tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-755834342571488774.post4408713137916716673..comments2024-03-18T11:10:12.391+00:00Comments on Bracknell Blog: Can A Non Expert Comment?Mark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-755834342571488774.post-45932652621357251762009-12-14T23:41:00.824+00:002009-12-14T23:41:00.824+00:00I once read a book on Christianity. It debunked t...I once read a book on Christianity. It debunked the theory of evolution.<br /><br />It was a set of interviews with Christian professors, lecturers and scientists. Each of them had degrees, doctorates and qualifications coming out of their ears.<br /><br />They had far more qualifications than I did in biology, geology, physics etc.<br /><br />Am I allowed to comment on their findings? Or should I bow to their superiour knowledge?SteveGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07537884485999441636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-755834342571488774.post-55270572023845965402009-12-13T11:50:29.445+00:002009-12-13T11:50:29.445+00:00Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyo...Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone’s opinion has equal worth.<br /><br />We can distinguish three groups of people:<br /><br />(1) Climatologists, including scientists in related disciplines. These are people doing research in the field, share specialist knowledge and are well-versed in the arguments. Being human, they often disagree passionately.<br /><br />(2) Commentators. These are people who, while not scientists themselves (or at least, not in the relevant disciplines), have read widely on the subject and feel justified in expressing their opinions. This group includes, for example, Christopher Booker, Jeremy Clarkson and Al Gore. Being commentators, they often disagree even more passionately than the climatologists.<br /><br />(3) Members of the public. The rest of us. This group includes most politicians, and me.<br /><br />Most members of the public lack the knowledge and training to evaluate the conflicting opinions of the climatologists about the valid conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. Instead, we tend to rely on the more accessible opinions expressed by the commentators. But which commentators? Often, we pick the ones whose overall views are closest to our own. We listen to the people we trust. However, this is also where political ideology really begins to skew the debate.<br /><br />Personally, I have faith in the scientific method. Good models and theories will eventually drive out the bad. In the meantime, it’s reasonable and rational to subscribe to the majority opinion. According to the polls I’ve seen, the majority of climatologists believe that human activity is influencing global warming. As long as that remains the case, that’s good enough for me.<br /><br />Paul GriffithsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-755834342571488774.post-62127967759389295462009-12-13T10:59:27.377+00:002009-12-13T10:59:27.377+00:00The idea that only an 'expert' source is a...The idea that only an 'expert' source is allowed to make a comment is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority. The qualifications of the speaker do not usually bear direct relevance to the logical conclusion they make.<br /><br />That isn't to say that Mr Weinstein is right or wrong - just that when he attempts to use his qualification to somehow 'prove' his conclusion he is using a fallacious argument.<br /><br />In other words, laymen can speak about scientific matters all they like. Qualifications in an unrelated field are rarely as relevant as the possession of a premise combined with evidence which logically backs up a conclusion.Stuhttp://stuartsharpe.co.uknoreply@blogger.com