2017-11-04, 12:09 PM
(2017-11-03, 04:43 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Let's start here: What method do you advise a layman, such as myself, employ?
As I believe I've made clear by now, I think the question of proper authority is a very difficult issue and made even more difficult when authorities opine on topics outside their expertise. As a layman, I really have no idea whom to believe and tend to default to the consensus.
I see two different issues and I don't know if they need separate threads, or if they can be covered by one.
What to think about proposed threats to seemingly established sciences (the alt-science views on evolution, cosmology, etc.).
How to get a sense of the validity of seemingly fringe ideas (like parapsychology, cold fusion, etc.).
With respect to proposed threats to seemingly established sciences:
Look to mainstream sources of science information - textbooks in general use, articles in good science magazines (e.g. Scientific American - if you want to know which magazines generally offer good science reporting (e.g. Wired or The New York Times Sunday Magazine) look at The Best Science, and The Best Science and Nature Writing series), educational resources from the main professional body of the relevant scientific field, governmental and NGO organizations formed to advise the government on scientific matters, educational materials from well-regarded academic institutions.
Where are the proposed threats coming from - within the field or from without? Who is taking it seriously - does it show up in the subject lists of the main conferences within the field, in the main research journals in the field, in articles from mainstream sources? Try to get sense of whether those people with the most knowledge and experience regard it as valid.
I make these particular recommendations based on my own experience with medicine. With respect to the various controversies over the years which I've encountered - some valid, some not - these practices would allow most laypeople to be able to identify which threats were valid and which were not.
I think a good discussion could be had on this, as I'm pretty sure some people here feel pretty strongly that this is the wrong way to go about it.
More difficult is how to get a sense of seemingly fringe ideas:
The problem I see is that public proponents (of the idea) tend to over exaggerate the support for the idea (they almost have to defend themselves against the invariable criticisms). And public critics seem to get dismissive and overly protective of the mainstream view. I'm not always comfortable that those people who become the public face of the debate are inclined to reasonably represent the debate, on either side.
What I like to find, if I can, are criticisms from proponents of the idea and support from hardened skeptics of the idea - people who are speaking against their biases. Alternatively, I try to identify personal sources of information who have expertise on the subject and who I know I can trust to give a reasoned representation. Sometimes I have a "test case" if I am trying to decide if an authority can be trusted. I see if they have offered an opinion on a subject I know very, very well, and see if they get it right.
I'd be very interested in other people's ideas on how to approach this.
Linda