, but . . . Argument from Authority is perhaps the most well known Logical Fallacy 😉
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Did you actually read that web page?

It begins with: "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

It is not a logical fallacy to cite or follow the consensus of experts.

Post Reply