It is intellectually lazy to believe the opinions of scientists
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
most people are too stupid to come up with their own theories
its pretty retarded not to respect experts they devote their lives to finding answers, trust but verify thats what i say, you delted my vote what sort of bullshit it that?
>Reported Vote: Billbatars// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: People that do not respect intellectuals are by definition stupid , only stupid people are too stupid to know how stupid they really are
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Secondly, this debate is neither a technical full forfeit, nor does the final round count as a concession - thus this debate is moderated.
The voter is expected to fully justify all pointed votes for using the CoC voting
Standards guide; this vote is thus insufficient as it merely states an opinion and gives no additional reasoning on any of the points awarded.
please ready the rules for more information.
experts in fields should always be defered to, how you possibly knoiw better than them?
Press for respect's vote has been removed and dr. franklin's counter vote bomb has been removed.
"I can't do this today."
Counts as a forfeit
The difference between scientists and doctors is that one is applied science (applying known facts to variable situations). The other is theoretical science, where one seeks and uncovers the facts. Doctors know exactly how cancer or gingevitis works, but they have to figure out if you have it, and that involves detective work which is where their flaws come in.
Scientists do make mistakes, which is why a single study or a single scientist's word means nothing. Repeated tests and attempts to refute conclusions is what solidifies scientific fact beyond just opinion.
There have been many scientific assumptions that have been disproven over the years (abiogenesis, the aether) however, neither of those were scientifically proven and were just assumptions from tradition. No scientific theory that was established using the scientific method has ever been countered to my knowledge. When einstein expanded our theory of gravity he did not negate any of n3wtons work. The law of gravity as found my newton is still functional under all but the most extreme conditions
Einstein simply explained what gravity is, while newton described how strong it is. Nothing was negated. Only added.
So yes, individual scientists are fallible humans, however the scientific method is designed to circumvent their fallibility. Is it possible for a scientifically proven theory to be disproven, of course! but it hasnt happened yet, and possibly never will.
The Big Bang theory is one of the most incontrovertible theories in all of theoretical physics. We are so certain rapid inflation at ~10^-30s occurred -- it is not opinion. I believe you maybe conflating scientific theory with just general intuition, perhaps?
I will attempt to clarify my position. A meteorologist is an expert in weather patterns and makes predictions about the upcoming forecast. This is what comes to mind when I think of scientists opinions. Not someone’s opinion outside their own particular field of study. I don’t have time to stare at radars all day to make reasonable predictions. Climate change is the same. I don’t have access to the same instruments and tools scientists have to study the effects of climate change. I depend on their expert opinions about the facts. We can all see the facts, but sometimes we need opinions from people who study these facts. I wouldn’t got to a dentist for advice on a brain tumor. They study very different things, hence why we have specialists. My main point is that it is impossible for us to study everything reasonably enough to have an expert opinion on the matter. I never made the argument that we should believe everything they say, only that it’s reasonable to believe them because they have hands on experience. The other option is to just believe what you want if it makes you feel good, but who would do this when it really matters, like being diagnosed with cancer. We do rely on experts when our health depends on it. Scientists are experts in their field of study, and should be treated with the same respect. Doctors are wrong from time to time, as I am sure scientists are, but they have a much greater chance of interpreting the facts correctly because they study them for a living.
Everything has facts and speculations. The existence of the big bang, is a fact. Many details are not. Scientists are people with individual opinions, but science makes it clear what is fact, and what is speculation.
Im not sure what you are implying regarding the factualness of the big bang or climate change.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but fact and opinions get blurred sometimes. For instance, the Big Bang Theory is based on facts, but as a whole can be viewed as opinion. It to me seems responsible to believe this, if by belief you mean probably true or possibly true, not definitely true. Scientists also give their expert opinions based on evidence they have collected and reviewed on subjects like climate change. I do appreciate the criticism though.
I think there is a difference between opinions of scientists, and conclusions of the scientific community. There is also a difference between believing *A* scientist, and believing in the peer review system and the scientific method. It is the latter 2 systems that make science trustworthy, not individual opinions.
I think that there is a big difference between being skeptical about the opinions of scientists and actually believing the opinions of scientists.
Ragnar is right on this one, you sort of set up a debate it didn't seem you were trying to argue against. I can tell you mostly agreed with what your opponent is saying. "Fact-check even the majority opinions, just in case" and "don't trust experts!" are two very different claims.
So I suspect your RFD needs to be lengthened in order to have the debate you desire. What you're probably going to argue is that people should read the papers published by the scientist, as opposed to just cherry-picked snippets (just had a creationist basically concede a debate by pulling a source which was directly opposed to his beleifs, because he did not bother to read it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero). Your current RFD basically translates 'reject expert opinion,' when what you want is 'don't blindly trust appeals to authority.'
Perhaps I see where you are going here. On one hand I see far too many people take people's opinions in the field of science for granted. On the other hand I can understand why, in biology for example, a biologist would know more than you on his subject and so you can get his view, and expert opinion, on that subject. If a scientist however, has an opinion that is outside his own field, you should disregard that opinion as coming from an expert in the field. Instead you should ask for why the scientist has that opinion.
You must balance between an appeal to authority fallacy and someone's expert opinion. Regardless though, you should always ask for the reasoning behind an opinion, else it lacks foundation.
Ok, thanks for considering it
Depends on what opinions.
I agree with on some opinions and disagree with you on other opinions. I think the agree is bigger than the disagree so I ain't accepting this.