The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

Whom do you assert does have expertise on these topics? (I trust modesty will forbid you from claiming that position.)

Absolutely not me, that's for sure. I lack belief that dark matter exists in the first place, so I lack belief that anyone is actually an "expert" on it, anymore than I believe anyone is an actual "expert" or an "authority" at predicting anything useful from astrology.

 

[Michael]

I'm afraid your obsession has distracted you from the relevant point, which was about whom a lay person should take as an authority in a given field:

Who do you personally accept as an authority on "young earth creationism" who's opinions on the accuracy of that claim you will accept as being "more accurate" on that topic than yours?

Same question as it relates to the topic of God? Is the Pope the only relevant "authority" on that topic too?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That might make sense were it not for the fact that 95 percent of their "beliefs" amount to placeholder terms for human ignorance, and every "test" of their "cold dark matter" claims hadn't come up empty. It might make sense of their baryonic mass estimates had stood the test of time over the past decade, but they haven't, not even close.

Of course it makes sense - the lay person takes them as authority because he doesn't know the field; he has to chose between the view of people who spend their lives working in that field and some bloke off the internet. An intelligent person knows there's a chance the authority could be wrong, but they're an authority because they're generally considered more likely, on average, to be right than anyone else, including blokes on the internet.

As it stands, there's no evidence that your "expert authorities" have any real or special expertise on these topics in the first place.

If the people who spend their lives working in a field don't gain any 'real or special expertise', how does anyone gain 'real or special expertise' ?

So you'd accept that same argument from a theist who essentially quotes their "pastor" and ignores your request for evidence?

It depends what the argument is. If an acknowledged authority gives a relevant judgement in their speciality, that counts as evidence, albeit indirect. You just have to be careful about what the claimed authority is (see below).

So it would be a "reasonable" expectation to expect you to change the minds of the pastors of planet Earth, otherwise we should just trust them?

Who said anything about changing their minds? whether you should 'trust' them is up to you. I might want a second opinion for a pastor's view on anything but their own life and beliefs...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who do you personally accept as an authority on "young earth creationism" who's opinions on the accuracy of that claim you will accept as being "more accurate" on that topic than yours?

I don't recall having disputed what 'young earth' creationists believe, so I haven't needed one. I'd probably check more than one source.

Same question as it relates to the topic of God? Is the Pope the only relevant "authority" on that topic too?

As I understand it, the pope is the figurehead authority on Catholicism; but every theist religion has its own authorities on God. That's a large part of the problem...

 

[MissRowy]

Who do you personally accept as an authority on "young earth creationism" who's opinions on the accuracy of that claim you will accept as being "more accurate" on that topic than yours?

Same question as it relates to the topic of God? Is the Pope the only relevant "authority" on that topic too?

You really need to go back to the House of Tudor to find out how the Church of England began and how the Roman Catholics lost their influence. I'm probably not wording this right but its actually really interesting

 

[Loudmouth]

You really need to go back to the House of Tudor to find out how the Church of England began and how the Roman Catholics lost their influence. I'm probably not wording this right but its actually really interesting

For what its worth, even as an atheist I find the Reformation and the Protestant movement an interesting period in history.

 

[Michael]

Of course it makes sense - the lay person takes them as authority because he doesn't know the field; he has to chose between the view of people who spend their lives working in that field and some bloke off the internet. An intelligent person knows there's a chance the authority could be wrong, but they're an authority because they're generally considered more likely, on average, to be right than anyone else, including blokes on the internet.

If that was actually the case, the supposed "authorities" should be able to empirically demonstrate that 'expertise' after spending over 10 billion dollars on their claim. Instead, after spending billions of dollars they have nothing to show anyone. Any bloke from the internet could produce *those* kinds of NULL results for a lot less money.

If the people who spend their lives working in a field don't gain any 'real or special expertise', how does anyone gain 'real or special expertise' ?

By producing *real* tangible *empirical results*! My cell phone is a great example of a product that includes scientific "expertise" and therefore it works.

Compare and contrast a useful consumer product with a concept that failed every "test" by every so called "expert".

