Laypeople trump experts

Don't want to sidetrack this thread but I'd just point out that most of those scientists - including Douglas Axe - do believe in evolution. The idea that they don't is promoted by neo-darwinists who conflate NS/RM with evolution as though they are the same thing. They are not. Axe, Behe, Meyer et al are not claiming that evolution does not happen and that distinction should be made clear (as it has in numerous posts both here and in Skeptiko forum discussions).

Sorry, it was my own conditioning that did it in this case.  I still polarize ID and Evolution and I should have learned by now!

[/url]
[url=http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/god-evolution-and-darwin-an-interview-with-molecular-biologist-douglas-axe/2016/07/27/2/]http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/god-evolution-and-darwin-an-interview-with-molecular-biologist-douglas-axe/2016/07/27/2/

"Do you reject the entire theory of evolution? Or just the notion that it was unguided?

I’m not arguing against common ancestry or some form of descent with modification. What I’m saying is that accidental processes cannot possibly have invented these things."

No doubt Dante agrees with the statement "lay people can have intelligent opinions while scientists can be fallible". No one in their right mind would disagree. It's only common sense.

But what you said (or intended to) was that that was what he meant by his private message to you. In fact, he's just gone to the trouble of explaining what he meant, in some detail. Instead, you put into his mouth (or tried to) a truism that is so banal that it's not worth saying.

I was going to respond with a post poking fun at the irony of this complaint in light of your behavior towards me over the last several years. Then I realized that this may be an opportunity for change.

What I would like to ask you to do is think back to how you felt in that moment - when it seemed that I was trying to words into Dante's mouth that were different from what he meant; when it felt reprehensible enough to ask for moderator action. Take that feeling and realize...that is how I feel every time you respond to me. When you want my words to be ridiculous, I point to what I actually said and meant, and a considerable discrepancy between the two becomes obvious, don't call me mentally ill or a liar. Would that have been a reasonable response by me to Dante as the discrepancy, between how I used his words in my OP and his explanation as to what he meant, became obvious?

Please don't just dismiss what I've said here, but sincerely try to examine what sort of response, by me, to Dante would be reasonable, and what sort of response you would have condemned. Please hold that in your mind the next time you feel compelled to respond to me. 

Psience Quest would be a very different (and dare I say, better) place if instead of "that is ridiculous" your (speaking generally) response was "let me make sure I've understood."

Speaking for myself, if I am not clear on what someone means, I sometimes try to restate it. My hope is that the member will agree with my restatement, or that it will allow them to see where my confusion lies. If I have put words in your (speaking generally) mouth that you don't agree with, please tell me. I want to know.

fls

I said it wasn't worth bothering about. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Actually, I will just add this. A while ago, when fls said she wasn't going to respond to my comments, I indicated that I wouldn't respond to hers either if she didn't wish me to. She indicated then that she didn't mind if I did. Since then she has sometimes responded to my comments, sometimes ignored them and sometimes posted what were in effect responses but without addressing or quoting me directly. But if she would rather we didn't respond to each other's comments, she has only to say the word.

What I said was, "I don't want to talk to you. You've been nothing but an ass to me in the past."

Then I accidentally responded to a post by Malf which was written in response to you, which led to another exchange. I still don't want to talk to you - nothing has changed from my first statement on the matter. 

I didn't say I didn't mind if you continued to comment on my posts (I do mind, actually). I said:

"I wanted to tell you why you likely wouldn't see a response from me. I wasn't telling you how to behave."

I leave it up to you whether or not you want to engage in behaviour you've been told is unwelcome.

Linda

Certainly I shall not be responding to anything posted by fls in the future - unless she again starts talking to or about me herself, of course.

But in the interests of accuracy, I will just quote the comment of mine that she was replying to when she said "I wasn't telling you how to behave", just so that people can judge her complaint about my behaviour for themselves. I was responding to a comment from her ending "Who cares?", which I thought sounded as though she didn't mind my responding to her posts - but I wanted to make sure ...

