Debating attack...

[The Nomad]

Suppose that I'm currently debating with a rabid fan-whore or a fundie.

I'm begining to dish out scientific facts, then my opponent tells me :"what do you know about science ?"

Now this never happened in "reality", but should this ever happen it could be potentially very distabilizing to me...

What could I answer ?
Suppose that my opponent is :
a) a layman ( easy rebuttal here, though I'd like some very striking examples )
b) a guy with some scientific background ( suppose that the guy has made some scientific-related search on the subject - creatonism, or physics involved in sci-fi debates )

What if I am :
a) a layman
b) what I am : a studient in the first year scientific preparatory class ( the kind of thing that get you either to an engineering grande école, or to high-level teaching, possibly even physics or math doctorate ) ( easy rebuttal here especially if my opponent is a layman, but I'd appreciate some inspiration... )

[Colonel Olrik]

The key thing is - do your research and don't speak of scientific mattters you're not sure about. If your argument is sound, then by attacking you instead of the argument your opponent is commiting an ad-hominem, and you can call the point conceded.

Your education level won't therefore matter.

Of course, in my case, I can say I'm a Mechanical Engineer with a masters in Robotic systems, that usually shuts them up

[The Nomad]

Sure. But what alternative kind of rebuttal may I oppose to the asshole who typically says "You don't know jack about science" ( even if he doesn't know more ) ?

Example taken from another thread : the Shroud of Turin.
The fundie tells me that carbon-14 dating doesn't work and that the fire it has been exposed to makes any estimation wrong.
I refute these points then he/she tells me : "BTW, what do you know about science ?"
What do I reply then ?

[Darth Wong]

Suppose that I'm currently debating with a rabid fan-whore or a fundie.

I'm begining to dish out scientific facts, then my opponent tells me :"what do you know about science ?"

Suggested answer: "Unlike you, I know how to read. Your scientific misconceptions are so basic that they can be debunked by a high school science textbook. One hardly needs to be Stephen Hawking to understand that scientific theories must restrict themselves to input variables which are known to exist, although he did make a point of saying that for our benefit. Perhaps you should try reading his stuff."

Now this never happened in "reality", but should this ever happen it could be potentially very distabilizing to me...

What could I answer ?
Suppose that my opponent is :
a) a layman ( easy rebuttal here, though I'd like some very striking examples )
b) a guy with some scientific background ( suppose that the guy has made some scientific-related search on the subject - creatonism, or physics involved in sci-fi debates )

Independent research undertaken solely for the purpose of furthering an agenda is invariably non-comprehensive and often seriously distorted. Besides, the whole attack is an ad-hominem anyway; he must be able to explain what's wrong with your argument rather than simply pointing out that you're a layperson. When I debate someone I may go after their layperson status, but I will always make a point of also explaining what's wrong with his argument. Otherwise, it is a fallacious attack on the man, not the argument.

What if I am :
a) a layman
b) what I am : a studient in the first year scientific preparatory class ( the kind of thing that get you either to an engineering grande école, or to high-level teaching, possibly even physics or math doctorate ) ( easy rebuttal here especially if my opponent is a layman, but I'd appreciate some inspiration... )

I am not exaggerating when I say that there are basic errors in scientific philosophy committed by one hundred percent of creationists, all of which relate to the logical principle of parsimony. Virtually all creationist arguments take one of the three following forms:

1) "I don't understand how evolution explains this, therefore God did it". Suggested rebuttal: ask if he understands the mechanism by which God did it. When he says "no", point out that even with God, he still doesn't understand how it was done, so he has explained nothing and he is appealing to ignorance.

2) "Evolution is impossible because of <blah blah blah, some kind of butchered scientific principle like the second law of thermodynamics>" Suggested rebuttal: ask him why the world's scientific community has never noticed this astounding self-contradiction between one scientific principle and another. Ask him to prove that he knows more about science than the entire world scientific community.

3) "We weren't around 3 billion years ago, so we can't say for sure." Suggested rebuttal: point out that this is exactly like a defense lawyer saying we can't know whether a murderer is guilty even if we have tons of material evidence, just because we weren't there to witness the actual slaying.

[Darth Wong]

Sure. But what alternative kind of rebuttal may I oppose to the asshole who typically says "You don't know jack about science" ( even if he doesn't know more ) ?

Example taken from another thread : the Shroud of Turin.
The fundie tells me that carbon-14 dating doesn't work and that the fire it has been exposed to makes any estimation wrong.
I refute these points then he/she tells me : "BTW, what do you know about science ?"
What do I reply then ?

Say: "More than you, since you seem to think nuclear decay rates are variable. The burden of proof is on you to support your claims, not me, since I am merely agreeing with the world scientific community while you're saying that your independent research has made you figure out something that they somehow all missed. Since you seem to think you've beaten the world scientific community on this issue, what do you know about nuclear physics and quantum tunneling?"

[Colonel Olrik]

Sure. But what alternative kind of rebuttal may I oppose to the asshole who typically says "You don't know jack about science" ( even if he doesn't know more ) ?

Example taken from another thread : the Shroud of Turin.
The fundie tells me that carbon-14 dating doesn't work and that the fire it has been exposed to makes any estimation wrong.
I refute these points then he/she tells me : "BTW, what do you know about science ?"
What do I reply then ?

You explain to him what carbon-14 dating is (almost certainly he doesn't know the first thing about it).

You explain to him why doesn't fire affect the estimation.

If the better thing he can come up in reply is that, you can simply say.

"Obviously a lot more than you, [insert insult here].

Explain which part of my argument is incorrect or concede and shut the fuck up."

His question is simply not valid in a debate. In the same way that simply appealing to your own degree would not be a correct debate tactic. I can't say "I'm an engineer, so I'm correct and you're not" either.

[NapoleonGH]

Or you could present the evidence behind your claims, and state that it doenst matter what degree you have, only the evidence behind your statements.

If a literature major stumbles upon the GUT accidentally, it doesnt make the answer any less right.