This makes me think of another study done at the university of montrea psychological department, which said that people tend to agree with experts only if what the experts says is in agreement with what they previously believe.
Yes, definitely true in my experience of the general public. But not, in my experience, of scientists and the more academically trained. They tend to respect the expertise that can be brought to bear on specific problems. They can also be very good at sniffing out bullshit...
quote:This work was fully supported by the Korea Association of Creation Research.
Just how many of those authors are YECs? I'll put down good money that each and everyone has Paul Yonggi Cho as his pastor. I have zero trust for this "paper". Next?
if I'm evaluating a given geocentrist claim, and I cannot point out where they are wrong, then I would have no legitimate reason to doubt.
If a geocentrist paper claims to have proved that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, are you saying you would approach their claim with an open mind, offering them the benefit of the doubt up until the point where you have examined their work?
We are talking about initial impressions, are we not? No-one here is capable of fully reviewing that paper as we don't have the requisite knowledge and experience. If a major oil company announces the publication of their study that shows that oil power is greener than solar power, would you have no legitimate reason to doubt its validity before you study it?
when you have naval engineers telling you that it is possible and you have no other reason to believe them other then the fact they are 'evil creationists' ?
It is not that they are "evil creationists" - it is that they have a vested interest in obtaining the published result. This immediately makes the study worthless until examined thoroughly.