|
Post by socold on Jul 4, 2010 12:58:19 GMT
Obviously you did not read what I wrote. I said it is the role of a scientist to bring forth the evidence. Likewise I have no idea of where your contempt of plumbers come from, they really are the best choice for plumbing advice. But not scientific advice. On matters of plumbing a court would ask a qualified plumber rather than a scientist. Even then they would probably want to know the consensus of plumbers, they wouldn't want to rely on what might be a single opinion of one plumber that goes against the views of all others. Courts don't check such evidence. They can't. A judge and/or jury are not scientific experts on DNA analysis or fingerprinting so they are not in a position to determine for themselves the odds of a duplicate fingerprint occuring for example. The court asks the experts these questions and trusts the answers. What the experts say constitutes evidence. So yes the fact they are experts does carry credibility. Furthermore the expert is not there to push his own theories, but to present the consensus opinion in the field. That's what the court wants to know. The court wants to know the consensus view of modern forensics on the chance of getting a duplicate fingerprint for example. Inverse is also true. Policymakers make bad scientists. So they cannot weight the evidence based on it's weight. Policymakers cannot determine the weight. They are not experts. They cannot derive the odds of obtaining duplicate fingerprints. They don't understand the subject. So yes indeed they do weight what the scientists provided in relation to the weight of scientists behind it. The public aren't rejecting global warming. The vast bulk of the public simply don't care. That has always been the case and probably always will.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2010 16:30:06 GMT
But not scientific advice. On matters of plumbing a court would ask a qualified plumber rather than a scientist.
Even then they would probably want to know the consensus of plumbers, they wouldn't want to rely on what might be a single opinion of one plumber that goes against the views of all others. I will probably get 3 bids myself. You are free to do as you please.
Courts don't check such evidence. They can't. A judge and/or jury are not scientific experts on DNA analysis or fingerprinting so they are not in a position to determine for themselves the odds of a duplicate fingerprint occuring for example.
The court asks the experts these questions and trusts the answers. What the experts say constitutes evidence. So yes the fact they are experts does carry credibility. Furthermore the expert is not there to push his own theories, but to present the consensus opinion in the field. That's what the court wants to know. The court wants to know the consensus view of modern forensics on the chance of getting a duplicate fingerprint for example.Thats not true Socold. Not even close. And I don't know what horrible place you live but the court does not do that any such thing in the USA. What happens in the US is the prosecution may introduce a witness considered an expert in fingerprinting that explains the science of fingerprinting as to how unlikely somebody else might have the same fingerprint then he will go on with his interpretation of the defendants fingerprints. Of course the defense does not sit there and shake their head yeah all the way through! It seems reasonable they don't challenge the science of how many people have the same fingerprint as that is common knowledge, reviewed science for which considerable evidence is available where open and transparency has allowed even centuries to test the theory (fingerprinting started in the 17th century) but did not become part of the crime detection in the US until the 20th century. But instead the defense will produce their own expert to do something like the following to challenge the prosecutions expert: Despite the absence of objective standards, scientific validation, and adequate statistical studies, a natural question to ask is how well fingerprint examiners actually perform. Proficiency tests do not validate a procedure per se, but they can provide some insight into error rates. In 1995, the Collaborative Testing Service (CTS) administered a proficiency test that, for the first time, was “designed, assembled, and reviewed” by the International Association for Identification (IAI).The results were disappointing. Four suspect cards with prints of all ten fingers were provided together with seven latents. Of 156 people taking the test, only 68 (44%) correctly classified all seven latents. Overall, the tests contained a total of 48 incorrect identifications. David Grieve, the editor of the Journal of Forensic Identification, describes the reaction of the forensic community to the results of the CTS test as ranging from “shock to disbelief,” and added:
"Errors of this magnitude within a discipline singularly admired and respected for its touted absolute certainty as an identification process have produced chilling and mind- numbing realities. Thirty-four participants, an incredible 22% of those involved, substituted presumed but false certainty for truth. By any measure, this represents a profile of practice that is unacceptable and thus demands positive action by the entire community."
