How can people evaluate scientific questions when they don't understand the science?

What an interesting question...

On one hand I would say those who are not scientifically conversant, should probably stick with scientific consensus right? I mean how to choose an alternative opinion? I'd say this used to work pretty well with "main stream" topics, in the past.

Problem is- so many formerly mainstream topics are being found to be more complicated than we thought: take Darwinian evolutionary theory for example.

Then consider the bigger problem: that material science is SO far in the weeds and in denial over the whole set of subject matters relating to the non-physical aspect of reality. In these cases, just going along with main stream science will put you in a place where you don't even consider what we might call esoteric subject matter. Untrained people will be encouraged by mainstream science to ignore "those crackpots", and most do, in part because they have no basis to question what they are being told.

And this pretty much describes where we are I think.

Unqualified people, if they do venture off the path of standard science, do so rather unprepared to navigate the space very well. They need to learn as they go, and use their intuition  A LOT to make choices. These people can be easily lead down wrong paths because they don't have the tools to recognize lots of the traps like: false assumptions, incorrect interpretation of data, poor methods, poor statistical analysis, etc etc.

It's a confounding problem, and it is no wonder we have the variety of different colors and shapes and sizes of skepticism, and proponents of these topics.

And I"d say- this problem, defines a huge part of the value that this site can provide to the world. 

The ability to see the discussions unfold among a group of people that I would say are on average much more qualified (definitely more experienced in matters of the intersection of science and psi) than the average group of people you might find on the web, and maybe provide a lifeline to those who are considering whether psi is "real".

I agree with most of that, but the question I was asking is a slightly different one.

What I'm getting at is this - when we are faced with a scientific question and we don't understand the scientific arguments about it, how should we decide what to believe? (Or should we decide not to believe anything?)

Ideally remain uncommitted.

Read opinions on both sides. Look for written debates where one side replies and they go back and forth. You can often detect who is not arguing in good faith (they focus on minor points, are deliberately obfuscating, their misrepresentations are easily refuted, they attack straw men, etc.). Sometimes they agree but are arguing small differences, sometimes they are arguing different points entirely.  Both sides can be right or wrong.

I just wonder, in a case where one really doesn't understand the scientific subject matter itself - which is what I'm asking about - how easy it is to reach a conclusion purely from the way in which the protagonists are behaving. Isn't there a danger that the layman will favour a smooth-tongued presentation of flawed arguments over a dry presentation of reliable ones? Indeed, isn't there a danger that a responsible scientist will necessarily have to qualify her statements, while an irresponsible one can make his points more forcibly, as he's not so constrained by considerations of accuracy?

I just wonder, in a case where one really doesn't understand the scientific subject matter itself - which is what I'm asking about - how easy it is to reach a conclusion purely from the way in which the protagonists are behaving. Isn't there a danger that the layman will favour a smooth-tongued presentation of flawed arguments over a dry presentation of reliable ones? Indeed, isn't there a danger that a responsible scientist will necessarily have to qualify her statements, while an irresponsible one can make his points more forcibly, as he's not so constrained by considerations of accuracy?

If one is swayed by a smooth talker then one is clearly uninformed on the subject at hand. In the words of Sam Clemens. "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain"

If one is swayed by a smooth talker then one is clearly uninformed on the subject at hand.

Yes - that's what I'm talking about - the situation in which people aren't able to understand the scientific arguments.

I just wonder, in a case where one really doesn't understand the scientific subject matter itself - which is what I'm asking about - how easy it is to reach a conclusion purely from the way in which the protagonists are behaving. Isn't there a danger that the layman will favour a smooth-tongued presentation of flawed arguments over a dry presentation of reliable ones? Indeed, isn't there a danger that a responsible scientist will necessarily have to qualify her statements, while an irresponsible one can make his points more forcibly, as he's not so constrained by considerations of accuracy?

If you analyze a written back and forth debate like I wrote in my previous reply, you can tell who is debating sincerely and who is just a smooth talker whether you understand the fine details or not. 

When both sides are arguing in good faith and the experts don't agree, there is no generic method to find the truth. In that case, if you don't have a good reason to hold an opinion you should just recognize that you don't know.

It is also worth pointing out here that you are most likely to be fooled by people who seem to agree with your pre-existing beliefs (your biases).

Another way for persons not expert in the intricacies of some complicated scientific issues is to look at the human factors in the debate and simply "follow the money" so to speak - look at what is in the self interest of the proponents of one side and of the other of the dispute. This may look rather cynical, but money and power are at the root of so much in human affairs. What do they have to gain or lose? For instance, anthropogenic climate change debunkers - are there funding connections of such groups to major oil companies? For academic researchers in anthropogenic climate change - maybe research funding and positions and professional prestige. Or opponents of cold fusion - is funding for academic research positions, projects  and big experimental reactors using confinement fusion at stake? If cold fusion turns out to be practical as a source of energy who has the most to lose? In general, which side has the most to gain or has the most at stake by pushing their argument?

Another way for persons not expert in the intricacies of some complicated scientific issues is to look at the human factors in the debate and simply "follow the money" so to speak - look at what is in the self interest of the proponents of one side and of the other of the dispute. This may look rather cynical, but money and power are at the root of so much in human affairs. What do they have to gain or lose? For instance, anthropogenic climate change debunkers - are there funding connections of such groups to major oil companies? For academic researchers in anthropogenic climate change - maybe research funding and positions and professional prestige. Or opponents of cold fusion - is funding for academic research positions, projects  and big experimental reactors using confinement fusion at stake? If cold fusion turns out to be practical as a source of energy who has the most to lose? In general, which side has the most to gain or has the most at stake by pushing their argument?

Then again, just because somebody is receiving funding from an interested party, that doesn't necessarily mean they are falsifying the science. (And just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you   )

Then again, just because somebody is receiving funding from an interested party, that doesn't necessarily mean they are falsifying the science. (And just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you   )

True. It's just one more factor to look at in trying to come up with an opinion on a complicated issue where much of the technical details are beyond one's expertise.

I guess that I would only be considered to have real expertise in one thing, even that is fast fading, as it's been some years since I last flew an aeroplane. The only thing I can give as an example which you will understand, is discussions about the events on 9/11 among 'experts'.

Some very experienced pilots are of the opinion that there's 'no way' that the planes involved could be flown by such inexperienced, often incompetent pilots, into the two towers. At least at the 'impossible' speeds that were bandied about. 

Other equally experienced pilots say that it's quite possible, I tend to agree with this view. 

All involved know the basic facts.

So how can we work out 'who is right'? Equally very experienced pilots having such differences of opinion about what is basically a simple question.

I think that people's opinion are formed according largely due to other factors, factors outside their expertise. As Alex so often showed, ironically he too displayed the same weaknesses. All of us do!