It depends what the argument is. If an acknowledged authority gives a relevant judgement in their speciality, that counts as evidence, albeit indirect. You just have to be careful about what the claimed authority is (see below).

Who said anything about changing their minds? whether you should 'trust' them is up to you. I might want a second opinion for a pastor's view on anything but their own life and beliefs...

She said that she would only change her mind if they did. In short, it's no better than claiming: My pastor is an expert on the topic of God, and you're not, therefore I believe in God, unless you can convince my pastor to switch his position. She doesn't understand the theories to start with, so the whole thing can *only* be an appeal to authority fallacy, particularly with billions of dollars of *failed* tests!

 

[Michael]

You really need to go back to the House of Tudor to find out how the Church of England began and how the Roman Catholics lost their influence. I'm probably not wording this right but its actually really interesting

Thanks. I'll do that.

 

[Michael]

I don't recall having disputed what 'young earth' creationists believe, so I haven't needed one. I'd probably check more than one source.

I'll bet if someone told you that YEC is true unless you can convince the "experts" on YEC that it's false, you'd probably laugh. That's about the same reaction I have to claiming that believers in invisible unseen particles are somehow "experts" on them even after all those failed lab results.

As I understand it, the pope is the figurehead authority on Catholicism; but every theist religion has its own authorities on God. That's a large part of the problem...

Like there aren't multiple "dark matter" models to worry about?

 

[Chriliman]

Wouldn't we all?

The key problem is 'what makes a good answer or explanation?' - this is what the philosophy of science addresses and the scientific method tries to implement (philosophy has been called 'asking questions like children and answering them like lawyers').

I think that's a good approach, Jesus taught something similar. That we must be born again(spiritual or non-material birth) and become like children in order to see and comprehend the truth of reality.

This is where abductive criteria ('Inference to the Best Explanation') come in, providing a means to compare the quality of competing explanations.

Comparing the quality of competing explanations is good. One still has take a small leap in order to accept what appears to be the highest quality explanation based on subjective interpretation of evidence, lest they wait indefinitely for a better explanation than what's currently being presented to them.

IOW, no matter what evidence or explanation is being presented, one still has to take the step and accept it as true or else they're caught in a state of denial, not accepting any truth, irregardless of the strength of the evidence and/or the explanation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... it's no better than claiming: My pastor is an expert on the topic of God, and you're not, therefore I believe in God, unless you can convince my pastor to switch his position.

There's a difference between belief and provisional acceptance of the current consensus.

She doesn't understand the theories to start with, so the whole thing can *only* be an appeal to authority fallacy, particularly with billions of dollars of *failed* tests!

<sigh> You really haven't understood anything I've said about the appeal to authority fallacy

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll bet if someone told you that YEC is true unless you can convince the "experts" on YEC that it's false, you'd probably laugh. That's about the same reaction I have to claiming that believers in invisible unseen particles are somehow "experts" on them even after all those failed lab results.

Now you're confusing authorities. An authority on YEC is not necessarily an authority on what is real or true about the world. If I want to know what YECs believe and how they interpret scripture, etc., I'll find an authority on YEC. If I want to know our best understanding of reality I'd talk to scientists.

Like there aren't multiple "dark matter" models to worry about?

Nothing to worry about. There are multiple hypotheses in science for many observations that have not yet been explained. The difference between them and religions is that they are simply proposals for testing, they are not claims of truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look at it this way:

We are not debating a finer point of dark matter theory or astrology, like some debate about the finer points of axion models, or the meaning of "Aquarius", rather we are debating the *accuracy/legitimacy* of the whole dark matter hypothesis or the actual usefulness of astrology.

The problem is that you are basically done once you pretend that dark matter theory is in the same league as astrology.

It is not.

Since I'm questioning the *merits* of astrology/dark voodoo *entirely*, it's not a legitimate argument. Either she has evidence to support the idea and she can cite that specific evidence, or she has no evidence to support the idea. Appealing to some "expert", who's very "expertise" has been called into question doesn't cut it.

