"Experts say......"

#27
#27
Wafflestomper said:
We have to be careful here with an even more often used fallacy--the strawman. After all, most people don't say evolution is true because Dawkins says so. They use the fact that he (an expert) says so as a reason to believe it's more likely true than false.

Do you go to the doctor? Do we use expert opinion in court? Expert opinion doesn't make some proposition true, but most people aren't claiming that anyway.
Click to expand...
I believe in some of evolution but not all of the concepts.... I also don’t 100% trust my doctors opinion...... it is best to keep an open mind and question everything.
 
#30
#30
Wafflestomper said:
We have to be careful here with an even more often used fallacy--the strawman. After all, most people don't say evolution is true because Dawkins says so. They use the fact that he (an expert) says so as a reason to believe it's more likely true than false.

Do you go to the doctor? Do we use expert opinion in court? Expert opinion doesn't make some proposition true, but most people aren't claiming that anyway.
Click to expand...
You mean Charles Darwin? I really wouldn’t take Dawkins word for it either.

And thanks a bunch for giving me the “settled science” follow on which I replied to Ras with. Appreciate it!
 
#32
#32
NorthDallas40 said:
You mean Charles Darwin? I really wouldn’t take Dawkins word for it either.

And thanks a bunch for giving me the “settled science” follow on which I replied to Ras with. Appreciate it!
Click to expand...

No, I didn't mean Darwin. And where did I say anything about settled science?
 
#35
#35
Wafflestomper said:
No, I didn't mean Darwin. And where did I say anything about settled science?
Click to expand...
Actually I see where you got that name now. It was in Ras example I missed it even when I replied to him my brain just saw Darwin related to evolution.

My comment on settled science goes to a reply I made to Ras’s post which your reply basically played to. Right after the appeal to authority is made the next move is to claim “settled science” which is a ploy to quash further debate. This is the goto play in the climate change BS and has been used on evolution debate also. Pretty much anywhere where a theory is not conclusively proven and one side is just trying to claim arbitrary early victory
 
#36
#36
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually I see where you got that name now. It was in Ras example I missed it even when I replied to him my brain just saw Darwin related to evolution.

My comment on settled science goes to a reply I made to Ras’s post which your reply basically played to. Right after the appeal to authority is made the next move is to claim “settled science” which is a ploy to quash further debate. This is the goto play in the climate change BS and has been used on evolution debate also. Pretty much anywhere where a theory is not conclusively proven and one side is just trying to claim arbitrary early victory
Click to expand...

I don't think I implied what you think I implied in that post. I don't even believe in the concept of "settled science." I just believe that since people cannot be expected to be experts in everything, a common way to proportion your belief is to rely at least somewhat on expert opinion.

But with respect to your comments on evolution, it has been tested about as much as any other theory in existence. It's unlikely to fall apart, especially when the alternatives (e.g., intelligent design) are generally not even subject to scientific inquiry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#37
#37
Wafflestomper said:
I don't think I implied what you think I implied in that post. I don't even believe in the concept of "settled science." I just believe that since people cannot be expected to be experts in everything, a common way to proportion your belief is to rely at least somewhat on expert opinion.

But with respect to your comments on evolution, it has been tested about as much as any other theory in existence. It's unlikely to fall apart, especially when the alternatives (e.g., intelligent design) are generally not even subject to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...
So no on the bolded. Evolution suffers from the same issue as climate science, the lengthy time constants on the processes involved.

A theory is put forth that the earth is 93M miles from the sun and the sun is the center of our solar system. Independent measurements and made directly validating those claims and the issue is closed. That’s direct empirical observation whereas evolution and climate change rely on inference on examinations of remnants of biological material and chemical compounds and concentrations in earth strata.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#38
#38
USAFgolferVol said:
I was being sarcastic. They're the least trustworthy. One If thus country's biggest problems is that many citizens don't know the difference between news and op-eds.
Click to expand...
That is the issue..... just about everything has become an op-Ed disguised as news.
 
