Laypeople trump experts

10 Space Discoveries Made By Amateur Astronomers
http://listverse.com/2016/07/30/10-space...tronomers/

10 Space Discoveries Made By Amateur Astronomers
http://listverse.com/2016/07/30/10-space...tronomers/

Is there something controversial about that? What happens when amateur astronomers report discoveries which professionals think are mistaken?

Linda

Is there something controversial about that? What happens when amateur astronomers report discoveries which professionals think are mistaken?

Linda

I found one. Transient Lunar Phenomena:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_...phenomenon

Linda

Ancient flood myths may have a basis in geological history
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5940112/ancient-...al-history

10 Space Discoveries Made By Amateur Astronomers
http://listverse.com/2016/07/30/10-space...tronomers/

A discovery does not meet the criteria set forth. Even less so by knowledgeable amateur astronomers.

I'm struggling to see where this conversation is heading.

Linda's first question was

i have seen the idea brought up numerous times, especially in relation to alt-science views, that individuals are reasonably capable of picking and choosing which authorities can be regarded as plausible.

This has nothing to do with "laypeople" offering scientific explanations.  It has everything to do with trying to determine how authority is granted (earned?) and where such authority begins and ends in terms of what explanatory power it provides.

This seems like a bit of a paradox for the layman.  So whether we are reasonably capable or not, aren't we forced to pick and choose?

She then goes on to pose what I presume was to be the primary question which is the layman proving scientist wrong thing.

I don't see where that question leads us.  If an example or two end up being put forth and accepted by all; what then?  If no example is accepted; what then?

I'm struggling to see where this conversation is heading.

Linda's first question was


This has nothing to do with "laypeople" offering scientific explanations.

To be fair, I didn't ask for examples of laypeople offering scientific explanations.

It has everything to do with trying to determine how authority is granted (earned?) and where such authority begins and ends in terms of what explanatory power it provides.

This seems like a bit of a paradox for the layman.  So whether we are reasonably capable or not, aren't we forced to pick and choose?

Yes. And my question was, which of the ways in which we pick and choose is valid? And specifically, is the way proposed by Michael and others in the ID thread valid (i.e.use your own limited knowledge and experience, plus an evaluation of the manner in which arguments are presented by those who choose to take the debate public)?

If you think this is valid, then please give some examples where lay people, using their limited knowledge and experience, were able to correctly identify who was putting forth valid concerns when the scientific community dismissed them or failed to see them. Please give some examples where, in these endless debates about vaccines and climate change and evolution and and and, it turned out that laypeople were the ones who were right all along.

She then goes on to pose what I presume was to be the primary question which is the layman proving scientist wrong thing.

I don't see where that question leads us.  If an example or two end up being put forth and accepted by all; what then?  If no example is accepted; what then?

I'm just curious as to where people like Michael or Jim Smith (who proposed analyzing debates with respect to whether someone did not defend their position with facts and logic) get the idea that they are coming to valid conclusions when they do this. I'm asking for examples, because I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And if examples are forthcoming, it would be interesting (to me) to look at the details - how/why scientists went wrong, what advantage laypeople had with respect to evaluating the arguments, what could change to improve the situation, etc.

Linda

To be fair, I didn't ask for examples of laypeople offering scientific explanations.


Yes. And my question was, which of the ways in which we pick and choose is valid? And specifically, is the way proposed by Michael and others in the ID thread valid (i.e.use your own limited knowledge and experience, plus an evaluation of the manner in which arguments are presented by those who choose to take the debate public)?

If you think this is valid, then please give some examples where lay people, using their limited knowledge and experience, were able to correctly identify who was putting forth valid concerns when the scientific community dismissed them or failed to see them. Please give some examples where, in these endless debates about vaccines and climate change and evolution and and and, it turned out that laypeople were the ones who were right all along.


I'm just curious as to where people like Michael or Jim Smith (who proposed analyzing debates with respect to whether someone did not defend their position with facts and logic) get the idea that they are coming to valid conclusions when they do this. I'm asking for examples, because I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And if examples are forthcoming, it would be interesting (to me) to look at the details - how/why scientists went wrong, what advantage laypeople had with respect to evaluating the arguments, what could change to improve the situation, etc.

Linda

But what is the point of this? Are you disagreeing with the arguments that their sources are using? If so, debate their arguments. Using scientific consensus as a tool is wrong, because scientific consensus has been wrong most of the time. This is how science grows. Remember the H. Pylori controversy where people were almost quite literally kicked out of the medical profession for arguing that bacteria caused stomach ulcers?

To be fair, I didn't ask for examples of laypeople offering scientific explanations.

My apologies if I misinterpreted this:

Or, if they have a modicum of knowledge and experience in a field, that they are capable of weighing the evidence themselves. In these cases, the views they come to hold contradict the views held by the vast majority of people with considerable knowledge and experience in the matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. And my question was, which of the ways in which we pick and choose is valid? And specifically, is the way proposed by Michael and others in the ID thread valid (i.e.use your own limited knowledge and experience, plus an evaluation of the manner in which arguments are presented by those who choose to take the debate public)?

If you think this is valid, then please give some examples where lay people, using their limited knowledge and experience, were able to correctly identify who was putting forth valid concerns when the scientific community dismissed them or failed to see them. Please give some examples where, in these endless debates about vaccines and climate change and evolution and and and, it turned out that laypeople were the ones who were right all along.

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.

My apologies if I misinterpreted this:


-------------------------------------------------------------


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.

Read and become knowledgeable. Know that pure scientists only goal is to discover how things work.
By the way, no scientist is an authority which is more appropriately ascribed to political, judicial and religious leaders. Instead used the words "expert" or "specialist".