"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[juvenissun]

Could you demonstrate this? For the sake of illustrating your point.


Cause I'm pretty sure I did not catch your intended meaning.

It seems like you are advocating that if you argue with a person who says:
Claim: "The moons is made from cheese cause invisible rabbits are yellow"
The proper response is.
Response: "The moon is made from rock and dust cause the invisible rabbits are green"
Since you have to use 'their logic', no matter how faulty it is? (Pretty sure this isnt how you meant it.)

No no. A good argument in your example would be: if it were made of cheese, then it will implode.

Remember, if you say A, in order to convince you that you are wrong, I need to argue "-A", instead of just giving B.

So if I argued the earth is 6000 years old, then you should show that Bishop Ussher is wrong in his reasoning, but not to show radiometric dating is right. In other words, if I say A, but you (an expert) say B. Then I can reject (or ignore) B (as a layman), but maintain the A. This would be logically right.

 

[juvenissun]

Right, and if you are then I wouldn't presume to correct you on your interpretation of scripture.

In any case, I am going by what you said. You claimed to be ignorant of geology earlier and yet still renegade from the established understanding of it.

I haven't.

I'm not arguing that we should ignore people who make arguments against things they don't understand only that we should inform them that they are hopelessly ignorant on what they claim to be able to refute and need to get some knowledge on it before proceeding.

You tell me that I am ignorant on geology. But I can tell you that you are ignorant on Bible. So, if I got my conclusion from the Bible, not from geology. But you said I am wrong according to geology. How can you convince me on that? No way. I don't get my conclusion from geology. I don't care about what geology said.

 

[juvenissun]

Nonsense. Why would a side that is completely wrong and based on ignorance be worth looking at? Not all answers carry equal weight. Funny how you guys always want the playing field to reflect the opposite.

Because you haven't really look at it yet.

I saw two students. One studied a lot and studied very hard. One barely studied. But the hard-working one can not compete with the smart one in test. And I have seem many labs work very hard only to make junk data. They should not start the work at the first place. Quantity does not mean correct. Professional interpretation, in fact, is usually wrong at the end.

 

[Mling]

It would be fallacious to condemn their every statement based on one or more poor statements.

Six-day-creationist Joe may know jack about physical science, but he could know a LOT about home repair, landscaping, and gardening.

You can't condemn everything they say, no, but you can disregard it. If somebody has openly stated that they think ignorance is superior to knowledge, then you have to be suspicious that anything they say is likely to come from a place of ignorance. Sure, there are probably things they *do* know about, maybe even are experts in. They may even go so far as acknowledge that education and understanding are superior to ignorance uncertain fields--Joe probably understands that if he doesn't know what kind of fertilizer to use on his garden, it's best to find out before picking one, lest he ruin the lawn.

Still, the fact remains that this person considers ignorance superior to knowledge, which means they're likely to speak about this they don't understand, as if they do. An outsider has no way of discerning whatbthey actually know from what they've made up or are ignorantly passing along, so anything they say has to be confirmed with outside research. If you're going to do the research anyway, why bother talking to the dubious guy? Why not just do the research from the start, or get a lead from a credible source if you're not sure where to start?

You can't assume that everything such a person says is *wrong,* but talking to them about pretty much anything is still a waste of time.

 

[Skavau]

You tell me that I am ignorant on geology. But I can tell you that you are ignorant on Bible. So, if I got my conclusion from the Bible, not from geology. But you said I am wrong according to geology. How can you convince me on that?

This isn't about convincing you of anything. You admitted you were ignorant on geology and disagree with most geologists. That's fine. You can believe whatever you like and for whatever reason.

Just don't pretend your conclusions are scientific when they are clearly derived from scripture.

No way. I don't get my conclusion from geology. I don't care about what geology said.

See above.

 

[Skavau]

Because you haven't really look at it yet.

I saw two students. One studied a lot and studied very hard. One barely studied. But the hard-working one can not compete with the smart one in test. And I have seem many labs work very hard only to make junk data. They should not start the work at the first place. Quantity does not mean correct. Professional interpretation, in fact, is usually wrong at the end.

How can a laboratory know that it might only gather "junk data"?

Your attitude would have never bought us any advances in knowledge whatsoever.

 

[roach]

Because you haven't really look at it yet.

I saw two students. One studied a lot and studied very hard. One barely studied. But the hard-working one can not compete with the smart one in test. And I have seem many labs work very hard only to make junk data. They should not start the work at the first place. Quantity does not mean correct. Professional interpretation, in fact, is usually wrong at the end.

You are confusing correlation with causation. Science will teach you that the genetic makeup of people has just as much, if not more, to do with intelligence. Also, there is no such thing as junk data from research. You're regurgitating a very skewed version of what scientists and doctors do. You simply don't know what you're talking about here. If you really want to argue a scientific perspective, try to understand it better.

 

[Mling]

Because you haven't really look at it yet.

I saw two students. One studied a lot and studied very hard. One barely studied. But the hard-working one can not compete with the smart one in test. And I have seem many labs work very hard only to make junk data. They should not start the work at the first place. Quantity does not mean correct. Professional interpretation, in fact, is usually wrong at the end.

Where did you see this?

At any rate, the one you call "smart" (ie: better able to demonstrate his knowledge on tests), will hit a wall as soon as he hits the end of what seems obvious to him because he doesnt know how to acquire more knowledge. The one who has more trouble seeing things from the start has developed a better ability to learn, and will be able to continue doing well in the future.

