If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

[boatsnguitars]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?
If not, how do you come to a provisional belief about something that you don't know anything about it?

For example, should a person who hasn't heard of Jesus accept that the consensus of experts that Jesus most probably was a real person?
Should we accept the vast majority of Climate Scientists on Climate Change? (Or should we reject Environmentalism because it's all about the money, unlike - I guess - the oil industry....)
Should we accept the consensus of doctors on Covid, or listen to our Aunt who read in her tea leaves and claims the vaccine is so the Gub'm'n't can track us?
If you were to take an airplane, would you want someone who has passed a series of tests proctored by experts, or someone who claims to know how to fly on Faith?

The Bonus Question is: How do you know if someone is an expert on God or the Supernatural? What can we test them on? If they can quote their Holy Text?

[brunumb]

I don't know what your problem is however, according to the Bible, there would seem to be is no sexual activity in heaven. However, I feel that if one was born a female that one in heaven with be such and if one was born a male on earth, one will remain one in heaven.

Sex evolved on the earth as a method of reproduction. What would be the point of sex/gender in heaven?

GOD established sex as the means to populate the planet.

And the answer to my question?

Who says that there is gender in heaven?

Apparently, you.
"However, I feel that if one was born a female that one in heaven with be such and if one was born a male on earth, one will remain one in heaven."

[oldbadger]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?
If not, how do you come to a provisional belief about something that you don't know anything about it?

If pigs had wings!
There never has been a consensus among experts about anything......... or do you know better?

For example, should a person who hasn't heard of Jesus accept that the consensus of experts that Jesus most probably was a real person?

Again, there isn't any consensus among experts. I've been studying as much information about Jesus as I cvan for many years now, I do believe that there was a Jesus but am not a Christian....... nor do I try to sell my opinions about him.

Should we accept the vast majority of Climate Scientists on Climate Change? (Or should we reject Environmentalism because it's all about the money, unlike - I guess - the oil industry....)

Apart from a very few extreme denialists I haven't met anybody who denies that our climate changes, and is changing. But experts disagree about how much damage human dirt has done to our climate.

Should we accept the consensus of doctors on Covid, or listen to our Aunt who read in her tea leaves and claims the vaccine is so the Gub'm'n't can track us?

There is no consensus among doctors on Covid. But my wife and I do have flu, covid and other vaccinations when they are offered or advised....... that's our decision and choice.

If you were to take an airplane, would you want someone who has passed a series of tests proctored by experts, or someone who claims to know how to fly on Faith?

Yeah....qualified and licensed....... but....so what?

The Bonus Question is: How do you know if someone is an expert on God or the Supernatural? What can we test them on? If they can quote their Holy Text?

There is no common consensus among 'experts on God' so you need to decide for yourself. There is no common consensus among 'supernatural experts', so you need to decide for yourself.


Who ought we to trust? We ought to learn to trust in ourselves first.

[The Nice Centurion]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?
If not, how do you come to a provisional belief about something that you don't know anything about it?

It often comes down to the subject in which they're experts.

If they're experts in creationism, No

If they're experts in alternative cancer treatments, No

If they're experts in Scientology, No

If they're experts in conversion therapy, No

If they're experts in holocaust denial, No

If they're experts in flat earth theory, No

If they're experts in Transcendental Meditation, No

If they're experts in naturopathy, No

If they're experts in crop circles, No

If they're experts in geocentrism, No

If they're experts in colon cleansing, No

If they're experts in spiritualism, No

If they're experts in determinism, Yes

If they're experts in acupuncture, No

If they're experts in free will, No

If they're experts in astrology, No

If they're experts in the supernatural, No

If they're experts in numerology, No

If they're experts in alternative cancer treatments, No

If they're experts in perpetual motion, No

If they're experts in palmistry, No.

If they're experts in exorcisms, No

If they're experts in ear candling, No

If they're experts in ancient astronauts, No

If they're experts in Feng shui, No


.

IF THEY ARE EXPERTS IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN, YES!

[boatsnguitars]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?
If not, how do you come to a provisional belief about something that you don't know anything about it?

If pigs had wings!
There never has been a consensus among experts about anything......... or do you know better?

While I appreciate there are outliers, there is massive consensus on many things. Too many to name.
The fact that computers work, we can go to the moon, cure some diseases, treat acute illness (like using steroids for an asthma patient), fly planes, build houses, etc. There is more we agree on, and far more consensus than a few controversial topics.

But, moreover, there is vast consensus on Climate Change, Evolution, and some other things that while have rabid detractors, do not show the actual consensus among experts.

Also, it should be noted that it's a career move for many scientists to say "I found something that may overturn Evolution!" rather than "I found a bone that may change our dating of a species by a few years."

For example, should a person who hasn't heard of Jesus accept that the consensus of experts that Jesus most probably was a real person?

