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?

[Grumpy]

Logic alone is useless sophistry.

Evidence alone is not explanitory.

Logic and evidence together is science.

[otseng]

Take a single claim, the water canopy.

What have I claimed about the water canopy?

otseng wrote:

What exactly then do you think appeal to authority means?

Some definitions:
"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/releva ... authority/

"Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Is that ALL that is necessary for it to be a logical fallacy? Really? Would you like an opportunity to correct this so there will be no...flavor of...misdirection(I'm REALLY trying to be polite and respectful here). Are there other criteria for it to be a logical fallacy? I await your response(retraction).

Grumpy

I simply quoted the definitions. If you have differing definitions, go ahead and post them.

[otseng]

I don't doubt one can phrase an argument in such a fashion that it would indicate a "logical proof" for God.

The challenge is to verify any "logical proof" that may be proposed.

Then our standards are different. My standard is simply, "What is more logical? That God exists or that God does not exist."

[Grumpy]

otseng

Quote:
otseng wrote:

What exactly then do you think appeal to authority means?

Some definitions:
"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/releva ... authority/

"Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Is that ALL that is necessary for it to be a logical fallacy? Really? Would you like an opportunity to correct this so there will be no...flavor of...misdirection(I'm REALLY trying to be polite and respectful here). Are there other criteria for it to be a logical fallacy? I await your response(retraction).

Grumpy

I simply quoted the definitions. If you have differing definitions, go ahead and post them.

No, you QUOTE MINED those meanings, leaving out important qualifications necessary for them to be an argument from authority.

From the same source...

"However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited."

What have I claimed about the water canopy?

You have posited that it was the cause of a uniform environment pre flood. And you say that it was a source of flood water.

Grumpy

[Goat]

I don't doubt one can phrase an argument in such a fashion that it would indicate a "logical proof" for God.

The challenge is to verify any "logical proof" that may be proposed.

Then our standards are different. My standard is simply, "What is more logical? That God exists or that God does not exist."

To which I reply: Define God..and give a way to test that definition.

[McCulloch]

Theology is a subset of the field of human study called philosophy.

So what? Geology is a subset of the general sciences. Like geologists, theologians are the experts in their respective field.

Theology is the subset of philosophy that assumes god. If geologists and cosmologists disagreed on the probability of flood geology then you might have some basis for arguing. As it happens, every branch of science that could have anything to say about the matter declares flood geology to be hokum.

If all philosophers were (or even theologists) were as united on any point as the geologists are against the alleged evidence of a global universal flood during human history, then you would have a point.

I suspect Theologians are united on the point there is a god. You argue against the position of the experts in this regard.

If philosophers were united on whether there is a god, then there would be an expert consensus to discuss. As it happens, there is no expert consensus on the existence of god.

[McCulloch]

If you are implying that universities would be a good place to challenge conventional science, I would highly doubt it. And as a matter of fact, I would even say that here on this forum would be the best place to have the most freedom to challenge any field. It is precisely because of the open nature of this forum that we can freely engage in debates. At universities, there are little opportunities to challenge the establishment.

Not at an undergraduate level.

I would say that one's motive has no bearing on being justified to agree or disagree with the experts. Evidence and logic as well should be the justification to agree or disagree.

And evidence and logic support the notion that it is highly improbable that lay people could correctly interpret the evidence contrary to the expert consensus.

In stating that it would be easy to refute the flood, you are implying that geology is a simple field of study.

No, I'm not making any implications about SG. Rather, I'm stating that if the FM can be easily dismissed, then providing the evidence should not take much effort.

I have not stated that flood geology can be easily dismissed, just that it has been evaluated and thoroughly dismissed.

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.

But, now you imply the FM is not easy to refute?

Did I state that the consensus of experts was achieved easily?

However, since most of us are also newbies in geology, I have little confidence that we will catch every mistake. Do you?

What mistakes are you referring to?

When newbies get in over their head in a particular field, if it is sufficiently complex, they will in all likelihood make mistakes. Since we have few experts participating, I doubt that most of them would be caught.

[otseng]

No, you QUOTE MINED those meanings, leaving out important qualifications necessary for them to be an argument from authority.

From the same source...

"However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited."

And you as well left out the second paragraph. Let's quote the entire source:

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isnt an authority at all, or isnt an authority on the subject about which theyre speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/releva ... authority/

What you quoted, the third paragraph, is referring to informal logic, not formal logic.

You have posited that it was the cause of a uniform environment pre flood. And you say that it was a source of flood water.

That is true. However, I've also stated that the contribution of the canopy to the flood water would be minimal. And also I've said nothing about it being being "several thousand degrees".

[otseng]

To which I reply: Define God..and give a way to test that definition.

Out of scope of this thread. But, I'll extend the challenge to anyone if they want to take me up on it. And I'll offer up my definition once we decide to engage in the debate.

[otseng]

And evidence and logic support the notion that it is highly improbable that lay people could correctly interpret the evidence contrary to the expert consensus.

Again, it could be very probable that the layman is incorrect. But, it is attacking the ideas, not the person's aptitude, that would constitute a valid debate.

I have not stated that flood geology can be easily dismissed, just that it has been evaluated and thoroughly dismissed

Did I state that the consensus of experts was achieved easily?

Arrival of the consensus might not have been achieved easily. But, presenting their evidence and arguments that they have arrived at should be easy.

When newbies get in over their head in a particular field, if it is sufficiently complex, they will in all likelihood make mistakes. Since we have few experts participating, I doubt that most of them would be caught.

In all the topics here on this forum, we will make mistakes. But, that doesn't mean we should avoid discussing them altogether.