[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.