Scientific "knowledge"...

[GrowingSmaller]

A scientist who is trained in evolutionary theory and has seen evidence with is own eyes, I take it, is the archetype of someone who knows species evolve.

But what if Mom and Dad teach their child that species have evolved? It may seem that the child has knowledge of evolution, but the same child may well have believed Mom and Dad if they had taught her or him that Young Earth Creationism were true.

So obviously believing Mom and Dad is not in itself a reliable process for acquiring knowledge. So, does the child who believes in evolution in this way actually know species evolve? Or is he or she ignorant (not-knowing) even though the belief held is true?

I ask this for various reasons, but one is that people claim that mankind has scientific knowledge, but do all those who claim they know (or it is claimed by others that they know...) scientific truths, actually know? What are the kind of standards a non specialist must meet in order to be regarded as knowing?

 

[AlexBP]

I've wondered the same thing many times. The claim we hear over and over is that anything proved by science can be verified objectively, which supposedly contrasts with religious claims that require faith in some source perceived as an authority. But most of us cannot build our own space telescope or particle accelerator, nor can we explore the depths of the ocean or do an experimental study of elephant behavior. So the bulk of scientific knowledge is stuff that we accept because we perceive someone or something as a legitimate source of authority in the relevant field.

 

[Astridhere]

A scientist who is trained in evolutionary theory and has seen evidence with is own eyes, I take it, is the archetype of someone who knows species evolve.

But what if Mom and Dad teach their child that species have evolved? It may seem that the child has knowledge of evolution, but the same child may well have believed Mom and Dad if they had taught her or him that Young Earth Creationism were true.

So obviously believing Mom and Dad is not in itself a reliable process for acquiring knowledge. So, does the child who believes in evolution in this way actually know species evolve? Or is he or she ignorant (not-knowing) even though the belief held is true?

I ask this for various reasons, but one is that people claim that mankind has scientific knowledge - but do all those who claim they know that there was a Big Bang or that there are quantum uncertainties (and I am one) etc, actually know? What are the kind of standards a non specialist must meet in order to be regarded as knowing?

I'd say the majority of people follow creation or evolution just because..as you say they have been inculcated into a view. The average person on the street wouldn't know what an allele is.

Many adhere to TOE because that is the view held by the majority of relevently credentialed researchers and there is no need to understand the concept themselves. The question arises, is the majority view, always right? The answer to that question is NO, as is demonstrated by the many evidences held up to support evolution that have now been falsified eg LUCA, knucklewalking ancestry, junk DNA, basically 100 years of falsifications and changed thinking..the list is long.....

What is more interesting is the volume of ex evolutionists, that are also relevently well credentialed, that have jumped the fence and now support a creationist view. eg John Sanford ex evolutionist, now YEC. I think that says it all.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I dont want this to turn into an evo-creo debate (its the wrong forum). But Astridhere what are the standards where by knowledge of Creation is established, if there is such knowledge after all? Do all creationists know creationism is true? Does God give them a helping hand if they are not "experts in the field"? If one believes by grace and not works then can works (expertese) lead us to knowledge about God's Creation?

 

[The Nihilist]

A scientist who is trained in evolutionary theory and has seen evidence with is own eyes, I take it, is the archetype of someone who knows species evolve.

But what if Mom and Dad teach their child that species have evolved? It may seem that the child has knowledge of evolution, but the same child may well have believed Mom and Dad if they had taught her or him that Young Earth Creationism were true.

So obviously believing Mom and Dad is not in itself a reliable process for acquiring knowledge. So, does the child who believes in evolution in this way actually know species evolve? Or is he or she ignorant (not-knowing) even though the belief held is true?

I ask this for various reasons, but one is that people claim that mankind has scientific knowledge, but do all those who claim they know (or it is claimed by others that they know...) scientific truths, actually know? What are the kind of standards a non specialist must meet in order to be regarded as knowing?

The scientist has justified true belief, but the child in question only has conviction. I think Plato makes these distinctions, but you would have had to ask me when I was an undergrad for me to be certain.

 

[variant]

A scientist who is trained in evolutionary theory and has seen evidence with is own eyes, I take it, is the archetype of someone who knows species evolve.

But what if Mom and Dad teach their child that species have evolved? It may seem that the child has knowledge of evolution, but the same child may well have believed Mom and Dad if they had taught her or him that Young Earth Creationism were true.

So obviously believing Mom and Dad is not in itself a reliable process for acquiring knowledge. So, does the child who believes in evolution in this way actually know species evolve? Or is he or she ignorant (not-knowing) even though the belief held is true?

I ask this for various reasons, but one is that people claim that mankind has scientific knowledge, but do all those who claim they know (or it is claimed by others that they know...) scientific truths, actually know? What are the kind of standards a non specialist must meet in order to be regarded as knowing?

The only way to have direct scientific knowledge is to do the experiment yourself. Thankfully that is an available method for anyone with the means to do so.

We generally accept indirect knowledge reported by reliable sources.

For example, I don't know that there was a nuclear incident at the Fukishima nuclear power plant, but I am sure if I went there myself with a geiger counter I could easily verify it.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is a great question, and one I've pondered as well. My conclusion is that "knowing" is really, at its root, about trust. Suppose you could do the experiment yourself. Does that really mean you "know" or is it just that now you're trusting your own senses vs. someone else. There are some experiments that I would not trust myself to do.

