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?

[oldbadger]

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.

OK, I understand that you do believe in people who claim to be (or who are introduced as) experts, whilst I ignore that word and simply pay immediate attention to who and what they are and any reports that they might make.

But to keep this conversation going, would you like to select a subject or situation and tell me what the consensus among experts is about that?
And one question:- Are you an expert in any particular area of work or study? If so, what? .....only asking......

[oldbadger]

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?

You believe in evolution. Fair enough.

[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.

OK, I understand that you do believe in people who claim to be (or who are introduced as) experts, whilst I ignore that word and simply pay immediate attention to who and what they are and any reports that they might make.

But to keep this conversation going, would you like to select a subject or situation and tell me what the consensus among experts is about that?
And one question:- Are you an expert in any particular area of work or study? If so, what? .....only asking......

No, I am not an expert. I have certain qualifications that make me more knowledgeable on some subjects, which makes me recognize when I meet experts in my field. I can see through their depth and breadth of knowledge that they are authoritative in certain matters.

So, I've offered Climate Change is a place where there is massive consensus from experts.
For example, let's take computer programming, or auto repair. Wouldn't you agree that an expert would be able to demonstrate results that would not be achievable by a novice, or a non-expert?

Or, let's take an even more basic example - which is why I'm surprised by your position.

An expert pianist. Would you agree that someone who could play Bach, and be able to explain all the music theory behind Bach's compositions would qualify as being called an "expert"?

This is, frankly, why I find your argument risible. One can't fake being an expert on playing Bach - or do you believe they can? Can they fake playing his compositions?

Likewise, Climate Scientists can - like a Bach expert - tell you the theory behind the science, and actually demonstrate they know it and how it works, and they can't fake it. It's too obvious.

Now, if you are referring to "experts" on TikTok, or whatever your sources of info are then I can't really help you. /jk


So, let's stop this ridiculous banter.

Do you agree Glenn Gould was an expert in his field? Was Bach? Mozart? Beethoven? Caravaggio? Rembrandt? Dali? Fred Astaire? Ginger Rogers? Ansel Adams? Frank Lloyd Wright? Le Corbusier? Tom Brady? On and on....

[oldbadger]

No, I am not an expert. I have certain qualifications that make me more knowledgeable on some subjects, which makes me recognize when I meet experts in my field. I can see through their depth and breadth of knowledge that they are authoritative in certain matters.

What is your field?
Mine was the recruitment, induction, field training and supervision of various kinds of security operatives.

So, I've offered Climate Change is a place where there is massive consensus from experts.
For example, let's take computer programming, or auto repair. Wouldn't you agree that an expert would be able to demonstrate results that would not be achievable by a novice, or a non-expert?

About what? Most die hard challengers will accept that sea levels have dropped (by several meters) before now and also have risen several meters above present levels. That's climate change.
So I don't know who you've been discussing this with but you won't find that many folks who think that the present climate has always existed.

But the mass of humanity isn't doing that much to alter lifestyles, or voting for any kind of green leaders....... Actions speak louder than words.

And so it's very inexact to just tell us that 'experts all agree about climate change....... you'll need to be much more exact than that.

Or, let's take an even more basic example - which is why I'm surprised by your position.

An expert pianist. Would you agree that someone who could play Bach, and be able to explain all the music theory behind Bach's compositions would qualify as being called an "expert"?

This is, frankly, why I find your argument risible. One can't fake being an expert on playing Bach - or do you believe they can? Can they fake playing his compositions?

A person who has intimate knowledge and ability with and about a famous composer's music is just that. Introduce them as that.
As soo as you use the word 'expert' we all know that you're trying to sell us something...... really!

Likewise, Climate Scientists can - like a Bach expert - tell you the theory behind the science, and actually demonstrate they know it and how it works, and they can't fake it. It's too obvious.

Well show me one. Please name an 'expert climate scientist' and we can then take a look at what they do, know and say.