I was simply trying to be considerate by not responding to your posts, as you'd said you didn't wish to communicate with me. If you don't care whether I respond to them or not, I'll feel free to do so. If you prefer me not to, I won't - but in that case it will obviously make things easier if you don't respond to discussions I'm already involved in.
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-pr...41#pid8541

I'm sorry, but why is the guy who doesn't know how to telescope a curved rod the "expert" in this story (assuming the story is reasonably accurate)? I'm sure there are lots of stories about somebody with a degree saying something ignorant, but that really doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I described in my OP. Curved rods can be telescoped if they are built on curves of the same diameter, as far as I can tell.

Are you seriously asking how the guy with a degree and more than a decade of experience in a highly specialised field is the expert in that highly specialised field in this story? I don't even know what to say to that. What counts as a basic fact is pretty subjective as has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history with any paradigm shift within any scientific field.

Like most categories, it can get blurry when you get to the edges. But mostly it's fairly obvious with respect to knowledge. For example, someone who is ignorant of some basic facts about a particular subject shouldn't be considered an expert on that subject, should they?  I agree that that part is more blurry, and it is why I emphasized the knowledge part. You're the first person I've seen to specifically bring up the experience part.   

Experience is mostly about the opportunity to receive feedback in a high validity environment. So for example, the experience of trying to build a telescoping curved rod would be an example of feedback in a high validity environment (it works or it doesn't).

Then provide an objective definition of "expert" so we can even try answering your OP in a way that can be measured by something other than personal opinion. Like working in a specialised field for 10 or more years. If you've got one more objective than that, show us. Otherwise what else am I to conclude your definition is other than "they're only experts if they agree with me"? Because that's what it really looks like based on your responses to me and some others.


I'll give you another example.

In 2006 I attended a conference called Vision Quest that was all about current research into vision therapies and such. It hosted many lectures from many scientists. One of those lectures was on stem cell research and partly on the research into interfacing braincells with microchips if I remember correctly. during question period I asked "So if stem cells replicate the cells they're adjacent to then if those cells had genetic defects wouldn't the stem cell also replicate those defects?"

Apparently none of these researchers, these experts in the field, had thought of this. and they all started excitedly chattering amongst themselves. I was pulled aside by Dr. Bill Stell who was considered THE foremost expert in the field for an almost half hour chat about the subject. To me that question was incredibly basic and I was expecting to hear a simple answer and yes or no, how the found out, and what they were doing about it. I was actually disappointed that it wasn't the case.

So, these experts lacked basic knowledge of their field that I did not lack, by your definition that means they weren't stem cell experts.

Also, I'f I'm really the first person to bring up the experience component here... wow... come on guys, expert and experience, it's in the name!

As another example it's well documented that people with a lot of experience in a field also get subconscious tunnel vision about what they know because it works. One generalized example of this are the many studies where children compete with adults on simple puzzle task and the children win because they haven't formed stereotypes of what certain objects "are" yet so they're able to combine them in new and novel ways to solve puzzles that the adults struggle with. That right there is the base form of all of this.

The best example come from martial arts and other forms of combat in my opinion. Something I have more than a little experience in which has been validated by others. Because in combat if your view of reality is wrong, you lose. Kung Fu's White Tiger system is designed to allow one person to simultaneously fight 10-15 trained martial artists, I.E blackbelts, and win. How is this achieved? Partly by taking advantage of the training and experience of your opponent(s). People with high degrees of experience will react a certain way and once you know what that way is you can break it. As a result at high levels of the art the mental side of things becomes increasingly emphasised. Remaining flexible and innocent so you don't get yourself into a pattern that you think actually works. It's built right into the art in a very big way, you start as a white belt, and the grandmaster's sash is also white, As I was told direct from the grandmaster, this is because you start with knowing nothing and end with knowing nothing. And it ain't because of philosophy, it's because it works.