#39
#39
NorthDallas40 said:
So no on the bolded. Evolution suffers from the same issue as climate science, the lengthy time constants on the processes involved.

A theory is put forth that the earth is 93M miles from the sun and the sun is the center of our solar system. Independent measurements and made directly validating those claims and the issue is closed. That’s direct empirical observation whereas evolution and climate change rely on inference on examinations of remnants of biological material and chemical compounds and concentrations in earth strata.
Click to expand...

Essentially the whole of science relies at least somewhat on the process of induction, so if this is supposed to be a ding against the theory of evolution, I don't think it's very profound. The notion that we can only feel reasonably confident in propositions that can be directly empirically verified significantly undercuts not only science but ironically religion as well. The way we get around this is by not calling the science "settled," since there is clearly room for it to be updated or corrected.

However, the idea that we need direct empirical evidence to justify belief in a proposition cannot be verified empirically itself, so it should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism too if we're going to stick to that philosophy elsewhere.

Evolution as a whole has survived scrutiny a very long time in the scientific community, and people have made testable predictions over several decades which could have invalidated Darwinian evolution and have not.
 
#40
#40
Wafflestomper said:
Essentially the whole of science relies at least somewhat on the process of induction, so if this is supposed to be a ding against the theory of evolution, I don't think it's very profound. The notion that we can only feel reasonably confident in propositions that can be directly empirically verified significantly undercuts not only science but ironically religion as well. The way we get around this is by not calling the science "settled," since there is clearly room for it to be updated or corrected.

However, the idea that we need direct empirical evidence to justify belief in a proposition cannot be verified empirically itself, so it should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism too if we're going to stick to that philosophy elsewhere.

Evolution as a whole has survived scrutiny a very long time in the scientific community, and people have made testable predictions over several decades which could have invalidated Darwinian evolution and have not.
Click to expand...
It is a “ding” against any field of science which relies largely on inference of historical products and materials. Evolution clearly fits that. So does climate change. Competent scientists understand the limitations however lay people do not.

And you are clearly pushing the “settled science” reply, it rings thru clear as a bell in your whole last paragraph. Science is never settled as we learn more we always re-examine our understanding of the world.

It was settled that the earth was flat and even the universe moved around the earth at one point also.

And yes all data and results should be viewed skeptically. Any theory that survives a healthy skeptical examination only adds to its soundness in statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#41
#41
imw8n4u said:
Why exactly is expertise not a good thing? Who do you want to get information from and trust instead? Someone with an agenda that matches yours? Someone who just pretends to know? Someone who just tells you what you want to hear regardless whether it's true or factual?

Personally, as long as they disclose who they are and what makes them an expert, I'll stick with the experts.
Click to expand...

Because 2 experts can have differing opinions. Yet gov will side with the experts who agree with their agenda. That is dangerous
 
#43
#43
Wafflestomper said:
Essentially the whole of science relies at least somewhat on the process of induction, so if this is supposed to be a ding against the theory of evolution, I don't think it's very profound. The notion that we can only feel reasonably confident in propositions that can be directly empirically verified significantly undercuts not only science but ironically religion as well. The way we get around this is by not calling the science "settled," since there is clearly room for it to be updated or corrected.

However, the idea that we need direct empirical evidence to justify belief in a proposition cannot be verified empirically itself, so it should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism too if we're going to stick to that philosophy elsewhere.

Evolution as a whole has survived scrutiny a very long time in the scientific community, and people have made testable predictions over several decades which could have invalidated Darwinian evolution and have not.
Click to expand...

Lol, evolution has not survived jack crap. Evolution is as protected and some rare owl. You go against evolution, you're marginalized. If anything advancement in science has done more to damage that religion.
 
#44
#44
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually I see where you got that name now. It was in Ras example I missed it even when I replied to him my brain just saw Darwin related to evolution.