Now, if you are referring to "experts" on TikTok, or whatever your sources of info are then I can't really help you. /jk

Ah! So some 'experts' aren't really experts at all..............

So, let's stop this ridiculous banter.

Why did you write back to me if you want to stop these posts?
And why do you think this discussion is ridiculous?

Do you agree Glenn Gould was an expert in his field? Was Bach? Mozart? Beethoven? Caravaggio? Rembrandt? Dali? Fred Astaire? Ginger Rogers? Ansel Adams? Frank Lloyd Wright? Le Corbusier? Tom Brady? On and on....

Now please take this in........ all the above were probably amazingly good at what they did, brilliant even........ but there are no experts!

Experts in a particular subject would all agree exactly within the areas of their works and studies, but that does not happen.
As soon as two of your 'experts' happen to disagree about something then one of them ceases to be an 'expert'.

The word is an unnecessary title ......absolutely.
Fred Astaire was a brilliant and amazing dancer......... that is what he was, but you never mentioned that. You could have, though.

[boatsnguitars]

expert
/ˈɛkspəːt/
noun
a person who is very knowledgeable about or skillful in a particular area.

C'mon, man...

You said, "Fred Astaire was a brilliant and amazing dancer"

Was he also very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area?

[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.

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 ?

Lehi exists only in the text of the Book of Mormon. A Lehi (leḥı̂ י ִחֶל) is mentioned in two contexts in the Bible. First, it is the location where Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (Judg 15:9–19). Second, it is referenced in the exploits of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite, one of David's "mighty three" (2 Sam 23:8–11

[oldbadger]

expert
/ˈɛkspəːt/
noun
a person who is very knowledgeable about or skillful in a particular area.

C'mon, man...

You said, "Fred Astaire was a brilliant and amazing dancer"

Was he also very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area?

OK, so you couldn't bring yourself to explain about any areas that you are skilled in.

Now you've decided to give me dictionary definitions of the word 'expert' in order to prove something to me. You want to read that Fred was an 'expert' dancer, I guess........... why do you need to use the word 'expert' when you can describe what he did?

People use the word 'expert' to influence those whom they are 'talking' to. As in: 'Michael is an expert so we can take his opinion seriously.'
That is a very weak sell.....really!

If we just explain who Michael is, what his skilled field of work/research is, and then explain what he has found or discovered, you can get to influence folks more certainly.

The one perfect example of my point is that you have already admitted that people claiming to be experts on 'tiktok' may be imposts of some kind.

[boatsnguitars]

expert
/ˈɛkspəːt/
noun
a person who is very knowledgeable about or skillful in a particular area.

C'mon, man...

You said, "Fred Astaire was a brilliant and amazing dancer"

Was he also very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area?

OK, so you couldn't bring yourself to explain about any areas that you are skilled in.

Now you've decided to give me dictionary definitions of the word 'expert' in order to prove something to me. You want to read that Fred was an 'expert' dancer, I guess........... why do you need to use the word 'expert' when you can describe what he did?

People use the word 'expert' to influence those whom they are 'talking' to. As in: 'Michael is an expert so we can take his opinion seriously.'
That is a very weak sell.....really!

If we just explain who Michael is, what his skilled field of work/research is, and then explain what he has found or discovered, you can get to influence folks more certainly.

The one perfect example of my point is that you have already admitted that people claiming to be experts on 'tiktok' may be imposts of some kind.

Which Expert hurt you? What happened to you that you have such an anger towards the word expert, while you agree that people are "knowledgeable and skillful (which is what we use the word "expert" to encapsulate)?

If a person isn't "knowledgeable and skillful, they aren't experts. Like if a sphere isn't round, it's not a sphere.

You seem fixated on people claiming to be experts who aren't. That has nothing to do with anything I am talking about. It's like me saying, "Well, what if the Fred Astaire you are talking about is the guy down and the local factory who was born in 1991?"