What is striking about these comments is that they do not come from a critic of the fingerprint community, but from the editor of one of its premier publications.
So I don't what kind of juror you might be but I would want to see the fingerprints for myself and not depend upon the fingerprinting expert. In fact I would hope that at least one person in 12 would do that as that would be the responsible thing to do. Though the defense attorney may not insist on that which in a sense might indicate something else (incompetence or guilt?)
Inverse is also true. Policymakers make bad scientists. So they cannot weight the evidence based on it's weight.
Policymakers cannot determine the weight. They are not experts. They cannot derive the odds of obtaining duplicate fingerprints. They don't understand the subject. So yes indeed they do weight what the scientists provided in relation to the weight of scientists behind it.
I would submit that policy makers should not make the decision it should be put to referendum instead in the circumstances you describe. When scientific facts are in dispute there is no reliable measure of determining what the right answer is for the policy maker. Further many policy decisions require a choice between liklihood of a cost vs liklihood of a benefit. There is frequent disagreement on this issue and thus the public should be making the decision unless there is no time to do so. In the business of trying to weigh disagreements between scientists there is no reliable measure. Respectability, popularity, nor position should be considered. Titles really only matter if the titles are really at risk. Like consulting a CPA who is licensed, subject to standards, whose license is at risk, whose license ensures experience and knowledge through requirements and testing and where a CPA licensee can lose his license for opining in an area he has no experience even assures he will stay within his area of expertise. Still if another CPA comes up with a different opinion then you should take some real notice and perhaps delay your decision because you know both are qualified. In fact the profession would react just like the reaction above with the failure of experts to properly interpret fingerprints. The last thing they would do would be to declare one accountants opinion as superior to another and make a decision. What is called for in such instances is more discussion, more evidence, getting the auditors to agree, etc. There may be a lot more reason to think flakes exist in academia than in the accounting profession due to the lack of standards, enforcement, and universal standards of testing for competency, but in important policy matters none of that should mean you should try to rate these people as the number of times you get published in some tabloid. Bottom line is while some scientists might so lack integrity they would demonstrate their scientific stupidity and incompetency by actually producing a study that relies upon such a measure. . . .but the only thing being demonstrated here is the lack of standards in the scientific community as there is no science existing that has verified to high degree of scientific certainty that such a measure is valid. In fact considering the well known certainty of corruptibility of money and the complete lack of accountability in academia such a study might actually turn up exactly the opposite among persons with the same degrees. In fact probably the primary reason licensing and legal standards were established in the accounting profession a long time ago was the willingness of accountants to shop their opinions essentially stripping any reliability of an accountants opinion. Such a measure as number of publications is probably a better test of salesmanship than scientific competence.
The public aren't rejecting global warming. The vast bulk of the public simply don't care. That has always been the case and probably always will.
