Laypeople trump experts

My apologies if I misinterpreted this:


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

Oh, I see. It could be taken that way. I was thinking of situations where laypeople say they have weighed the evidence with respect to ideas which haven't been regarded as valid by scientists in the relevant fields - e.g. those who find ID cogent. Laypeople can and have proposed ideas/theories which have been taken up as valid by scientists in the relevant fields, so I'm not disputing that.

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.

That's a good question, and I think it deserves its own thread. I will start a new thread, in answer to this post (it may take a little time - I'm working on getting my loom threaded and then heading out to see Thor ).

Linda

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".

This is painfully oblivious to the fact that scientists are human, thus fallible, with their own set of biases that may blind them to contradictory opinions. This blindness is so common in the history of science. Schrödinger’s cat is a very solid example of this.

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".

"Read and become knowledgeable. Know that pure scientists only goal is to discover how things work."

As long as "how things work" can be broken down to physical matter ?

This is painfully oblivious to the fact that scientists are human, thus fallible, with their own set of biases that may blind them to contradictory opinions. This blindness is so common in the history of science. Schrödinger’s cat is a very solid example of this.

I didn't know Schrödinger's cat was blind. That's so sad.

"Read and become knowledgeable. Know that pure scientists only goal is to discover how things work."

As long as "how things work" can be broken down to physical matter ?

Don't forget physical also applies too forces.

Don't forget physical also applies to forces.

What do you mean by forces ?  And can you tell me what a "thought" is made out of ?

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".

Directive, authoritative, and brief.  Thanks.

What do you mean by forces ?  And can you tell me what a "thought" is made out of ?

Gravity. The electromagnetic force. Weak and Strong nuclear forces. Why didn't you search out the answer yourself?
Bookmark this site. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbd

"Thought" has no substance. It's an activity.

Gravity. The electromagnetic force. Weak and Strong nuclear forces. Why didn't you search out the answer yourself?
Bookmark this site. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbd

"Thought" has no substance. It's an activity.

So it’s non physical?

Gravity. The electromagnetic force. Weak and Strong nuclear forces. Why didn't you search out the answer yourself?
Bookmark this site. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbd

"Thought" has no substance. It's an activity.

Why didn't you search out the answer yourself ?

I wasn't asking you for the answers, I was asking you what you meant by forces !

Steve said > "Thought" has no substance. It's an activity."

Well if it's an activity, it must have some force making it exist or bringing it into existence (the mind ? ) So the mind must be something ? But you materialists with your heads stuck in the sand, cannot explain what it is made of or how it comes into existence, except that it somehow does...through neural complexity. But you cannot predict or tell us the number of neural connections between neurons that brings the mind into existence.

So absolutely the most crucial element of man, without which there is no man, you lot have no idea. Because you don't acknowledge that there's something else.