I could give more examples of experts missing basic things in their own discipline, things like writing technical manuals for a job that one guy has been doing for 40 years because they're retiring and literally no one else knows what they do and then as the persons explaining it to you they go "oh my god I could've been doing it this way this whole time why didn't I see it?" because they've never needed to think outside of what worked. This is why laypeople absolutely do, have, and will continue to prove experts wrong on things in their own fields.

Being on the outside can allow people to see things the experts miss over and over since they haven't learned what the discipline "is" yet.

I don't know why this didn't get into my first reply, editing error or something, so I'll rewerite it here.
[quote pid='16925' dateline='1526037629']
Like most categories, it can get blurry when you get to the edges. But mostly it's fairly obvious with respect to knowledge. For example, someone who is ignorant of some basic facts about a particular 
I agree that in some situations, a layperson can have good knowledge, but does not get the opportunity for feedback in a high validity environment, such as situations where the use of highly specialized and limited access equipment would be relevant. It's hard to obtain expertise in medicine without access to specialized training, which is mainly accessible only with a medical degree. But there are many areas where there are opportunities for that feedback. Sometimes it's just a matter of being able to discuss your understanding with somebody who already has the expertise you are hoping to achieve.
[/quote]
What, you mean like how the curved shower rod guy was meeting with the engineer of a hotel chain? That guy that you said wasn't a expert because he didn't think you could telescope a curved shower rod? Like that Linda? Because it seems like you have quite the glaring double standard here.

Are you seriously asking how the guy with a degree and more than a decade of experience in a highly specialised field is the expert in that highly specialised field in this story? I don't even know what to say to that. What counts as a basic fact is pretty subjective as has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history with any paradigm shift within any scientific field.

Yes, I'm asking why you cast the engineer who didn't know how to telescope a curved rod as an expert in telescoping rods, in this story. I don't know what a "head engineer of a hotel chain" does, but I very much doubt fabricating telescoping rods is part of their job description. Any engineer who thinks you can't telescope a curved tube into another curved tube (if you have matching curves) is an idiot. For example, curved mandrels are used in glass bead making to form curved holes when making large beads that are decorated on one side and plain on the other (so that they won't spin around on the beading string/wire and the decorated side always faces out). If the curved rod (mandrel) wasn't able to move in and out of the curved tube (the hole in a long bead), you wouldn't be able to get the bead off the mandrel without breaking it. These techniques have been around for longer than curved shower rods.

Matching curved tubes may be somewhat more difficult to fabricate. I might believe the story if that was what the hotel engineer was objecting to. But regardless, you haven't given me any reason to think that the engineer in this story was conveying the state-of-the-art engineering knowledge with respect to telescoping rods.

Then provide an objective definition of "expert" so we can even try answering your OP in a way that can be measured by something other than personal opinion.

Their knowledge reflects the state-of-the-art in that specific field. That is, they have a good grasp of all that is known, at present, about the specific topic.

I'll give you another example.

In 2006 I attended a conference called Vision Quest that was all about current research into vision therapies and such. It hosted many lectures from many scientists. One of those lectures was on stem cell research and partly on the research into interfacing braincells with microchips if I remember correctly. during question period I asked "So if stem cells replicate the cells they're adjacent to then if those cells had genetic defects wouldn't the stem cell also replicate those defects?"

Apparently none of these researchers, these experts in the field, had thought of this. and they all started excitedly chattering amongst themselves. I was pulled aside by Dr. Bill Stell who was considered THE foremost expert in the field for an almost half hour chat about the subject. To me that question was incredibly basic and I was expecting to hear a simple answer and yes or no, how the found out, and what they were doing about it. I was actually disappointed that it wasn't the case.

So, these experts lacked basic knowledge of their field that I did not lack, by your definition that means they weren't stem cell experts.

Also, I'f I'm really the first person to bring up the experience component here... wow... come on guys, expert and experience, it's in the name!

