It is intellectually lazy to believe the opinions of scientists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Gist:
Unclear resolution (in the comment section I accidentally called resolution RFD), and a lack of effort from pro. This became basically an educational lesson for pro from con, rather than a true debate.
1. Definitions
This should have been handled in the description. This is a major area of importance, which con gave, and pro wholly dropped (which translates to accepted at face value, ironically part of con’s definition for intellectual laziness).
2. Facts
We should make up our own mind “based on the facts” with a handy link to how evolution is a fact, while somehow arguing that it is just a theory (the very laziness the source uses to conclude that we should stop trying to explain the difference between fact and scientific theory). Con uses this area to explain the scientific method, and the results we would be stupid to disbelieve (cell phones, etc.).
3. Scientists are fallible
This could have done with an example or two of disproven former theories... Con uses this to basically say it would be worse than intellectually lazy to dismiss subject matter experts, it would be intellectual suicide.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This was a three-round debate, to which pro wholly dropped one round, basically dropped another (only responding to three lines from pro’s argument), basically leaving this as an FF (con won on arguments, but this write-up is me being nice).
*Arguments*
Pro's gist:
Essentially, Pro argues that scientists are fallible, scientific theories have been proven false and encourages people to analyse data themselves. Pro is basically advocating against the 'appeal to authority fallacy'.
Con's gist:
Con's argument is that we should value expert opinion in fields they are experienced in. Moreover, he states that because we cannot study many particular fields in science, it is not intellectual laziness to take stock in their opinion.
Big Bang Theory/DM/black holes etc.
I must note, both Pro and Con had questionable interpretations of the theory. Pro states that inflation, dark matter and an expanding universe is "conjecture" and Con states that the big bang theory is not based on "empirical evidence" and that black holes and dark matter "cannot be verified". Moreover, Con states that physicists aren't scientists. Con commends the theory of gravity (most likely Einstein's theory of gravity) which immutably predicts the big bang -- I am unsure why this was used to show uncertainty in the big bang. I am also unsure why this or the relevance of the scientific method plays an important role in this resolution specifically as it isn't tied to question of whether or not expert opinion should be believed.
Weigh-ins
After reading Pro's argument, I don't feel less inclined to believe in expert opinion. In complexed areas of science, the average person wouldn't be able to draw reasonable conclusions from raw data. Especially since Pro references the Big Bang Theory -- I am certain the average person wouldn't be able to understand Einstein's field equations which implicate a cosmological singularity. Maybe if Pro had stated people should remain sceptical and not believe in things that they fundamentally can't understand or haven't researched enough, his argument would have had more efficacy.
Con's argument is more reasonable -- he demonstrates why expert opinion should be valued. I agree with his statement that the only other option would be to remain agnosti. Pro effectively rejected the position of agnosticism since his argument advoctated for the derivation of your own conclusions rather than to remain sceptical. Thus, it really boils down to one's (most likely) uneducated opinion vs. an expert's opinion on raw data. I must award arguments to Con for this reason.
*Conduct*
Pro forfeited a round. Conduct goes to Con.
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.
To Truth!
-logicae
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.