Evolution, ethanol, climate change, etc. How can we know?

[Jimbo07]

In the politics thread, I was revisiting some work I had done on ethanol. I did a very detailed technical study to effectively wind up refuting a sound byte. It was so hard for a technically trained person to wade through all the studies and data to come to a conclusion, what chance did a lay person have? I then reflected that this applies to much bigger issues like Climate Change and Evolution!

A lay person is... EVERYONE, at least on some subjects. Even a PhD in a particular area can reach and overextend the limits of their credentials to prognosticate in areas which they are inexpert. An argument from authority is not inherently bad, but an inappropriate one is.

How can lay people know what is right? I'd suggest scientific consensus, but there is always someone who will point out that consensus can be wrong. That may be true, but it will be those scientists who figure that out... not lay people. Right? Wrong?

Discuss...

 

[mhaze]

In the politics thread, I was revisiting some work I had done on ethanol. I did a very detailed technical study to effectively wind up refuting a sound byte. It was so hard for a technically trained person to wade through all the studies and data to come to a conclusion, what chance did a lay person have? I then reflected that this applies to much bigger issues like Climate Change and Evolution!

A lay person is... EVERYONE, at least on some subjects. Even a PhD in a particular area can reach and overextend the limits of their credentials to prognosticate in areas which they are inexpert. An argument from authority is not inherently bad, but an inappropriate one is.

How can lay people know what is right? I'd suggest scientific consensus, but there is always someone who will point out that consensus can be wrong. That may be true, but it will be those scientists who figure that out... not lay people. Right? Wrong?

Discuss...

That's an easy question. Ah likes them ones. Here is the way to answer it.

Ask yourself: "Is it rocket science?"
Answer: Yes or No.
If answer is No, then you can do it.

End of Subject!!!!

PS:
If Answer is Yes, then NASA cannot do it.

 

[mhaze]

That's an easy question. Ah likes them ones. Here is the way to answer it.

Ask yourself: "Is it rocket science?"
Answer: Yes or No.
If answer is No, then you can do it.

End of Subject!!!!

PS:
If Answer is Yes, then NASA cannot do it.

PPS: Bad Joke. Sorry. Of course NASA can do it.

 

[Ladewig]

That's an easy question. Ah likes them ones. Here is the way to answer it.

Ask yourself: "Is it rocket science?"
Answer: Yes or No.
If answer is No, then you can do it.

End of Subject!!!!

Amateur astronomers sometimes discover new asteroids. Amateur biologists sometimes discover unrecognized species of flora and fauna. However, amateur particle physicists, amateur geneticists, and amateur doctors cannot easily repeat experiments to verify facts or theories. The topic is worthy of discussion, but your comment is misleading (if it was serious).

 

[mhaze]

Amateur astronomers sometimes discover new asteroids. Amateur biologists sometimes discover unrecognized species of flora and fauna. However, amateur particle physicists, amateur geneticists, and amateur doctors cannot easily repeat experiments to verify facts or theories. The topic is worthy of discussion, but your comment is misleading (if it was serious).

Well, we could add to the list of documented amateurs numerous math "amateurs".

Good point about amateurs not being able to replicate experiments; that was something I was indirectly pointing to. Amateurs can build a rocket nozzle but a high performance one takes extensive lab testing way beyond their capabilities. Etc.

 

[Iamme]

You forgot to ask about the studies that contradict good or bad foods or additives.

Or what about whether or not the cause of death is from sinning?

And in my local paper's Voice of the People this lady cited a study done that refutes second hand smoke as being as bad as claimed.

 

[Jimbo07]

Hmmm... the opportunity for me to derail my own thread has been tempting more than once...

However...

Back to my original focus:

On some of these issues, people can be confused by scientists opposing the consensus. In many, controversy is being claimed where it doesn't really exist. The arguments can get quite technically involved. This is trouble for me, for example, when evolution/creation discussions meander into heavy biology like a detailed analysis of whale fins.

Many people may feel out of their depth (while others may be, and simply not recognize it). How do we, as lay people (again, including fields in which we are inexpert) determine what is most valid from a scientific, or better, physical perspective?

 

[Beausoleil]

You don't need to repeat an experiment to decide if the conclusion is warranted by the evidence. As long as reports are honest I think reasonably numerate people can assess the research in climate change and evolution.

 

[Jimbo07]

Okay...

Given the debates (even here on JREF) by all manner of non-experts in certain fields, how can we determine which reports are honest? Why is the IPCC panned? How can ID gain any traction?

Here's a more concrete example:

A creationism museum has just opened in Alberta. CBC had the 'curator' (perpetrator) on the radio. They were asking him about science and the body of evidence against his position. He wasn't a scientist, but launched into a sciencey sounding discussion of radiometric dating and how it ultimately proves creationism. Or (MUCH WORSE), the Nature of Things (which I thought was one of the most grounded science series) had an episode on mind powers, which seemed fairly supportive, talked to 'researchers' and concluded that maybe the mind can 'do more'! I watched every single minute of the episode waiting for David Suzuki to appear and rebut the whole thing. Never happened...

It would be hard for people, I suspect, not to be bamboozled by things that sound like science.

My original question remains: if it was so hard for me to get to the heart of a technical matter, using papers, models, data, etc. from sources, who on the first pass appeared credible, what is the lay person supposed to do on any issue that has technical nuances?

 

[Iamme]

Hmmm... the opportunity for me to derail my own thread has been tempting more than once...

However...

Back to my original focus:

On some of these issues, people can be confused by scientists opposing the consensus. In many, controversy is being claimed where it doesn't really exist. The arguments can get quite technically involved. This is trouble for me, for example, when evolution/creation discussions meander into heavy biology like a detailed analysis of whale fins.

Many people may feel out of their depth (while others may be, and simply not recognize it). How do we, as lay people (again, including fields in which we are inexpert) determine what is most valid from a scientific, or better, physical perspective?

God will forgive you if you made an honest mistake and were duped out of ignorance. If he was not this way, then he would have created ALL of us with "I want to be a PH.D. biologist" gene, so that none of us could have an excuse.

 

[Iamme]

You don't need to repeat an experiment to decide if the conclusion is warranted by the evidence. As long as reports are honest I think reasonably numerate people can assess the research in climate change and evolution.

No way. The scientist must not know themselves or else why is it still debateable if it is global warming or just another 10,000 year cycle in the works? Earth was made to cleanse itself you know. The air and oceans were designed for this. Even thunderstorms knock out bad air. Then ocean currents and even tornadoes and hurricanes probably even have positive things they are trying to do to cleanup the earth. If you believe the magnetic halo placed around the Earth was more than just an accident, you might believe in what I say.

If God wanted to have as an end result a creature that could identify with Gos him (it) self, then he would have made the earth human-proof. We might be extinction-proof because of this. If we did go extinct, then what creatrure could take our place to sing to and praise God?