Why Disagree with the Consensus of Experts?

That's why we don't believe what science tells us in the amen, hallelujah way. In my limited experience, scientists haven't even liked to speak of "belief," or of scientific theories' being "true." They speak of "tentative acceptance"--there's always the understanding that they could be getting things wrong--and of scientific theories' "modeling reality" (in fact, I think there's much less to the "truth" vs. "modeling" controversy than is commonly made out; halfway through Bas van Fraassen's book The Scientific Image, in which he had been presenting the contrast between what I think he called "constructive empiricism" and "scientific realism" as stark, he finally said just what he meant by the two, and it turned out his view differed from mine much less than he had made it seem). Either way, though, what we're doing is figuring out how best to describe the world we live in--we're trying to refine our description of it so as to best fit the empirical facts--and experts' best attempt so far is surely the one we should regard with the most favor.

And as stephen_33 pointed out, science has developed a lot since then. 

That reminds me to say this: when a broad consensus of the experts is well-established and has been for a while despite efforts to find problems with it, then we should have more confidence in it than if it is a recently-established consensus. Time gives the experts more of a chance to think up alternatives and more of a chance to test the established view. That's why when the consensus on anthropogenic global warming first reached public consciousness, it was not unreasonable to have considerably more doubt about it than one had about evolution's having happened. I would still give evolution's having happened a higher probability--a *really* high probability--than anthropogenic global warming, based on what I have read; but AGW has become, in my limited understanding, considerably better-confirmed than it was just a few decades ago.

Truthmuse, in post 17, wrote (in small part): "we are talking about something there are no experts for, how did the universe and life start."

MindWalk replies: We should carefully distinguish among the questions asked. (1) How did the universe start? (2) How did life start (here on Earth) (3) Might life have started via a process of abiogenesis? (4) Did life on Earth, once it got started, evolve into its present forms over hundreds of millions or billions of years? (5) By what mechanisms did life evolve? 

The answer to (1) is, I think, "Nobody knows." I have my doubts that anyone ever will know. The answer to (2) is, "We do not, at present, know, and we might never know, as there might turn out to be more than one possibility that we have no way of deciding between." The answer to (3) is, "We do not know. Scientists are working on figuring out how it might have happened, but so far, although they have ideas, they do not know how it might have happened in sufficient detail for us to say that it pretty definitely happened." The answer to (4) is, "Overwhelmingly probably yes. The evidence is so strong that it would practically require God to have deliberately deceived the best human investigators for it not to have happened." The answer to (5) is, "We know some of the mechanisms pretty well; others, we're just learning about; but although evolutionary theory might require emendations, it seems pretty well established in its broad outlines and even in many details." 

It's especially important to distinguish between *origin* questions (the origin of the universe; the origin of life) and *evolutionary* questions (what's happened to life since it came into being). They're not the same questions, and they don't have the same answers.

Jesus, my friend. He told us how he created the earth.  Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Jesus, my friend. He told us how he created the earth.  Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

So, you believe an ancient book written by people who thought illnesses were caused by demons? Because...why? The bar for belief seems to be set pretty low.

You believe that is how we really figure out what is true, That is not how the experts themselves figure out what is true, or most likely true. *They* have knowledge I don't have, and they converse with other experts who *also* have knowledge I don't have, and they are able to try to work out what's true, or most likely true, in a well-informed way. I, on the other hand, cannot "really figure out what is true," in areas requiring scientific expertise, because I don't have all that knowledge and don't have those conversations with other experts. Oh, I can prove the Pythagorean theorem, but if mathematicians tell me that Fermat's Last Theorem has been proven, I have to take their word for it. *They* work out what's true, or most likely true; and when they tell me, I mostly have to take their word for it. Oh, I've read some about relativity theory and about quantum theory and about evolutionary theory, sure; but it's the physicists and the life scientists who tell me what seems most likely to be true, not the other way around. If you want to make yourself an expert on some subject, so that you can be in a better position to judge whether the consensus of experts is right or not, great! Have at it! But until you do--I'm sorry, they know better than you and I do. if there is a established consensus, once that is done we cannot or should refute something? The experts *do* constantly question established views. Even a century later, I read about challenges to relativity theory. But *I* am simply not well enough informed to be the one to do the challenging. Are you? Isn't the established consensus the one thing that has to change to grasp reality better over some uncommon beliefs that are not true? What do we want here a popular theory or one that reflects reality? Obviously, we want one that reflects reality--and the consensus of experts is what is most likely, out of the options we have, to do that, precisely because the consensus of experts reflects the best judgment of the people who are the best-informed on the subject. (There are, of course, different circumstances sometimes. An accepted theory might reflect the best judgment of the experts based on a relative paucity of evidence, as when a science is just beginning, or it might reflect the best judgment of the experts based on overwhelming evidence. Different cases are, of course, different, and how much confidence we should have in the consensus of experts does vary from case to case.)

You believe that is how we really figure out what is true, That is not how the experts themselves figure out what is true, or most likely true. *They* have knowledge I don't have, and they converse with other experts who *also* have knowledge I don't have, and they are able to try to work out what's true, or most likely true, in a well-informed way. I, on the other hand, cannot "really figure out what is true," in areas requiring scientific expertise, because I don't have all that knowledge and don't have those conversations with other experts. Oh, I can prove the Pythagorean theorem, but if mathematicians tell me that Fermat's Last Theorem has been proven, I have to take their word for it. *They* work out what's true, or most likely true; and when they tell me, I mostly have to take their word for it. Oh, I've read some about relativity theory and about quantum theory and about evolutionary theory, sure; but it's the physicists and the life scientists who tell me what seems most likely to be true, not the other way around. If you want to make yourself an expert on some subject, so that you can be in a better position to judge whether the consensus of experts is right or not, great! Have at it! But until you do--I'm sorry, they know better than you and I do. if there is a established consensus, once that is done we cannot or should refute something? The experts *do* constantly question established views. Even a century later, I read about challenges to relativity theory. But *I* am simply not well enough informed to be the one to do the challenging. Are you? Isn't the established consensus the one thing that has to change to grasp reality better over some uncommon beliefs that are not true? What do we want here a popular theory or one that reflects reality? Obviously, we want one that reflects reality--and the consensus of experts is what is most likely, out of the options we have, to do that, precisely because the consensus of experts reflects the best judgment of the people who are the best-informed on the subject. (There are, of course, different circumstances sometimes. An accepted theory might reflect the best judgment of the experts based on a relative paucity of evidence, as when a science is just beginning, or it might reflect the best judgment of the experts based on overwhelming evidence. Different cases are, of course, different, and how much confidence we should have in the consensus of experts does vary from case to case.)

I said life comes from life, not all life produces life. You believe dead things do anything with intent? Rocks drop due to gravity, chemical reactions occur, neither is done because the rock or chemicals desire it to be so. As I have pointed out to you endlessly, guiding something along to build and create, is quite different than allowing nature to do its thing. Nature doesn't have a will, desire, plan, agenda, or anything else.