You are so naive Socold! They do care if anybody decides to substantially increase their energy supplies, squander tax payer funds, or harm the economy. . . .and they always will. You should not mistake not giving a whit about AGW with not giving a whit about what the government does about it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 4, 2010 17:53:37 GMT
Obviously you did not read what I wrote. I said it is the role of a scientist to bring forth the evidence. Likewise I have no idea of where your contempt of plumbers come from, they really are the best choice for plumbing advice. But not scientific advice. On matters of plumbing a court would ask a qualified plumber rather than a scientist. Even then they would probably want to know the consensus of plumbers, they wouldn't want to rely on what might be a single opinion of one plumber that goes against the views of all others. Courts don't check such evidence. They can't. A judge and/or jury are not scientific experts on DNA analysis or fingerprinting so they are not in a position to determine for themselves the odds of a duplicate fingerprint occuring for example. The court asks the experts these questions and trusts the answers. What the experts say constitutes evidence. So yes the fact they are experts does carry credibility. Furthermore the expert is not there to push his own theories, but to present the consensus opinion in the field. That's what the court wants to know. The court wants to know the consensus view of modern forensics on the chance of getting a duplicate fingerprint for example. Inverse is also true. Policymakers make bad scientists. So they cannot weight the evidence based on it's weight. Policymakers cannot determine the weight. They are not experts. They cannot derive the odds of obtaining duplicate fingerprints. They don't understand the subject. So yes indeed they do weight what the scientists provided in relation to the weight of scientists behind it. The public aren't rejecting global warming. The vast bulk of the public simply don't care. That has always been the case and probably always will. Inverse is also true. Policymakers make bad scientists. So they cannot weight the evidence based on it's weight. Policymakers cannot determine the weight. They are not experts. They cannot derive the odds of obtaining duplicate fingerprints. They don't understand the subject. So yes indeed they do weight what the scientists provided in relation to the weight of scientists behind it. Exactly why your argument is baseless and fallacious. motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/nixon-was-told-sea-level-would-rise-by.htmlReally socold, by now I'd think you'd have bothered to study logical fallacy and avoid using it when forming an argument.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 4, 2010 19:09:48 GMT
It seems reasonable they don't challenge the science of how many people have the same fingerprint as that is common knowledge, reviewed science for which considerable evidence is available where open and transparency has allowed even centuries to test the theory (fingerprinting started in the 17th century) but did not become part of the crime detection in the US until the 20th century. I believe that once you investigate this issue of whether consensus is important for the credibility of scientific results you will find that yes, it is. You may fight that at first but it's acceptance will become inevitable because that is reality. It's how the world works. Laypeople look to the weight of expertize behind statements as a measure of their accuracy. For example above you say "that is common knowledge, reviewed science for which considerable evidence is available". Yes indeed, but how did it become "common knowledge"? Each individual in the world did not go off and review the science themselves. No, the only reason it is common knowledge is that we've been told this is so. And that message is a consequence of what the majority of experts think on the matter. If the majority of experts thought the method was rubbish the common knowledge would be that the method was rubbish. It makes a huge difference whether a statement is backed by a single lone expert or a whole field of experts as to the credibility the layperson can assign it. I am arguing that the most reliable measure in that case is to determine the weight of expertize behind each argument. For example people accept the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because there is a consensus of experts who say it is. On the otherhand there is scientific dispute because some scientists claim it is only 6000 years old. But they are a minority. The fact there is a scientific dispute does not prevent us from making a decision. Otherwise imagine the power you have just handed crackpots. All they would have to do is claim to be a scientist and disagree the Earth is round and therefore prevent us from making a decision on the matter. So how would you handle the age of the earth dispute? I just ignore the experts who say the Earth is 6000 years old because they are the minority. I cannot assess their arguments as they are complex geology. So how do you make a decision? It is a measure of expertize and therefore is useful to know in determining the weight of expertize between the sides of a disagreement. It should be noted that the study was more a reaction to skeptic claims that there is no consensus. It seems consensus is only important as long as skeptics can't get away claiming there isn't one. Then amazingly consensus becomes irrelevant. Afterall isn't it skeptic groups that organize lists of scientists. If number of experts and weight of expertize doesn't matter why is this done? It's also skeptic groups who make very sure to mention credentials of skeptics. They like the credibility of authority, but only while it serves their purpose. When the big picture that most experts accept AGW is served, they cry that authority and credibility have nothing to do with it. Hypocrisy at it's best. That's not rejecting global warming. That's rejecting harming the economy.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 4, 2010 20:15:20 GMT
Yes indeed, but how did it become "common knowledge"? Each individual in the world did not go off and review the science themselves. No, the only reason it is common knowledge is that we've been told this is so. And that message is a consequence of what the majority of experts think on the matter. If the majority of experts thought the method was rubbish the common knowledge would be that the method was rubbish. LOL not quite. This shows little understanding of how media and controlling factions work.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2010 20:55:33 GMT
I believe that once you investigate this issue of whether consensus is important for the credibility of scientific results you will find that yes, it is. You may fight that at first but it's acceptance will become inevitable because that is reality. Actually you have upside down and backwards as usual. Probably the only reason the public condones the academic science community and all the BS they come up with is related to the following comment: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
-- Albert EinsteinFor financial attestation they found waiting for falsification wasn't timely enough so they created a new system with the necessary accountability that comes with such advocacy. If science is beyond policy makers it doesn't have much more standing for scientists. . . .as can be seen in how the debate has evolved where skeptics have pointed out holes in the theory and the advocates have responded with ad hominems rather than explanations of science allegedly available to deal with the holes. It's how the world works. Laypeople look to the weight of expertize behind statements as a measure of their accuracy.
