Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Consider the etymology of the words expert and authority.

• The word expert derives from the words experience and experiment.
• The word authority derives from the Latin word auctoritas which means invention, advice, opinion, influence, command.

The two words are by no means synonymous. Peer reviewers are not authorities in their fields, they are experts.

Aristotle believed that bodies would fall at a rate proportional to their mass. Because he was an authority no one questioned this for centuries (almost 2000 years). The along came Galileo who performed experiments which proved that Aristotle was full of shit. Galileo was not an authority but he was an expert.

It is no accident that we refer to cops and judges as "the authorities". They do not persuade, they command.

The question now is whether Dr. Ross is an authority or an expert. His Wikipedia page says he is and astrophysicist which sounds like he is an expert. However, it also says that he is a Christian apologist and old earth creationist. That sound like he’s an authority, but I’ll withhold judgment for the moment.

I can’t help but wonder who writes his paycheck. Some university perhaps? Apparently not. His Wikipedia page also says “He is known for establishing his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe (the link you posted) that promotes progressive and day-age forms of old Earth creationism.” "Promotes" means he has an agenda. His ministry is where his paycheck comes from, giving him absolutely no reason to submit any of his stuff for peer review. He's an authority.

You never grow tired of presuming to give me grammar or English lessons, do you? You must think you're a real authority.

The term "authority" has different meanings. But of course...you chose the one that doesn't fit the context of the discussion. The third subset definition of the primary one in my trust M-W:

TESTIMONY c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert.

Experts in any given field are considered to be authorities in the field. For example, a prosecuting attorney may call an outside expert forensic scientist to give testimony that would support the prosecutor's case. Such a witness would be considered to be an authority in his field.

So...when you appeal to peer-reviewed publications, you're appealing to experts in a particular discipline -- people who are authorities in that field. As experts, they are emPOWERED to render their authoritiative opinion.

Have you ever heard this kind of question in your life: On what or whose authority do you accept that opinion?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You never grow tired of presuming to give me grammar or English lessons, do you?

I do grow tired of it. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

TESTIMONY c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert.

Fallacy of Equivocation. That's a legal definition, not a scientific definition. We are discussing science, not law.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Fallacy of Equivocation. That's a legal definition, not a scientific definition. We are discussing science, not law.

Even if it were, why would a forensic science expert only be a an authority when given a testimony in a courtroom, but in a context outside of the judicial process not be an authority?

An expert is someone who has a prolonged or intense experience through practice and education in a particular field. Informally, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

Also, let's see how you equivocate. You claim that scientists can only be experts but not authorities., since you have categorically denied that scientists who sit on peer review committees are actually authorities in their field. Well...since this is the case, why did you accuse me of appealing to an authority when I cited Ross and his academic credentials? Can you explain this duplicity?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I do grow tired of it. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

One thing is abundantly clear: You're no expert at it -- not even close.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Experts in any given field are considered to be authorities in the field. For example, a prosecuting attorney ...

Or defense attorney.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... may call an outside expert forensic ...

Or any other field.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... scientist to give testimony that would support the prosecutor's ...

Or the defendent's

Originally Posted by boxcar

... case. Such a witness would be considered to be an authority in his field.

So...when you appeal to peer-reviewed publications, you're appealing to experts in a particular discipline -- people who are authorities in that field. As experts, they are emPOWERED to render their authoritiative opinion.

Such empowerment is not automatic. The prosecutor must present evidence that the expert called is truly an expert. The defense may challenge such evidence. If the court overrules the challenge then the defense may have grounds for an appeal.

In legal proceedings the word authority applies to police and other such entities, not to experts.

The prosecution has called one Hugh Ross, PhD, as an expert in the field of astrophysics. The defense challenges the witness's qualifications on the following grounds:

• The witness has not worked in the field of astrophysics for over 40 years. This fact is admitted by the witness himself in a YouTube video. This indicates that the witness is not up to date on the latest discoveries in his field.
• The witness last worked as an astrophysicist as a post graduate fellow at Cal Tech. He was not the lead scientist in his work at Cal Tech.
• The witness is, by his own admission, a Christian Apologist. He espouses views not compatible with mainstream science. This is prima facie evidence of a bias against the defense's case and this alone disqualifies him as an expert witness. Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005.
• As a Christian Apologist the witness has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case.
• Prosecution has been unable or unwilling to provide the defense with the witness's data and mathematical calculations, on which the court may reasonably expect the witness to base his testimony, thus depriving the defense of an opportunity to have such data and calculations examined by their own expert.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Or defense attorney.
Or any other field.
Or the defendent's
Such empowerment is not automatic. The prosecutor must present evidence that the expert called is truly an expert. The defense may challenge such evidence. If the court overrules the challenge then the defense may have grounds for an appeal.