My comment on settled science goes to a reply I made to Ras’s post which your reply basically played to. Right after the appeal to authority is made the next move is to claim “settled science” which is a ploy to quash further debate. This is the goto play in the climate change BS and has been used on evolution debate also. Pretty much anywhere where a theory is not conclusively proven and one side is just trying to claim arbitrary early victory
Click to expand...

Any "science" that the fed gov agrees with is considered settled and if you want some gov grant, you better believe it too.
 
#46
#46
NorthDallas40 said:
It is a “ding” against any field of science which relies largely on inference of historical products and materials. Evolution clearly fits that. So does climate change. Competent scientists understand the limitations however lay people do not.

And you are clearly pushing the “settled science” reply, it rings thru clear as a bell in your whole last paragraph. Science is never settled as we learn more we always re-examine our understanding of the world.

It was settled that the earth was flat and even the universe moved around the earth at one point also.

And yes all data and results should be viewed skeptically. Any theory that survives a healthy skeptical examination only adds to its soundness in statement.
Click to expand...

I would be careful with making those kinds of statements. Evolutionary Theory has made predictions that were verified by the fields of genetics, botany, medicine, geology, and even mathematics...technologies and fields that were not around when the theory was postulated. Of course the timeline can't be replicated for testing, but it certainly can be tested on a smaller scale. Experiments with fruit flies, plants, and things like dog breeding all verify what Evolutionary Theory is saying.

Things like ID and other theories, including climate change even, are not standing up to that level of scientific scrutiny. Certainly none are falsifiable, nor able to be confirmed independently across multiple disciplines the way Evolution has.

Competent scientists do understand the limitations, agree 100%. That is why evolution is almost universally accepted when one really understands the scientific literature. At this point, if it is wrong, mother nature has a TON of explaining to do.
 
#47
#47
The nail on the chalkboard sound bite for me was when Trump would constantly use the phrase "They say" and "Everybody agrees". I mean, not even experts, just "They" and "Everybody".
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#48
#48
I'll just add this context. As a faculty member at a leading research university we routinely get asked by the media to opine on particular stories. I generally decline unless it is an area I have deep expertise in.

So a typical request might be to weigh in on the effect of the cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline on some market condition (gas prices, inflation, consumer confidence, etc.). I would refuse this request since I do not study pipelines or short term supply disruptions and do not know the state of the art research in these areas. I could give my opinion but that wouldn't be based on true expertise.

Some of my colleagues follow my approach; others opine on whatever they are asked about.

TL;DR: some experts are experts, some are not
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Smokey X, Y9 Vol and 1 other person
#49
#49
rjd970 said:
I would be careful with making those kinds of statements. Evolutionary Theory has made predictions that were verified by the fields of genetics, botany, medicine, geology, and even mathematics...technologies and fields that were not around when the theory was postulated. Of course the timeline can't be replicated for testing, but it certainly can be tested on a smaller scale. Experiments with fruit flies, plants, and things like dog breeding all verify what Evolutionary Theory is saying.

Things like ID and other theories, including climate change even, are not standing up to that level of scientific scrutiny. Certainly none are falsifiable, nor able to be confirmed independently across multiple disciplines the way Evolution has.

Competent scientists do understand the limitations, agree 100%. That is why evolution is almost universally accepted when one really understands the scientific literature. At this point, if it is wrong, mother nature has a TON of explaining to do.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t have a problem with the theory of Evolution. It’s hard to ignore the premise of Natural Selection. However when clueless lay people lay their narrative on top of the data it gets butchered. Christianity has a self inflicted wound on creationism vs natural selection. I’m a Christian and I believe in divine creation. I also see evidence of natural selection it’s hard to ignore. Issues arise when people force dichotomies on top of the data in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#50
#50
rjd970 said:
Things like ID and other theories, including climate change even, are not standing up to that level of scientific scrutiny. Certainly none are falsifiable, nor able to be confirmed independently across multiple disciplines the way Evolution has.
Click to expand...

I'll add Critical Theory and it's bastard son Critical Race Theory here. It is very much like ID - ironically the people who fought like hell to keep ID out of school curriculum are pushing CRT.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top