Got any polls on that for AGW or are you just speaking of yourself and transferring it solely in your mind to laypeople in general?
For example above you say "that is common knowledge, reviewed science for which considerable evidence is available".
Yes indeed, but how did it become "common knowledge"? Each individual in the world did not go off and review the science themselves. No, the only reason it is common knowledge is that we've been told this is so. And that message is a consequence of what the majority of experts think on the matter. If the majority of experts thought the method was rubbish the common knowledge would be that the method was rubbish.
It makes a huge difference whether a statement is backed by a single lone expert or a whole field of experts as to the credibility the layperson can assign it.My opinion is you have grossly overly simplified how people form opinions Socold. Seems to be a disease common only to yourself and few other suckers.
I am arguing that the most reliable measure in that case is to determine the weight of expertize behind each argument.
For example people accept the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because there is a consensus of experts who say it is. On the otherhand there is scientific dispute because some scientists claim it is only 6000 years old. But they are a minority.
LOL! You mean some people accept the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because some experts say it is. Again grossly overly simplified. First there is no "consensus" on how old the earth is. One could probably agree that the best evidence currently points to it being 4.5 billion years but who knows what they will think in another 100 years. Second, people don't just take experts word for it without question. The process involves a fact gathering, often guided by an expert (reading books, listening to seminars, etc) and forming a personal opinion based upon all the factors the individual considers not just the expertise of the charlatan who is selling Dr Joe's Snake Oil whether they have the smiling picture of one professional endorsement or 100.
The fact there is a scientific dispute does not prevent us from making a decision. Otherwise imagine the power you have just handed crackpots. All they would have to do is claim to be a scientist and disagree the Earth is round and therefore prevent us from making a decision on the matter.As I said it isn't that simple. People make decisions based upon their perception of the need to make decisions. Opinions though go a whole lot cheaper. So how would you handle the age of the earth dispute? I just ignore the experts who say the Earth is 6000 years old because they are the minority. I cannot assess their arguments as they are complex geology. So how do you make a decision?
I haven't studied the age of the earth so I have not made a decision. If I needed to make a decision the process by which I would make it is going to vary greatly and be very dependent upon how I perceive the importance of the decision to be, how much time I have to make a decision, and what kind of resources might be available for me to make it. And though I know you won't listen again, William Happer acknowledges that nothing scientists do is beyond explanation to laymen. Usually excuses to not explain it is because of the science not being clear. It is a measure of expertize and therefore is useful to know in determining the weight of expertize between the sides of a disagreement.
You continue to just say its a fact and have not produced any study, evidence or anything. Its not true just because you say it is true. It should be noted that the study was more a reaction to skeptic claims that there is no consensus.
I have experience with scientists using what is regarded to be a scientific publishing process to advance editorial opinions out of frustration like that. CPAs would go to jail for it and it is a shameful blot on science that does nothing but undermine the public's support for science. . . .which is probably the most harmful outcome possible.
It seems consensus is only important as long as skeptics can't get away claiming there isn't one. Then amazingly consensus becomes irrelevant.