As another example it's well documented that people with a lot of experience in a field also get subconscious tunnel vision about what they know because it works. One generalized example of this are the many studies where children compete with adults on simple puzzle task and the children win because they haven't formed stereotypes of what certain objects "are" yet so they're able to combine them in new and novel ways to solve puzzles that the adults struggle with. That right there is the base form of all of this.

The best example come from martial arts and other forms of combat in my opinion. Something I have more than a little experience in which has been validated by others. Because in combat if your view of reality is wrong, you lose. Kung Fu's White Tiger system is designed to allow one person to simultaneously fight 10-15 trained martial artists, I.E blackbelts, and win. How is this achieved? Partly by taking advantage of the training and experience of your opponent(s). People with high degrees of experience will react a certain way and once you know what that way is you can break it. As a result at high levels of the art the mental side of things becomes increasingly emphasised. Remaining flexible and innocent so you don't get yourself into a pattern that you think actually works. It's built right into the art in a very big way, you start as a white belt, and the grandmaster's sash is also white, As I was told direct from the grandmaster, this is because you start with knowing nothing and end with knowing nothing. And it ain't because of philosophy, it's because it works.

I could give more examples of experts missing basic things in their own discipline, things like writing technical manuals for a job that one guy has been doing for 40 years because they're retiring and literally no one else knows what they do and then as the persons explaining it to you they go "oh my god I could've been doing it this way this whole time why didn't I see it?" because they've never needed to think outside of what worked. This is why laypeople absolutely do, have, and will continue to prove experts wrong on things in their own fields.

Being on the outside can allow people to see things the experts miss over and over since they haven't learned what the discipline "is" yet.

I wasn't asking whether or not lay people have found creative solutions missed by experts, or whether or not lay people have performed better than experts on some tasks. I have plenty examples of those on my own. 

I was asking for examples where lay people and the body of experts were at loggerheads as to who was right, or where the body of experts denied those creative solutions. Going through the examples you provided to show what this would look like...

When you asked your question about stem cells, you were met with a flat denial and they all moved on to the next question, but later it turns out to be a major stumbling block for stem cell research, and there was already evidence it was going to be a problem when you asked your question.

Children solve the puzzles before adults, and the adults claim they would usually be faster and find a bunch of excuses for why they were "uncharacteristically" slow which have nothing to do with tunnel vision.

Ten to 15 trained martial artists are defeated by one combatant, but the scoring is changed (rigged) to give the game to the trained martial artists instead.

A technical manual is rejected because the person reviewing it didn't do it that way.

Nobody doubts that laypeople make all sorts of creative contributions. But as far as I can tell, scientists in general are among the first to get excited about valid solutions (those with competing pet ideas of their own notwithstanding, perhaps) or valid criticisms. The sticking point seems to be the ability to recognize when something is valid.

Linda

I don't know why this didn't get into my first reply, editing error or something, so I'll rewerite it here.
[quote pid='16925' dateline='1526037629']
Like most categories, it can get blurry when you get to the edges. But mostly it's fairly obvious with respect to knowledge. For example, someone who is ignorant of some basic facts about a particular 
I agree that in some situations, a layperson can have good knowledge, but does not get the opportunity for feedback in a high validity environment, such as situations where the use of highly specialized and limited access equipment would be relevant. It's hard to obtain expertise in medicine without access to specialized training, which is mainly accessible only with a medical degree. But there are many areas where there are opportunities for that feedback. Sometimes it's just a matter of being able to discuss your understanding with somebody who already has the expertise you are hoping to achieve.

What, you mean like how the curved shower rod guy was meeting with the engineer of a hotel chain? That guy that you said wasn't a expert because he didn't think you could telescope a curved shower rod? Like that Linda? Because it seems like you have quite the glaring double standard here.

No, not like that. Clearly the engineer of the hotel chain could not be considered an expert on something he was ignorant of.

It would be more like the shower rod guy getting the opportunity to discuss his design with an engineer who manufactures telescoping curved rods for other applications.

Linda
[/quote]