Again, there isn't any consensus among experts. I've been studying as much information about Jesus as I cvan for many years now, I do believe that there was a Jesus but am not a Christian....... nor do I try to sell my opinions about him.

I think there is a general consensus there was a Jesus. However, when we talk about consensus, let's make sure we're using the right lens. Jesus might not have existed and all the experts might be wrong - but I think the experts say "most likely existed" and if they found they were wrong, would generally adjust.

However, if there is no consensus among experts, then it seems right to withhold a position (other than "I'm not sure, but I believe x")

Should we accept the vast majority of Climate Scientists on Climate Change? (Or should we reject Environmentalism because it's all about the money, unlike - I guess - the oil industry....)

Apart from a very few extreme denialists I haven't met anybody who denies that our climate changes, and is changing. But experts disagree about how much damage human dirt has done to our climate.

Climate Change has uniquely full consensus from experts. They know exactly how much "human dirt" has impacted CC: it's in the tell-tale Carbon isotopes:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/st ... c_climate/

This, technically speaking, is circumstantial evidence. However, combined with another piece of information, it raises it beyond all reasonable doubt: a human fingerprint on the environment.

Firstly, there are two main types of carbon isotope (an isotope being a variation in the number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom) in the world. One is Carbon-12 (C-12), which is preferentially absorbed by over 95% of the world's vegetation and forms the majority of the matter that will become the fossil fuel. The other isotope is Carbon-13 (C-13), which is by comparison far less utilised by life on Earth.

Secondly, there is a matter of this: δ13C. Pronounced "delta Carbon thirteen", this measurement is essentially a ratio between the amount of C-13 and C-12 in the atmosphere. As the ratio becomes increasingly negative, there is proportionally more C-12 in the atmosphere and proportionally less C-13. Stations all over the planet show a general increasing negativity in their δ13C ratio, which indicates that there is proportionally more C-12 in the atmosphere5. This is in fact due to increases in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and land clearing, which has a far lower fraction of C-13 than the background atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and is an indubitable chemical signature of human activity.

Should we accept the consensus of doctors on Covid, or listen to our Aunt who read in her tea leaves and claims the vaccine is so the Gub'm'n't can track us?

There is no consensus among doctors on Covid. But my wife and I do have flu, covid and other vaccinations when they are offered or advised....... that's our decision and choice.

There is consensus that it is airborne, that masks help catching it or spreading it, that the vaccines help, etc.
There was a consensus in 2020 that we needed to act:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... X/fulltext
Also:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/16/949

It depends on what we call a consensus. Small disagreements isn't a sign there is no consensus on the important aspects of something. To me, this is a sign of the times: find a small disagreement and make it a polarizing wedge issue.

If you were to take an airplane, would you want someone who has passed a series of tests proctored by experts, or someone who claims to know how to fly on Faith?

Yeah....qualified and licensed....... but....so what?

I think it's important to show that experts are valuable. There are objective measures that can help us recognize or assess what "expert" means.

The Bonus Question is: How do you know if someone is an expert on God or the Supernatural? What can we test them on? If they can quote their Holy Text?

There is no common consensus among 'experts on God' so you need to decide for yourself. There is no common consensus among 'supernatural experts', so you need to decide for yourself.


Who ought we to trust? We ought to learn to trust in ourselves first.

Maybe. If you are known to have impaired cognitive skills, can you trust yourself? Ought you?

I'm not suggesting that we can't put trust in ourselves, but if you were to buy a computer - would you trust your ability to assess the specifications to get what you need, or would you trust a professional (not a professional salesperson - a professional computer tech)? Assuming you aren't an expert in computers, of course.

What about a spot on your skin? Would you go to a dermatologist or ask a waitress, or yourself, or the internet?

I think it's obvious that we have and respect experts. Their value is clear. I find it interesting that it is often that people often push back.

Yes, experts can be wrong. Yes, they can disagree. But, for the most part how ought we answer this question:

Ought we trust a consensus of experts over the opinion of a non-expert (ourselves included), or over the consensus of non-experts? I think it's an obvious "yes."

In what scenario would you feel comfortable doing something against the recommendations of the consensus of experts? (Someone said when raising children - which is chilling...)

[LittleNipper]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?
If not, how do you come to a provisional belief about something that you don't know anything about it?

It often comes down to the subject in which they're experts.

If they're experts in creationism, No

If they're experts in alternative cancer treatments, No

If they're experts in Scientology, No

If they're experts in conversion therapy, No

If they're experts in holocaust denial, No

If they're experts in flat earth theory, No

If they're experts in Transcendental Meditation, No

If they're experts in naturopathy, No

If they're experts in crop circles, No

If they're experts in geocentrism, No

If they're experts in colon cleansing, No

If they're experts in spiritualism, No

If they're experts in determinism, Yes

If they're experts in acupuncture, No

If they're experts in free will, No

If they're experts in astrology, No

If they're experts in the supernatural, No

If they're experts in numerology, No

If they're experts in alternative cancer treatments, No

If they're experts in perpetual motion, No

If they're experts in palmistry, No.

