(May 17, 2014 at 2:57 pm)RDK Wrote: If I have found problems with the understanding of "accidental" evolution, it's because it has within it huge holes that need to be filled. If coming to conclusions about these these discrepancies is difficult, try to fill those holes yourself and admit that they are there. You keep quoting from the evolution bible and you're unwilling to take on it's inconsistencies.

(May 23, 2014 at 12:38 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: None of your objections have turned out to be such holes. Are you holding anything back?

Quote:What about science communication?

Science communication is a hobby of mine, and the Dunning and Kruger paper has implications for this field. Indeed, the implications of the findings are far more insidious than the realization that, yes, we all have weak points. Take for instance a common line of reasoning used in science communication. When faced with a topic I don't understand, "I recognize that I am not an expert, so I rely on the accumulated wisdom of experts." Furthermore, a common suggestion in critical thinking is that when you are presented with scientific claims, you examine the evidence from a range of experts to test the claim. But just think about that for a moment.

First, you have to pick an expert. OK, how do I, as a non-scientist, tell the difference between Michael Behe and Richard Dawkins? How do I tell the difference between a scientific society, such as NOAA, and something like the Heartland Institute? In short, to pick a good expert on a given topic, I need some expertise on the topic. The Internet can help with this, since a large number of biologists would tell you that Richard Dawkins is a reliable source of information on evolution, and very few would point you in the direction of Michael Behe. In other words, in aggregate, is the Internet always right? Umm, yeah, I think I'll take a pass on that.

This is a topic that is of interest to Dunning. "Our own recent work shows that, yes, you need experts to spot experts," he said. "Everyone can spot the poor performer, but often spotting the best performers is beyond the competence of the group. That said, spotting an expert outside of one’s field is a task one can become better at. And that’s important, given just how much information, good and bad, is not available to people. For example, is the expert associated with a university (a good sign) or some 'think tank' (a bad sign)?" Again, though, this takes experience and expertise. Groups like think tanks try to give themselves the trappings of expertise in a move specifically designed to fool us into trusting their statements.

— Revisiting why incompetents think they’re awesome

(May 23, 2014 at 12:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Are you expecting cogency from a guy who will unironically use the phrase "evolution bible," presumably under the delusion that we all worship Origin of Species?

(May 23, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 23, 2014 at 12:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Are you expecting cogency from a guy who will unironically use the phrase "evolution bible," presumably under the delusion that we all worship Origin of Species?

To be fair, I for one worship Origin in exactly the same way as I worship the bible, the kerrang, and the book of moron.

(May 23, 2014 at 12:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm)RDK Wrote: Sorry about the quote edit screw-up. Genetic info is infinite, but only planned application of that info will lead to any usable change.

No because evolutionary pressures will come into play.
These pressures are whatever will help the creature out breed or out live any competitors.
That is all, its very simple and elegant and supported by the evidence.