In legal proceedings the word authority applies to police and other such entities, not to experts.

The prosecution has called one Hugh Ross, PhD, as an expert in the field of astrophysics. The defense challenges the witness's qualifications on the following grounds:

• The witness has not worked in the field of astrophysics for over 40 years. This fact is admitted by the witness himself in a YouTube video. This indicates that the witness is not up to date on the latest discoveries in his field.
• The witness last worked as an astrophysicist as a post graduate fellow at Cal Tech. He was not the lead scientist in his work at Cal Tech.
• The witness is, by his own admission, a Christian Apologist. He espouses views not compatible with mainstream science. This is prima facie evidence of a bias against the defense's case and this alone disqualifies him as an expert witness. Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005.
• As a Christian Apologist the witness has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case.
• Prosecution has been unable or unwilling to provide the defense with the witness's data and mathematical calculations, on which the court may reasonably expect the witness to base his testimony, thus depriving the defense of an opportunity to have such data and calculations examined by their own expert.

Blah, blah, blah. A recognized, highly credentialed, well experienced expert in any field is considered an authority in that field.

Again...but since you think this isn't the case with the experts who sit on peer review committees, why do you think I appealed to Ross as an authority just because I cited his academic credentials? Why would you think that he has to be an authority, but yet those who judge his work (assuming the peer review process) are not authorities? Care to explain your duplicity?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor;2250673

[LIST

[*]The witness has not worked in the field of astrophysics for over 40 years. [/LIST]

Has the Math for calculating probabilities changed in the last 40 years?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... (assuming the peer review process) ...

What is your understanding of how the peer review process works?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What is your understanding of how the peer review process works?

You persist in deflecting. Answer my question: Why was Ross an "authority" in your eyes but the experts on peer review committees are not?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You persist in deflecting. Answer my question: Why was Ross an "authority" in your eyes but the experts on peer review committees are not?

I see no point in even trying to answer your question so long as you appear to be ignorant of how peer review works. So answer my question first. What is your understanding of how peer review works.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I see no point in even trying to answer your question so long as you appear to be ignorant of how peer review works. So answer my question first. What is your understanding of how peer review works.

You're moving the goal posts again. The issue was never how peer review works. This issue is that peer review committees [presumably] consists of scientists who are experts in a given field. Of course...if they're not experts, then that's a whole 'nother question, and would also call into question the entire rationale behind non-experts sitting in judgment of another scientist's work.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're moving the goal posts again. The issue was never how peer review works. This issue is that peer review committees [presumably] consists of scientists who are experts in a given field. Of course...if they're not experts, then that's a whole 'nother question, and would also call into question the entire rationale behind non-experts sitting in judgment of another scientist's work.

You move the goal posts more than anyone. It's so obviously part of your apologist strategy to try and steer the discussion away from "issues" from which you have no adequate response. You are the master of the plurium interrogationum, i.e., the fallacy of the complex question, e.g., "Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no!" The lie is the built in assumption that the one questioned agrees with the word "still" and that the question can be answered yes or no. That is the form that your question takes, suggesting the possibility that you do not understand how peer review works. Like it or not that is the issue now.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're moving the goal posts again. The issue was never how peer review works. This issue is that peer review committees [presumably] consists of scientists who are experts in a given field. Of course...if they're not experts, then that's a whole 'nother question, and would also call into question the entire rationale behind non-experts sitting in judgment of another scientist's work.

The original issue was "does any deity exist?" From this you moved the goal post to the so-called Anthopic Principle (a creationist invention in the same vein as "irreducible complexity"). Out of this you asked the question "what are the odds that all those constants come together in just such a precise way as to make life possible on this planet?" This is another plurium interrogationum whose lie is that you assume I agree with the rejection of my former posts on the subject. For clarification I quite reasonably asked "How 'precise' do they have to be to make life possible? Give me a number. Plus or minus what?" Note that there is no plurium interrogationum in this question. Your response shifted the goal posts from precision to probability.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

He has written several books. Why don't you buy a few?

My local library has one of his books: More Than a Theory: a Testable Model for Creation. Sounds intriguing! How about we put our discussion of Dr. Ross on hold while I check it out and take time to read and critique it?