After all isn't it skeptic groups that organize lists of scientists. If number of experts and weight of expertize doesn't matter why is this done? It's also skeptic groups who make very sure to mention credentials of skeptics. They like the credibility of authority, but only while it serves their purpose. When the big picture that most experts accept AGW is served, they cry that authority and credibility have nothing to do with it. Hypocrisy at it's best.
Wrong again! I have no objection to people expressing their opinions or making lists to support their opinion. My objection here is in doing it under the color of science or claiming it is science.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 4, 2010 22:25:25 GMT
LOL! You mean some people accept the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because some experts say it is. Yes. 4.5 billion years old +- a few % is the figure given by earth science organizations, websites and textbooks. Many people, including myself, accept that value precisely because it is consensus. Lends the value credibility. I only know vaguely how the figure was obtained - radiodating of something. But I do not know the details. I haven't audited it. I haven't got the raw data. I don't need any of that stuff. The experts have done the work for me as far as I am concerned. There are a few experts claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, or only a few million years old. But they are a minority. If their arguments were good I don't think the consensus would be 4.5 plus or minus a few %. The uncertainty would be far greater if the minority argument was credible. So I have made a decision on the science without personally having to become an expert on it. Probably 4.5 billion years given so many experts think that's accurate to within such a range. But besides, the age of the Earth as best known to man here and now is 4.5 billion years. Therefore I believe that figure. Yes they do. In all walks of life people have problems and go to experts who tell them the best course of action. From fixing a computer to fixing a car, people must get advice from experts. Some people will take a single experts word for it. More sensibly is to get a "second opinion" or even a third and fourth - that's a form of consensus hunting by the way. People seek consensus all the time because when a lot of experts support an idea it lends that idea credibility. A little knowledge can actually lead a person astray if used incorrectly and they'll fair worse at decision making than people who trust what experts have concluded on a matter. Think of people who try to self-diagnose some symptoms using the Internet for example. It really depends on the nature of the learning. Some people like me take reading and learning stuff as an opportunity of finding out what the experts think on a matter. A few people learn a lot of stuff to become experts. They work pretty much full time to do this. These people will eventually become experts and can then understand the details of a specific area to make their own decisions. It's the opinion of people like that I am after. Other people learn a little stuff and think they are experts, or at least they think with their limited knowledge they are as able to derive conclusions that are comparable to the ones produced by actual experts. These people can be dangerous to others - they know just enough to bamboozle laypeople and fool laypeople into thinking they are an expert. This is often not the case. Most skeptic fallacies about manmade global warming are based on a little knowledge leading them astray for example, an enough rope to hang them situation. Wheras if they just accepted the actual conclusions of experts they would fair far better. Eg person A reads a website that says 97% of global co2 emissions are from natural sources. Using their own reasoning they conclude that therefore human activity represents just 3% of the co2 rise. Person B doesn't know squat about natural carbon emissions. They don't know the % from nature or man. Yet they have read that most experts conclude that human activity is the cause of co2 rise and so they believe that. Ironically person B who is ignorant of the basics of the science goes away with a better understanding of the matter than person A who knew more about the details. What's worse that person A could spread their little piece of misinformation to person B like a bad virus and possibly misinform them. This is the noise that harms science. The preponderance of have-a-go experts is half the problem. And they support their opinion with a list of experts who agree because a list of agreeing experts adds credibility to an opinion. Noone is claiming any list of experts is science. The science is what those experts used to come to their decisions. The list of names therefore indicates that a number of experts are convinced that the science shows something. It lends credibility to that something.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 4, 2010 22:28:50 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2010 23:08:25 GMT
LOL! You mean some people accept the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because some experts say it is. Yes. 4.5 billion years old +- a few % is the figure given by earth science organizations, websites and textbooks. Many people, including myself, accept that value precisely because it is consensus. Lends the value credibility. I only know vaguely how the figure was obtained - radiodating of something. But I do not know the details. I haven't audited it. I haven't got the raw data. I don't need any of that stuff. The experts have done the work for me as far as I am concerned.
