nygreenguy wrote:micatala wrote:
My comment on this is that, while typically none of us are experts on the topics we debate on the forum, part of the point of the forum is that we can debate the topics anyway. We also typically acknowledge that "argument from authority" is a fallacy, at least if that is only substance to the argument.
First, its only an argument from authority if you use an incorrect authority. Otherwise, on a subject you are not an expert, its required you use an authority.
You can debate the topics all you want, but when you start going into the specifics of the science, then its no longer a real debate but people giving
uninformed opinions.
Here is wikipedia's definition for argument from 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. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
Whether the authority is correct or not, the form of the argument is still considered fallacious. On the other hand, I certainly agree you are much more likely to be correct if you go with the expert opinion versus the layman's opinion.
otseng is taking the position it is legitimate to question assertions, even if they are made by authority, and probably especially in the realm of science. I don't disagree with this position per se.
The question is whether his objections or questions have merit on their substance. I believe his case against the correctness of ice core dating suffers from a number of problems. First, he has not addressed the complexity of procedures and methods employed by scientists to ensure the dating is accurate within stated margins of error.
Secondly, he gives more credence to the FM as informed by Walter Brown than he does to the SG and standard science of ice cores despite the evidence, even that presented on this thread, being much more robust for standard science, especially in my opinion over the last several pages regarding ice core dating. We have to summarize some of the points made:
1) A ball park calculation that, assuming current snow fall rates of 2.5 cm at the given Antarctic location and the thickness of the ice field, that the sheet is over 130,000 years old, well past the outside range of the flood according to otseng, and 13 times as old as his favored dating. This estimate is actually about 1/4th as old or even younger than the expert scientific opinon on the dating. One reason it is an underestimate is it does not take into account compression and extrusion of layers at deeper layers.
Now, one legitimate point to be made against this is that we cannot assume the 2.5 cm precipitation average holds for the whole period while the sheet was forming. Perhaps we could next look at any evidence we have regarding large climate changes in this area over the last half million years.
On the other hand, no evidence that I can recall has been presented that precipitation in this area was much greater in the past. In fact, it could have been even less. All we have is speculation that it might have been.
2) We have cited evidence that ice core dating involves multiple methods, including visual inspection of layers, testing for O16 versus o18 isotope ratios, Beryllium testing methods that seems to reflect an 11-year sun spot cycle, tests for granularity and density of the ice, analysis of ice flow within the sheets, multiple different kinds of marking events, and observation in the current era of ice layers as they form. I have not even alluded to except in passing, as yet, the consistency of ice core dating with radiometric dating, sampling of sea floor layers, etc.
In order for ice core dating to be drastically wrong, it seems to me you need to prove or assume one or more of the following:
1) Despite numerous cross checking methods and ongoing current observations, scientists cannot even count the layers they have seen forming accurately.
2) That, although ice core dating works for recent years, something changed at some point in the past that altered how the layers were formed and have led us to interpret as annual layers which are actually subannual. Whatever this "something" is does not seem to change the appearance or chemistry of the layers beyond what scientists have accounted.
I noted in the WAIS site that otseng linked to that scientists believe annual layers are discernible to at least 40,000 years. I also note that otseng's own ball park figure based on sheet thickness gave an estimate of 44,000 years.
Would otseng agree that ice core data indicates with a high probability that no global flood occurred in the last 40,000 years?" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