If they're experts in exorcisms, No

If they're experts in ear candling, No

If they're experts in ancient astronauts, No

If they're experts in Feng shui, No


.

IF THEY ARE EXPERTS IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN, YES!

You do know that there never was "Reformed" Egyptian. Mr. Smith had to makeup something, and at that time no one realized that it would become possible to ever translate hieroglyphics.

[Purple Knight]

One thing that occurs to me about this thread is, if they're experts in psychology, no.

Every generation there's another scandal with "the experts" in psychology pushing phrenology, giving people lobotomies, shock therapy, saying cocaine is good for you, pushing drugs, and laymen can't object to it because supposedly the experts know best.

I can't invent a cabal that pretends to be experts on who ought to be murdered and just go around murdering people because my little clique knows best. There comes a point where someone else does not get to decide what's best for me, no matter how little I know about the issue. Being killed off clearly meets that threshold. Similarly, there ought to be a breaking point where something like cutting up brains is allowed to be considered obviously horrible because it obviously is.

Explain it to me.

If I can't understand, I still get to make my own choice about whether it's malarkey.

If this is the accepted standard, they'll just have to explain better.

And sometimes they will lose an opportunity to give genuine help. But that's not nearly as bad as writing an entire industry infinite blank cheques to inflict suffering because only they can possibly know best.

[oldbadger]

While I appreciate there are outliers, there is massive consensus on many things. Too many to name.
The fact that computers work, we can go to the moon, cure some diseases,..................

Sad to tell you, but many computers don't and didn't work........ the scrap heaps are full of failed products, we can't go to the moon (although a handful of astronauts have do so) and we can cure 'some diseases'........ but as soo as you use the word 'experts' then you are going wrong, because the world is full of 'experts' who are imposts...... I remember how the handwriting expert that wrote courses for huge police forces got caught by a tv journalist, taking a bribe to change his evidence, or the finger print 'expert' who boasted that he could put anybody anywhere at any scene, and so forth.

It's best to junk the word 'expert' in favour of what the individual's actual skill is supposed to be, and even then we need to be careful to enquire with others as well. I'll bet you get a few quotations if you need an expensive job to be done, don't you? They'll all be different from each other, you know.

But, moreover, there is vast consensus on Climate Change, Evolution, and some other things that while have rabid detractors, do not show the actual consensus among experts.

Also, it should be noted that it's a career move for many scientists to say "I found something that may overturn Evolution!" rather than "I found a bone that may change our dating of a species by a few years."

You're not going to sell any of the above to challengers like that. They won't buy your ideas just because you are telling them that everybody agrees to a thing. And loud scientists selling themselves are the last to be listened to.

I think there is a general consensus there was a Jesus. However, when we talk about consensus, let's make sure we're using the right lens. Jesus might not have existed and all the experts might be wrong - but I think the experts say "most likely existed" and if they found they were wrong, would generally adjust.

However, if there is no consensus among experts, then it seems right to withhold a position (other than "I'm not sure, but I believe x")

Again.......... I can think of several Historical Jesus lecturers and professors who claim that the person Jesus was a total fabrication, and you're still bunching researchers together as 'experts'.........

Climate Change has uniquely full consensus from experts. They know exactly how much "human dirt" has impacted CC: it's in the tell-tale Carbon isotopes:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/st ... c_climate/

This, technically speaking, is circumstantial evidence. However, combined with another piece of information, it raises it beyond all reasonable doubt: a human fingerprint on the environment.....

But you haven't convinced millions of westerners about the above. You're still relying on 'experts' to convince the challengers.
And you're mixing up 'climate change' which most people can be drawn to accept with 'climate change cause' (human dirt) which so many don't want to identify with.

Where I live (UK) everybody will nod their heads to us when we speak of climate change and human dirt, but they don't vote for green MPs at general elections and they still fly to Lanzarote for sunshine holidays...... so exactly what have we succeeded in so far?

Covid...
There is consensus that it is airborne, that masks help catching it or spreading it, that the vaccines help, etc.
There was a consensus in 2020 that we needed to act:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... X/fulltext
Also:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/16/949

masks help to protect from catching it....! ...but I know that you meant that.
Masks such as we use here don't protect from much, but they were very good at uniting us in all the special rules, reminded us to give space, etc and more.
Whilst we both had all the Covid vaccines, a friend of mine (BL) was taken to hospital soon after having his vaccination because he went in to fibrillations tens minutes after receiving it. Your 'experts' won't change his mind about covid vaccinations.