There are a few experts claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, or only a few million years old. But they are a minority. If their arguments were good I don't think the consensus would be 4.5 plus or minus a few %. The uncertainty would be far greater if the minority argument was credible.
So I have made a decision on the science without personally having to become an expert on it.[/color][/quote] I haven't made a decision because I am not aware of any decisions I need to make that hinges on that. What decision did you make? I actually even avoid uninformed opinions not desiring to just be a sycophant as sycophancy adds nothing to the debate. Is there some reason you gravitate to sycophancy? Do you feel a compulsion to add your voice to everything even though adding it adds nothing? What if scientists think like you do? Do you think that might pose a danger to your logic? Probably 4.5 billion years given so many experts think that's accurate to within such a range. But besides, the age of the Earth as best known to man here and now is 4.5 billion years. Therefore I believe that figure.
[/color][/quote] Seems mindless. How do you ensure everybody isn't doing the same thing? Is there a minimum number of people that actually needed to have replicated the work before you buy the silk purse? How did you determine that? Look at an advocacy list? Yes they do. In all walks of life people have problems and go to experts who tell them the best course of action. From fixing a computer to fixing a car, people must get advice from experts. Some people will take a single experts word for it. More sensibly is to get a "second opinion" or even a third and fourth - that's a form of consensus hunting by the way. People seek consensus all the time because when a lot of experts support an idea it lends that idea credibility.[/color][/quote] You mean like how all the experts and something like 80% of the public supported invading Iraq to rid the place of WMDs? A little knowledge can actually lead a person astray if used incorrectly and they'll fair worse at decision making than people who trust what experts have concluded on a matter. Think of people who try to self-diagnose some symptoms using the Internet for example.
It really depends on the nature of the learning. Some people like me take reading and learning stuff as an opportunity of finding out what the experts think on a matter.
[/color][/quote] I know plenty of people who have saved their loved ones from certain death by using the internet to second guess the experts. Perhaps you are not aware of just how much attention you get from experts in today's near socialized medicine. A few people learn a lot of stuff to become experts. They work pretty much full time to do this. These people will eventually become experts and can then understand the details of a specific area to make their own decisions. It's the opinion of people like that I am after.
[/color][/quote] You are a naive idealist. Besides family and friends basically the value of the advice you get from experts is far more closely related to how much you pay for it than it is to their credentials. Other people learn a little stuff and think they are experts, or at least they think with their limited knowledge they are as able to derive conclusions that are comparable to the ones produced by actual experts. These people can be dangerous to others - they know just enough to bamboozle laypeople and fool laypeople into thinking they are an expert.
[/color][/quote] Bamboozle who? People like you who buys into the program? I am not buying the program Socold. You are just making yourself look like the fool here. This is often not the case. Most skeptic fallacies about manmade global warming are based on a little knowledge leading them astray for example, an enough rope to hang them situation. Wheras if they just accepted the actual conclusions of experts they would fair far better.
[/color][/quote] Thats your opinion Socold. I suppose if you choose to read a non-authoritative source you could be led astray if all you do is read his name and title and decide what he writes is true. You are suggesting that one should decide which person has more credibility and deciding how much credibility he has based upon how many people agree with him. Kind of a lemming mentality. It leads to absurdities like believing the climate model runs because they agree and rejected data from satellites telling us how warm it actually is. Eg person A reads a website that says 97% of global co2 emissions are from natural sources. Using their own reasoning they conclude that therefore human activity represents just 3% of the co2 rise.
