Are you smarter than the experts?

[historia]

I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.

This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #9

NOTE: The Christian religion was started by a "non-expert" challenging the establishment. If the present pandemic has taught us anything, it is to "question the science" and "challenge the experts!"

Are you drawing a comparison between the non-expert who started Christianity and some science-questioner who suggests that we might cure a pandemic by ingesting bleach? If so, you're not saying much for the non-expert who started Christianity.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #9

NOTE: The Christian religion was started by a "non-expert" challenging the establishment. If the present pandemic has taught us anything, it is to "question the science" and "challenge the experts!"

Are you drawing a comparison between the non-expert who started Christianity and some science-questioner who suggests that we might cure a pandemic by ingesting bleach? If so, you're not saying much for the non-expert who started Christianity.

I'm suggesting that there is always merit it questioning (verifying information so decide if one is going to believe it or not) the establishment.







JW

[historia]

The original of the synoptics post - dated the Jewish war as predictions of the temple destruction were part of the story, together with promises of Jesus returning and bringing about the Last Days. Then the different writers produced their own version with their own additions.

But how does that differ from the scholarly consensus?

Or have I perhaps misunderstood what you mean by your "take on the gospels"?

[historia]

Experts are trotted out as Authorities and it may be in a related field but may not be the actual field. That's aside from some who are experts in the field but sideline it in favour of faith. There are a couple of creationists who write perfectly good science papers but dismiss the science of their field when doing Creationism.

A fair point. But let me just note that the first question is not asking whether we should defer to any expert, but whether we should defer to the consensus of experts.

In almost every field, on almost any question, one can find scholars who hold to marginal theories. But on the question of evolution, as on many other topics, there is clearly a consensus view.

[historia]

Maybe the obvious (if oversimplified) answer is the Swiss patent clerk who blew up scholarly consensus on classical mechanics.

I don't think that Einstein should be seen as a non-expert.

He completed his doctoral degree the same year he published his first papers on relativity. To that end, he clearly had the educational credentials to be considered an expert. He just didn't land a teaching position after completing his coursework, hence the patent clerk gig.

But that's a rare thing, so the rest of us should probably defer to expert consensus when and where it exists.

Agreed.

[TRANSPONDER]

The original of the synoptics post - dated the Jewish war as predictions of the temple destruction were part of the story, together with promises of Jesus returning and bringing about the Last Days. Then the different writers produced their own version with their own additions.

But how does that differ from the scholarly consensus?

Or have I perhaps misunderstood what you mean by your "take on the gospels"?

I don't know how or whether it differs from the scholarly consensus. Which scholarly consensus? Bible believer or Bible skeptic? In any case I don't really care, since (as I say) they all seemed to have missed or ignored what I base my take on.

Experts are trotted out as Authorities and it may be in a related field but may not be the actual field. That's aside from some who are experts in the field but sideline it in favour of faith. There are a couple of creationists who write perfectly good science papers but dismiss the science of their field when doing Creationism.

A fair point. But let me just note that the first question is not asking whether we should defer to any expert, but whether we should defer to the consensus of experts.

In almost every field, on almost any question, one can find scholars who hold to marginal theories. But on the question of evolution, as on many other topics, there is clearly a consensus view.

Everything taken on its' own merits. Consensus counts for something, but individuals can make discoveries that leave the consensus to catch up. Example, tectonic plate movement. We have to avoid this business of find an Authority and trust in it. Science (including history) has an ongoing debate (so does religion) which sidelines the unsupported and goes (we hope) with the case of the best evidence, if not verified by experiment. e.g the Higgs Boson was likely enough to put time and effort into finding it. But it was a hypothesis until it was found. Same with transitionals, black holes and string theory. And with my Take until..one day, Ah gotta dream...some unedited copy of Josephus will be dug up at Nag hammadi with the Real Jesus I predicted in it.

Until then, I just have to argue my case and be be prepared to be debunked.

[historia]

Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

No. Ever see how far off economists and political pundits have been? Medical experts once believed in curing certain illnesses by removing bad blood from the body with leeches.

Clearly, the consensus of experts is not always correct. The mere fact that the consensus on various issues has changed over time is enough to prove that point.

But the real question here is this: What alternative approach might one realistically follow that is statistically more likely to result in an accurate view of the world, if one is not following the consensus of experts?

When we see expert advice working, that's a pretty good indication that the expert is worthy of trust.

Okay, but this is not a scalable way of approaching things. You and I are likely interested in thousands of questions (both large and small) across a wide array of academic disciplines. We have neither the time to read, nor the necessary background knowledge to properly assess, the works of individual scholars to determine who to trust.

[TRANSPONDER]

Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

No. Ever see how far off economists and political pundits have been? Medical experts once believed in curing certain illnesses by removing bad blood from the body with leeches.

Clearly, the consensus of experts is not always correct. The mere fact that the consensus on various issues has changed over time is enough to prove that point.

But the real question here is this: What alternative approach might one realistically follow that is statistically more likely to result in an accurate view of the world, if one is not following the consensus of experts?

When we see expert advice working, that's a pretty good indication that the expert is worthy of trust.

Okay, but this is not a scalable way of approaching things. You and I are likely interested in thousands of questions (both large and small) across a wide array of academic disciplines. We have neither the time to read, nor the necessary background knowledge to properly assess, the works of individual scholars to determine who to trust.

Agreed, which is why we have to put some trust into science and peer review. And even published papers can be supplanted by research that debunks it. Peer review just passes it as sound science without validating the experiments. That's what other science does. And we have to hope that if there is any flaw or fallacy in the paper, the others will leap on it and chew it to pieces.

I might also recall another Atheist Axiom. No 4 ,I think "There are many religions; there is only one science."

[historia]

I don't really care, since (as I say) they all seemed to have missed or ignored what I base my take on.

Which is what, exactly? It's still not clear to me.

Consensus counts for something, but individuals can make discoveries that leave the consensus to catch up. Example, tectonic plate movement.

Again, let me note that the first question is not asking whether experts should always defer to the consensus of (other) experts. I think we would all agree that it is both important and necessary that experts challenge the prevailing consensus when they think it is deficient, since in some cases their research causes the consensus to change.

The first question instead asks if non-experts should always defer to the consensus of experts.

[theophile]

Maybe the obvious (if oversimplified) answer is the Swiss patent clerk who blew up scholarly consensus on classical mechanics.

I don't think that Einstein should be seen as a non-expert.

He completed his doctoral degree the same year he published his first papers on relativity. To that end, he clearly had the educational credentials to be considered an expert. He just didn't land a teaching position after completing his coursework, hence the patent clerk gig.

But that's a rare thing, so the rest of us should probably defer to expert consensus when and where it exists.

Agreed.

There's a big difference between a PhD candidate and a tenured professor. But sure, he wasn't just some schmuck doing physics in his basement.

It's basically the genius factor. Whoever wrote the bible, they were a genius. No different from a Shakespeare or an Einstein. There is no way the world should ever unconditionally defer to expert consensus on such matters given this factor.

Both genius capacity to create and to fully understand what was created by genius. To enter into that next order discussion...

(Frankly, I don't think the experts have fully grasped the significance of the bible, or of Einstein's theories. Or of history yet for that matter. They are all still being explored in new dimensions, and none have had their final word.)