It depends on what we call a consensus. Small disagreements isn't a sign there is no consensus on the important aspects of something. To me, this is a sign of the times: find a small disagreement and make it a polarizing wedge issue.

Again.... you won't change challenging minds by mentioning 'we mostly all agree'. Can you see that?

I think it's important to show that experts are valuable. There are objective measures that can help us recognize or assess what "expert" means.

It's much better to tell us what the individuals DOES.

Maybe. If you are known to have impaired cognitive skills, can you trust yourself? Ought you?

I'm not suggesting that we can't put trust in ourselves, but if you were to buy a computer - would you trust your ability to assess the specifications to get what you need, or would you trust a professional (not a professional salesperson - a professional computer tech)? Assuming you aren't an expert in computers, of course.

As soon as a computer tech starts giving advise about purchases they become a 'professional salesperson' who you seem to mistrust.
When I bought my first mobile phone I asked my neighbours about theirs, and my grandson came to the shop with me.

What about a spot on your skin? Would you go to a dermatologist or ask a waitress, or yourself, or the internet?

I think it's obvious that we have and respect experts. Their value is clear. I find it interesting that it is often that people often push back.

Yes, experts can be wrong. Yes, they can disagree. But, for the most part how ought we answer this question:

Ought we trust a consensus of experts over the opinion of a non-expert (ourselves included), or over the consensus of non-experts? I think it's an obvious "yes."

In what scenario would you feel comfortable doing something against the recommendations of the consensus of experts? (Someone said when raising children - which is chilling...)

Again, please do ditch this word 'experts'........there aren't any. Put any ten experts in a room and give them a down-pillow each.....within minutes that room will be full of feathers.

Question:- how many challengers have you converted about, say, climate change? I will guess 'not many'. But if you dump the word 'experts' and start to listen to them then they might listen to some of what you say. You might even get a 'flat earther' to agree that there might be just a hint of a curve on a sea-scape horizon.

[The Nice Centurion]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?
If not, how do you come to a provisional belief about something that you don't know anything about it?

It often comes down to the subject in which they're experts.

If they're experts in creationism, No

If they're experts in alternative cancer treatments, No

If they're experts in Scientology, No

If they're experts in conversion therapy, No

If they're experts in holocaust denial, No

If they're experts in flat earth theory, No

If they're experts in Transcendental Meditation, No

If they're experts in naturopathy, No

If they're experts in crop circles, No

If they're experts in geocentrism, No

If they're experts in colon cleansing, No

If they're experts in spiritualism, No

If they're experts in determinism, Yes

If they're experts in acupuncture, No

If they're experts in free will, No

If they're experts in astrology, No

If they're experts in the supernatural, No

If they're experts in numerology, No

If they're experts in alternative cancer treatments, No

If they're experts in perpetual motion, No

If they're experts in palmistry, No.

If they're experts in exorcisms, No

If they're experts in ear candling, No

If they're experts in ancient astronauts, No

If they're experts in Feng shui, No


.

IF THEY ARE EXPERTS IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN, YES!

You do know that there never was "Reformed" Egyptian. Mr. Smith had to makeup something, and at that time no one realized that it would become possible to ever translate hieroglyphics.

Surely Egyptian was reformed by Lehi, who was a very wise man and therefore able to do that.

How can you say there never was one, since you know that all Nephite prophets wrote in that language!

And why do you think the second boggestormon sect forstly called itself " The Reformed (Egyptian) Church" ?

Further: The very fact that egyptian hieroglyphes are so hard to decipher is proof that they needed to be reformed.
Surely even the egyptians themselves saw that.
They must have said: " Hmm - since our hieroglyphes are so hard to decipher we cant read our own language
So lets turn to Lehi and ask him to reform it. As payment wewill give him lots of uninscribed Golden Plates, so that later Nephite Prophets can write on them in the future town of Zarahemla, Panama!

See ?

[boatsnguitars]

IF THEY ARE EXPERTS IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN, YES!

You know, I wonder why there are so few experts in Reformed Egyptian.... hmmm... We might never know....


Edit: Oh, you beat me to it... There is no such thing.... yet, a whole religion has been based on it... Not the strangest thing we'll ever hear about a religion - let alone Mormonism! haha

[boatsnguitars]

Again, please do ditch this word 'experts'........there aren't any. Put any ten experts in a room and give them a down-pillow each.....within minutes that room will be full of feathers.

Nope, there are experts. There just are.

We will have to agree to disagree. I can't keep up with your general screed against experts and society, but it seems the upshot is you note there are non-experts posing as experts, therefore, experts can't exist. I think the whole thrust of your post is misdirected and I don't have time to go point by point.

Also, just because I can't convince people of something has no bearing. I'm not an expert at convincing people.