[/color][/quote] That would be silly. But not favoring if it is 3% or 40% is an option. I call that uncertainty because I want to understand the process of how human emissions are absorbed in the ocean and understand how that forces another molecule out. Understanding that is precisely how cause and effect is established and its pretty clear nobody understands it. Unless you can come up with a study Socold other than a list of names that believe the result without actually understanding it. Person B doesn't know squat about natural carbon emissions. They don't know the % from nature or man. Yet they have read that most experts conclude that human activity is the cause of co2 rise and so they believe that.
Ironically person B who is ignorant of the basics of the science goes away with a better understanding of the matter than person A who knew more about the details.
What's worse that person A could spread their little piece of misinformation to person B like a bad virus and possibly misinform them. This is the noise that harms science. The preponderance of have-a-go experts is half the problem.
[/color][/quote] Yep that is a real and palpable risk if somebody starts out stupid enough to let others tell him what his opinion should be. Noone is claiming any list of experts is science. The science is what those experts used to come to their decisions. The list of names therefore indicates that a number of experts are convinced that the science shows something. It lends credibility to that something.[/color][/quote] But as you admit that does not add to the body of evidence. Science is nothing more than empirical fact/evidence and as you admit above the opinion of an expert is not science. That was what I have been getting at. Its kind of the basis of the Missouri motto: "Show Me" and it is why it is BS that Schneider published that trash. And of course we also know that Lindzen, Christy, Pielke, Happer, Spencer and many others are experts also.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 4, 2010 23:52:17 GMT
I haven't made a decision because I am not aware of any decisions I need to make that hinges on that. What decision did you make? The question is how old is the Earth. The decision I have reached is 4.5 billion years old. Uninformed? The figure comes from the elite of geological experts. That's why I believe it. It's not about debate it's about knowing stuff. I am not going to deny the figure experts have provided to me out of sheer stubbornness just because I can have a debate if I deny it. I feel that with so many geologists on Earth, there will be quite a few geologists who have looked into the age of the Earth and this is the value they are providing. I don't need to determine that. The fact that the figure provided by these fine geological organizations (eg US geological survey) is 4.5 billion plus or minus a few % tells me everything I need to know. Obviously they are convinced by the data, evidence and replication. Therefore so too am I. According to whom? For both AGW and the age of the earth I can point to respected scientific institutes who provide statements on the matter. [/QUOTE]Bamboozle who? People like you who buys into the program? I am not buying the program Socold. You are just making yourself look like the fool here.[/QUOTE] I am immune from that kind of bamboozling because I only listen to what the consensus of experts say. A small minority of experts with an alternative explanation cannot change that. Those minority experts must convince the majority of experts if they want to convince me. Here's an example of possible bamboozling over the age of the Earth: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-researchOne of the cited experts has a Ph.D. in Geology. So he's an expert who knows a great deal more than me. I can't see any errors in the article, but that's largely because I don't understand the techicals. Yet I assume the article is wrong. Why? Because so many experts disagree the articles conclusion. It's that simple. If they want to convince me, they have to convince other geology experts first. That's the way it should work. Otherwise it gives a green light for people with just enough technical background to falsely cause people to doubt an area of science by raising an issue with it. No I am taking a broader approach and looking at the overall opinion in an entire field of experts, not a single data point of one expert's views. No it doesn't. There's a wide gulf between not understanding something at all and not understanding it completely. Evidentally experts think they understand it well enough to conclude human activity is driving the recent co2 rise. [/color][/quote] But as you admit that does not add to the body of evidence. Science is nothing more than empirical fact/evidence and as you admit above the opinion of an expert is not science. That was what I have been getting at. Its kind of the basis of the Missouri motto: "Show Me" and it is why it is BS that Schneider published that trash.[/QUOTE] It doesn't add to the body of evidence about the science, but it does add to the body of evidence about expert opinions on the science. And they agree that humans are warming the planet with greenhouse gases. Where they disagree they are in a minority and until they convince other experts about their ideas they aren't going to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jul 5, 2010 0:38:40 GMT
The age of the Earth? That depends on what you are estimating. The age of the elements that comprise the Earth? The age of the supposed accretion disc the Earth was accumulated from? The age of the oldest known stones? Without further definition, the estimates fail.