I've mentioned before the little experiment that an experienced engineer at my company likes to do with new engineers. Very few get the "right" answer. Experimentation not only requires experience, but skill and attention to detail. It's not as pat as some seem to think it is.

Or, there are singular events that are examined post mortem, yet they are claimed to be "scientific". Are they if I can't repeat the event? All I can do is trust the data handed me by someone else. I am constantly frustrated at work when someone pulls an old report from our archives as supposed support of their view. There are so many questions about how some tests were done that their conclusions are worthless. All we can really do is run the test again and try to do a better job of documenting. It is not uncommon to get different results when trying to duplicate an old test.

So, let me put a new twist on the question. Is it possible that some aspects of science will only ever be understood by a small minority? Why do we think it is more admirable for someone to do it themselves as opposed to those who are trusting?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A scientist who is trained in evolutionary theory and has seen evidence with is own eyes, I take it, is the archetype of someone who knows species evolve.

But what if Mom and Dad teach their child that species have evolved? It may seem that the child has knowledge of evolution, but the same child may well have believed Mom and Dad if they had taught her or him that Young Earth Creationism were true.

So obviously believing Mom and Dad is not in itself a reliable process for acquiring knowledge. So, does the child who believes in evolution in this way actually know species evolve? Or is he or she ignorant (not-knowing) even though the belief held is true?

I ask this for various reasons, but one is that people claim that mankind has scientific knowledge, but do all those who claim they know (or it is claimed by others that they know...) scientific truths, actually know? What are the kind of standards a non specialist must meet in order to be regarded as knowing?

This kind of thinking is basically taking skepticism to its logical conclusion. We all trust an authority on any subject to gain knowledge. But I think a good measure of whether a layperson knows something is linked to who he is getting his knowledge from. If a layperson is touting knowledge of evolution based on a book written by a scientist who has devoted 30 years of his life to studying biology and genetics, then it is reasonable to say this layperson is trusting a legitimate source. Why? Because the scientist is the one with expertise in the subject of biology and genetics.

When you get on a bus, you trust the bus driver because the bus driver is the authority on driving a bus. Trusting that same bus driver to pilot an airplane with you as a passenger is unreasonable because the bus driver is not an authority on piloting airplanes.

The same goes with science. Trusting mom and pop and their views are not necessarily legitimate or reasonable unless they happen to be biologists or geneticists. Similarly, your pastor is not an authority on biology and genetics. He has not devoted 30 years of his life to studying biology and genetics. Your pastor is probably a good authority on Biblical history and Biblical interpretation but this is not the same as him being an authority on the complex systems involved in evolutionary biology. Trusting your pastor's knowledge as the highest authority on evolutionary biology is like trusting the bus driver to pilot your airplane. The authority doesn't match the subject.

As far as YEC: There are 4 groups of people:

Camp #1: Christians who believe in evolution
Camp #2: Christians who believe in YEC
Camp #3: Non-Christians who believe in evolution
Camp #4: Non-Christians who believe in YEC

If there was any legitimate, culturally-independent, faith-independent, scientifically-grounded, objective evidence of YEC, then there would be at least some people in Camp #4. I have never heard of or met anyone in Camp #4. I have met people in all the other camps. My sample size is sufficiently large.

 

[Blayz]

Scientists get results. On the one hand we have a group of people that gave us cars, airplanes, electricity, computers, synthetic clothing, modern farming techniques and the like, and this group says "evolution is real"

On the other hand we have creationists who...umm...sing songs entitled "the behemoth was a dinosaur" to 5 year olds. Saying it is false.

 

[Resha Caner]

Scientists get results. On the one hand we have a group of people that gave us cars, airplanes, electricity, computers, synthetic clothing, modern farming techniques and the like, and this group says "evolution is real"

On the other hand we have creationists who...umm...sing songs entitled "the behemoth was a dinosaur" to 5 year olds. Saying it is false.

A false dichotomy. The development of the items you listed has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not some litmus test for being a scientist. I happen to be a Christian who does not accept evolution, and yet by some means the science I use in my job still works quite nicely.

In fact, there was a debate in the medical community for a time regarding whether doctors needed to be competent in evolutionary theory. The charge was exactly that - that it was being used as a test to make sure doctors were walking in lock step with the liberal ideology of the post modern world. Even those supporting the idea said there wasn't really a direct need for doctors to be versed in evolution, but merely that it was generally good for them to be up to date in biology. I can actually agree with that. Even for those who have problems with evolution, it is good to understand evolution.

Then, of course, you also seem to imply that no religion has ever done anything positive. I doubt I'll change your opinion on that, but that is all it is - an opinion.

Last of all, your "scientists get results" argument is worthless. Science of philosophy did away with that argument a long time ago. In colloquial terms, it is refuted by the pithy saying that "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Scientists get results. On the one hand we have a group of people that gave us cars, airplanes, electricity, computers, synthetic clothing, modern farming techniques and the like, and this group says "evolution is real"

On the other hand we have creationists who...umm...sing songs entitled "the behemoth was a dinosaur" to 5 year olds. Saying it is false.

But do I have to know this line of reasoing to be sound if my trust in scientific reports is to be valid knowledge. I think that whole issue shows that knowledge is on a sliding scale with differeent "strengths" or "degrees" of knowledge depending on personal access to justification, arguments, logical skills etc when forming an oppinion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This kind of thinking is basically taking skepticism to its logical conclusion.

I m not really presenting a skeptical argument, just asking when knowledge claims become knowledge. A skeptic would deny that there can be knoweldge.