Let's try again: Ought we listen to the consensus of people who are "very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area" with respect to their input on that particular area they are " very knowledgeable and skillful in" - or, ought we listen to people who are NOT "very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area", or just one outlier who may be " very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area" but has an opposite opinion of the consensus, especially if we, ourselves, are not "very knowledgeable and skillful in that particular area"?

It seems so obvious and uncontroversial:

Non-experts ought to provisionally accept the consensus of experts over a single expert (if different than the consensus), but definitely over non-experts that disagree with the consensus of experts. If there is no consensus among experts, than one ought to reserve a position, since if the experts can't concur, we (non-experts) wouldn't have the knowledge base to understand why we'd pick one side over another.

I honestly can't see the problem with this. You'll say, "What if they aren't really experts!?" OK, but I'm not talking about non-experts, am I???!!!!!!!!

[Clownboat]

Lehi exists only in the text of the Book of Mormon. A Lehi (leḥı̂ י ִחֶל) is mentioned in two contexts in the Bible. First, it is the location where Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (Judg 15:9–19). Second, it is referenced in the exploits of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite, one of David's "mighty three" (2 Sam 23:8–11

Do you think 1,000 men decided to attack Samson 'black ninja style' (one at a time)? I ask because it would seem odd to me to believe that a single man killed 1,000 men that were trying to kill him.

Let's say that god magic made him 1,000 time stronger, how would that equate to having the ability to dodge 1,000 spears for example? Attacking 'black ninja style' would explain how 1 could defeat 1,000, but that wouldn't bode well for the intelligence of the 1,000 now would it?

The claim that he killed 1,000 sounds neat, until you think about it.

[oldbadger]

Which Expert hurt you? What happened to you that you have such an anger towards the word expert, while you agree that people are "knowledgeable and skillful (which is what we use the word "expert" to encapsulate)?

If a person isn't "knowledgeable and skillful, they aren't experts. Like if a sphere isn't round, it's not a sphere.

You seem fixated on people claiming to be experts who aren't. That has nothing to do with anything I am talking about. It's like me saying, "Well, what if the Fred Astaire you are talking about is the guy down and the local factory who was born in 1991?"

And you still want to hide in the shadows about your own abilities, work, skills.

I am not impressed by any claims about anything if all that the claimant can tell me is that 'Experts say, or all agree...etc'
What you would need to do is to read up about such claims and findings so that you can explain them yourself, however simply.

Let's try again: Ought we listen to the consensus of people who are "very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area" with respect to their input on that particular area they are " very knowledgeable and skillful in" - or, ought we listen to people who are NOT "very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area", or just one outlier who may be " very knowledgeable and skillful in a particular area" but has an opposite opinion of the consensus, especially if we, ourselves, are not "very knowledgeable and skillful in that particular area"?

It seems so obvious and uncontroversial:

Non-experts ought to provisionally accept the consensus of experts over a single expert (if different than the consensus), but definitely over non-experts that disagree with the consensus of experts. If there is no consensus among experts, than one ought to reserve a position, since if the experts can't concur, we (non-experts) wouldn't have the knowledge base to understand why we'd pick one side over another.

I honestly can't see the problem with this. You'll say, "What if they aren't really experts!?" OK, but I'm not talking about non-experts, am I???!!!!!!!!

It's lazy, and as you've probably already learned, it doesn't convince anybody when you try to establish some fact or condition by telling that 'experts have said, or all agree'.

There is another word that lazy debaters use in their attempts to try and prove points....I wonder if you can figure out what that word is?

So if you want to discuss any subject matter then it might be best to learn a bit about it yourself.

Now in some cases we can't do that....... I have been reading about incidents that were written about 2000 years ago and I don't know any of the languages used back then, but a man who translated these languages in to English and taught others to do this has written more details about it all for me to think about, and why did I read his books?...... because of what I've told you! He was a translator intimately acquainted with the subject matter........ that's why. I never needed to call him anything other than what he is/has done.

Try that in future and you might influence more readers, otherwise they'll just think of you as 'like a tik tok claimant' !!!