4.5 billion years you say? Yes, some radiometric dating puts the age of the oldest rocks in the accreted Earth at 4.54 billion years. BUT - where are the calibration runs on that radiometric dating? Without calibration, you have a guess, little more than a five letter nullity. And where is the proof that those stones were not formed in space, as were the meteorites they are compared with?
Oh, the "experts" say they know what they are about? How did they become "expert?"
I can demonstrate I am an expert shot quite simply, either by pointing out my marksmanship medals, or by perforating the bullseye in a large number of targets. So what targets did these "experts" hit? What was their score, and how many times did they hit the X ring?
Oh, they have large numbers of published papers? What did those papers successfully explain or predict?
They were "peer reviewed" so they do not need to predict or explain anything? Then they are not "expert."
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2010 1:47:19 GMT
The question is how old is the Earth. The decision I have reached is 4.5 billion years old.
Uninformed? The figure comes from the elite of geological experts. That's why I believe it. It's not about debate it's about knowing stuff. I am not going to deny the figure experts have provided to me out of sheer stubbornness just because I can have a debate if I deny it.
I feel that with so many geologists on Earth, there will be quite a few geologists who have looked into the age of the Earth and this is the value they are providing.
I don't need to determine that. The fact that the figure provided by these fine geological organizations (eg US geological survey) is 4.5 billion plus or minus a few % tells me everything I need to know. Obviously they are convinced by the data, evidence and replication. Therefore so too am I.
You have already botched and you don't even know it. Scientists in fact have not calculated the age of the earth. They "accept" that it is at least 4.5 billion years old but that is a minimum figure not plus or minus a few %. But you got it wrong and believe it IS 4.5 billion years old. Must be you don't even know what experts to rely upon! That was my whole point.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 5, 2010 2:56:52 GMT
The Experts used to agree that tetonic plate shifting was impossible. Somehow....that changed. So much for expert opinion. Remember how the feller that thought of plate movement was ostracized?
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 6, 2010 13:44:27 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes." socold, This reference is interesting, but I think it would equally apply to "skilled" as well as "unskilled" persons. I suppose most of us could come up with a list of individuals or groups where hindsight reveals they made 'poor decisions,' reached 'erroneous conclusions' and were incompetent enough to not realize their mistakes. No argument with you. I just find the definition too restrictive. Maybe they have another "_____ - _____ Effect" term for "skilled persons" who screw up.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 6, 2010 14:12:35 GMT
The age of the Earth? That depends on what you are estimating. The age of the elements that comprise the Earth? The age of the supposed accretion disc the Earth was accumulated from? The age of the oldest known stones? Without further definition, the estimates fail. 4.5 billion years you say? Yes, some radiometric dating puts the age of the oldest rocks in the accreted Earth at 4.54 billion years. BUT - where are the calibration runs on that radiometric dating? Without calibration, you have a guess, little more than a five letter nullity. And where is the proof that those stones were not formed in space, as were the meteorites they are compared with? Oh, the "experts" say they know what they are about? How did they become "expert?" I can demonstrate I am an expert shot quite simply, either by pointing out my marksmanship medals, or by perforating the bullseye in a large number of targets. So what targets did these "experts" hit? What was their score, and how many times did they hit the X ring? Oh, they have large numbers of published papers? What did those papers successfully explain or predict? They were "peer reviewed" so they do not need to predict or explain anything? Then they are not "expert." Stranger More pointless FUD. I am not an expert. You are not an expert. Your complaints and questions might not even make sense for all you know. Therefore you should have far more doubt in your own questions than in the conclusion the experts are providing. I am going with what the experts say - and that is that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, plus or minus a few %. If it wasn't that certain I am sure the uncertainty range provided would be 4.5 +- a few billion, not 4.5 +- a few hundred million.
|
|