Laypeople trump experts

Good grief.

Dante agreed with Brian that I believed something - "lay people cannot have intelligent opinions while scientists are virtually infallible" - which contradicted their beliefs. The contradiction of that statement (i.e. the statement which would reflect their beliefs) is "lay people can have intelligent opinions while scientists can be fallible". I agree with the latter statement (i.e. their impression did not reflect my beliefs).

ETA: LOL. Damn copy and paste.

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. 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.

I tried to think of an example where this particular bit of self-confidence has been demonstrated to be valid, and I failed.

I challenge any intelligent person to read this portion of Linda's OP without drawing the conclusion that she is having a spiteful dig at those of us who form opinions of our own where scientific consensus is only theory.

Good grief.

Dante agreed with Brian that I believed something - "lay people cannot have intelligent opinions while scientists are virtually infallible" - which contradicted their beliefs. The contradiction of that statement (i.e. the statement which would reflect their beliefs) is "lay people can have intelligent opinions while scientists can be infallible".

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. Except you got it wrong and turned it into nonsense. And unbelievably you've just used the nonsensical version again.

Please consider that this may be nature's way of telling you that this kind of thing isn't a good idea.

I challenge any intelligent person to read this portion of Linda's OP without drawing the conclusion that she is having a spiteful dig at those of us who form opinions of our own where scientific consensus is only theory.

I don’t know what you mean by “scientific consensus is only a theory” - that statement is incoherent.

My OP is a dig at people who form opinions on the basis of relative ignorance and inexperience. It’s up to you (plural) whether or not you see yourself in that category.

Linda

Brian said, “The impression I got was that you believe lay people cannot have intelligent opinions while scientists are virtually infallible.  I know that wasn't in your wording but in a forum like this, that is what seems to come across.  If that was what was going on inside your head, then I think my post answered it very well indeed.  An example of something that lies outside science would be the meaning of life if there is any, and I believe there is. You cannot find a meaning to life by studying particles in a laboratory yet many people seem to believe that science has somehow proved that there is no meaning to life.  I don't need a PHD to see that.”

Dante said, “I think your response is similar to what I've been trying to convey, and you did so in a more clear manner than I did in my PM to Linda.”

It seemed the clearest statement, and one where we would find common ground for agreement, which I happen to think it is a good idea.

[Laird]

I think when what people have said is misrepresented to this extent, then it's reasonable for a moderator to correct things.

Well, we're pretty low-key on moderation here. Like you, I had noticed that Linda's paraphrasing seemed to be... something of a stretch, for the reasons you point out... but figured Dante was in the best place to respond. Of course, anybody else was/is free to point it out too, as you've done.

I should add that Linda has in this thread also at times been paraphrased or represented... less than kindly.

Policing this as moderators would be challenging (especially working out where to draw the line), and is, I think, unnecessary.

I don’t know what you mean by “scientific consensus is only a theory” - that statement is incoherent.

My OP is a dig at people who form opinions on the basis of relative ignorance and inexperience. It’s up to you (plural) whether or not you see yourself in that category.

Linda

!. that statement is not incoherent.  So much of what people like yourself believes in is stuff that has never been proven but is stated in books and programs on science as being fact.  Black holes are an example of science's own "god of the gaps" as is dark matter.  Theory is based upon theory upon theory and the rest of us are expected to swallow it whole.

2.  So you were digging at yourself.  From another thread I can see you believe in evolution and feel we are no good at estimating probabilities.  I mentioned Douglas Axe and for that you pretended you didn't understand.  You have formed an opinion that goes against his understanding of probabilities from his own work as a molecular biologist.  Compared to him you are ignorant and compared to many other scientists who don't believe in evolution, you are also ignorant and yet you have formed an opinion on the subject.

The truth is, people can't help forming opinions and you have no right to dig at people for doing so!

Policing this as moderators would be challenging (especially working out where to draw the line), and is, I think, unnecessary.

Yes. These things tend to seem more important at the time than they really are. In retrospect it's not worth bothering about.

!. that statement is not incoherent.  So much of what people like yourself believes in is stuff that has never been proven but is stated in books and programs on science as being fact.  Black holes are an example of science's own "god of the gaps" as is dark matter.  Theory is based upon theory upon theory and the rest of us are expected to swallow it whole.

2.  So you were digging at yourself.  From another thread I can see you believe in evolution and feel we are no good at estimating probabilities.  I mentioned Douglas Axe and for that you pretended you didn't understand.  You have formed an opinion that goes against his understanding of probabilities from his own work as a molecular biologist.  Compared to him you are ignorant and compared to many other scientists who don't believe in evolution, you are also ignorant and yet you have formed an opinion on the subject.

The truth is, people can't help forming opinions and you have no right to dig at people for doing so!

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).