My bet is that the one you don't think is very smart will do better in the long run, when the one you call "smart," will hit his peak in high school or college, where success is defined by test scores, and then either peter out or collapse and hit rock bottom when he can't cruise along easily any more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You tell me that I am ignorant on geology. But I can tell you that you are ignorant on Bible. So, if I got my conclusion from the Bible, not from geology. But you said I am wrong according to geology. How can you convince me on that? No way. I don't get my conclusion from geology. I don't care about what geology said.

The problem is that we can tell you that are equally as ignorant of the Bible as you are on geology -- and just about everything that comes out of your mouth on either subject supports it.

 

[roach]

Where did you see this?

At any rate, the one you call "smart" (ie: better able to demonstrate his knowledge on tests), will hit a wall as soon as he hits the end of what seems obvious to him because he doesnt know how to acquire more knowledge. The one who has more trouble seeing things from the start has developed a better ability to learn, and will be able to continue doing well in the future.

My bet is that the one you don't think is very smart will do better in the long run, when the one you call "smart," will hit his peak in high school or college, where success is defined by test scores, and then either peter out or collapse and hit rock bottom when he can't cruise along easily any more.

You might find studies done on identical twins separated at birth interesting - there is a lot of evidence now that calculates the effect of genes determining intelligence at about 50%, with various other external factors (including, but not limited to, socialization and environment) making up the other 50%. The heritability of pretty much all behavioral traits can be likewise predicted, and be shown to fall within this range.

 

[Mling]

You might find studies done on identical twins separated at birth interesting - there is a lot of evidence now that calculates the effect of genes determining intelligence at about 50%, with various other external factors (including, but not limited to, socialization and environment) making up the other 50%. The heritability of pretty much all behavioral traits can be likewise predicted, and be shown to fall within this range.

My point was that acquiring the ability to learn is a much more important life skill than being able.to.pass a test on innate talent. Innate talent for anything eventually runs out, while the ability to learn does not (except, perhaps, with certain diseases, but even then, leas than you'd think).

At any rate, I'd be very suspicious of such studies, because it's extremely difficult to determine what intelligence *is* and it's likely that no such thing exists at all. How did these studies define it, and how did they measure it?

 

[juvenissun]

This isn't about convincing you of anything. You admitted you were ignorant on geology and disagree with most geologists. That's fine. You can believe whatever you like and for whatever reason.

Just don't pretend your conclusions are scientific when they are clearly derived from scripture.


See above.

Bible scholars never say their "scientific" understanding is scientific. They say it is Biblical. YOU, are the one said their understanding is Not Scientific.

 

[juvenissun]

How can a laboratory know that it might only gather "junk data"?

Your attitude would have never bought us any advances in knowledge whatsoever.

Do they claim that they are experts? That is, in most cases, the calibre of so-called expert.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bible scholars never say their "scientific" understanding is scientific. They say it is Biblical. YOU, are the one said their understanding is Not Scientific.

And since this is a science forum and not a Bible studies forum, if a Bible scholar were to come in here, he'd have precious little to add.

 

[juvenissun]

You are confusing correlation with causation. Science will teach you that the genetic makeup of people has just as much, if not more, to do with intelligence. Also, there is no such thing as junk data from research. You're regurgitating a very skewed version of what scientists and doctors do. You simply don't know what you're talking about here. If you really want to argue a scientific perspective, try to understand it better.

Let me give you a piece of expert's idea (the most updated) and you make the call:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dairy-free-dairy-6-reason_b_558876.html

Do you believe it? If you don't, are you striking down expert's idea by ignorance?

There are tons of similar type of data (since when?). Most of them, unfortunately are trashy.

 

[juvenissun]

Where did you see this?

At any rate, the one you call "smart" (ie: better able to demonstrate his knowledge on tests), will hit a wall as soon as he hits the end of what seems obvious to him because he doesnt know how to acquire more knowledge. The one who has more trouble seeing things from the start has developed a better ability to learn, and will be able to continue doing well in the future.

My bet is that the one you don't think is very smart will do better in the long run, when the one you call "smart," will hit his peak in high school or college, where success is defined by test scores, and then either peter out or collapse and hit rock bottom when he can't cruise along easily any more.

I saw the case everywhere and all the time.

Yes, you may be right. But it is just may be. And your elaboration is beyond the point that this example is trying to illustrate.

(My imagination is that the smart student would become a politician, and the dumb student will become a "scientist". Ha ! )

 

[Mling]

Let me give you a piece of expert's idea (the most updated) and you make the call:

Mark Hyman, MD: Dairy: 6 Reasons You Should Avoid It at All Costs or Why Following the USDA Food Pyramid Guidelines is Bad for Your Health (VIDEO)

Do you believe it? If you don't, are you striking down expert's idea by ignorance?

There are tons of similar type of data (since when?). Most of them, unfortunately are trashy.

that isn't data.

 

[juvenissun]

And since this is a science forum and not a Bible studies forum, if a Bible scholar were to come in here, he'd have precious little to add.

Hey, proud scientist. Raise a scientific issue, and see me beat you to the ground solely based on science.

 

[juvenissun]

that isn't data.

You mean scientist can say things without data?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hey, proud scientist. Raise a scientific issue, and see me beat you to the ground solely based on science.

I'm not a scientist -- did you think I was?

Sorry, juven, you're going to have to find someone else to try to prove your own greatness with.