The difference is that astrology isn't a scientific field. Astronomy, cosmolog and physics... is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... One still has take a small leap in order to accept what appears to be the highest quality explanation based on subjective interpretation of evidence, lest they wait indefinitely for a better explanation than what's currently being presented to them.

IOW, no matter what evidence or explanation is being presented, one still has to take the step and accept it as true or else they're caught in a state of denial, not accepting any truth, irregardless of the strength of the evidence and/or the explanation.

No; we can't accept the best explanation as true, because we can't be certain that it is true. We can only accept it as the best explanation we currently have. The best explanations can be taken to be correct FAPP (For All Practical Purposes) within their scope, but even the best explanations have their limits. A good scientist must learn to live with uncertainty; I think it would be beneficial if everyone did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In this case we're debating whether or not exotic forms of matter actually exists in nature, not whether or not the "field of science" is considered to be a field of "science". I'd willingly grant you that M-theory is considered a branch of theoretical physics, but I have no evidence it's actually *correct*!

Same issue here. I have no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, and every "test" has been a dud. Even the entire basis for the claim to *need* exotic types of matter has been undermined by later studies.

Atheists around here in particular wish to see "evidence" to support any supernatural construct related to "God". Why wouldn't I expect the same thing from you as it relates to your "beliefs" in dark supernatural constructs?

So what are you saying....
That if someone denies that cancer exists, you can't cite medical experts to counter such a claim?

 

[Michael]

Now you're confusing authorities. An authority on YEC is not necessarily an authority on what is real or true about the world.

Bingo! Give the man a cookie!

Same deal with "dark matter". They may be an authority on the *concept*, but the concept isn't necessarily "real" or "true". See the problem yet?

Billions spent, nothing *empirical* to show for it. What "experts"?

If I want to know what YECs believe and how they interpret scripture, etc., I'll find an authority on YEC.

Yep, and if I wanted to understand a finer point of the belief system of "dark matter", I'd consult a "believer" too. Since I think the whole field itself is nonsense, and they've squandered billions and found *nothing*, I see no evidence that 'dark matter' is "real" or "true".

If I want to know our best understanding of reality I'd talk to scientists.

You mean those guys that spend billions and failed every one of their so called "tests" of their claims? How do you even know that exotic forms of matter are real? How do you know that they didn't just botch their mass estimates? There is plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that they simply miscalculated the amount of *ordinary* matter that was present in those galaxy clusters.

Nothing to worry about. There are multiple hypotheses in science for many observations that have not yet been explained. The difference between them and religions is that they are simply proposals for testing, they are not claims of truth.

That might fly if they actually allowed any actual "test" to falsify the claim. Since they simply ignore every failed test, and every test has been a failure, it's not like they even care about the outcome of their "tests" anymore than an astrologer cares is they fail some "test".

 

[Michael]

So what are you saying....
That if someone denies that cancer exists, you can't cite medical experts to counter such a claim?

Gah! You're still trying to ignore the difference between *empirical* physics, and *hypothetical* physics! That won't fly.

 

[Michael]

The problem is that you are basically done once you pretend that dark matter theory is in the same league as astrology.

It is not.

Prove it. Show me one observation that cannot be explained with ordinary matter, or one lab result that was positive. They have *exactly* the same track record in the lab.

The difference is that astrology isn't a scientific field. Astronomy, cosmolog and physics... is.

So what? The term "scientific" doesn't determine *accuracy*, particularly when talking about *hypothetical* constructs like gravitons, SUSY particles, multiverses, extra dimensions, etc.

You're blatantly ignoring that your "experts" are just "experts" on the finer points of their own belief system. They aren't necessarily "experts" on what is real or true.

 

[Michael]

There's a difference between belief and provisional acceptance of the current consensus.

Not when they *blatantly* ignore every NULL result, and every test is a *failure*. The dogma was never rejected, even though every one of their "tests" was negative. Confirmation bias at it's worst.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Gah! You're still trying to ignore the difference between *empirical* physics, and *hypothetical* physics! That won't fly.

Contrary to what you've been claiming ad nauseum, for months -if not years-, the concept of dark matter is based on real life measurements of gravitational forces that can't be accounted for by the matter we can directly observe.