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?

[LittleNipper]

Samson had the LORD on his side. The Philistines worshiped manmade idols. Who had the greatest power?

I would assume the powers were equal. Why would anyone assume that one god concept is greater than another?

YOU ASSUME.

YOU FAILED to debate again and why are we using all caps?
It seems that you would prefer that I pretend know that which I don't. When it comes to the gods, we can either admit that we lack knowledge if they exist or not, or ASSUME that they do exist.
So I ask again... Why would anyone assume that one god concept is greater than another?

Why should I debate the obvious? If the idols of the Philistines were equal with that of Samson, they would NOT have been killed by Samson. It certainly wasn't a draw!

Maybe he cheated?

You're grasping at straws. One against 1000 ---- how is cheating possible?

[oldbadger]

You know what, I really have no idea what point you are making.

I know you don't.
My point is that to describe and then quote anybody as an expert for the purposes of changing another person's mind about anything ...... does not work!
Now you must know this already because I doubt that you have changed many minds like that.

When somebody tries to change your mind by telling you what an expert claims, do you automatically believe them? No? So you might do better to think of another way of putting your point.

[oldbadger]

His position seems to be, "The "experts" messed up, therefore, experts don't exist. We know this because the people who studied the issue are really good at their job and can determine the facts due to their expertise in the subject matter. But they aren't experts because I don't call them experts, but if you call them an expert, they are suddenly not experts and they are now "experts".."

That's about all I can divine from this..

My position is 'People mess up'.

We can attempt to discuss (say) climate change with deniers by doing our best to tell them what we know about 'climate change', and answering their own proposals........ but if you think you'll change anybody's mind by insisting that 'experts', or 'most experts' agree with you, then I think that you will fail.

[brunumb]

When somebody tries to change your mind by telling you what an expert claims, do you automatically believe them? No? So you might do better to think of another way of putting your point.

What would you suggest in that case?

[oldbadger]

You're grasping at straws. One against 1000 ---- how is cheating possible?

You sent the above to another..............
I do like the story of Samson!

So you believe that if 'The Lord' is on a person's side that they will win....true?
Chairman Mao won nearly all of China during his lifetime.......... so would you say that the Lord was on his side?

And can you think of anybody who has the Lord on their side now?

[brunumb]

My point is that to describe and then quote anybody as an expert for the purposes of changing another person's mind about anything ...... does not work!

But is that all that is usually involved? Experts providing evidence and justification for their claims are not just relying on their status as experts. I would not simply accept someone as an expert without at least checking their credentials. If they are demonstrating levels of knowledge and understanding significantly higher than the average person then I see no problem with giving them expert status. Then, not accepting what they have to say would have to involve me providing some degree of credible refutation of their claims, not just denial of their expertise.

[oldbadger]

My point is that to describe and then quote anybody as an expert for the purposes of changing another person's mind about anything ...... does not work!

But is that all that is usually involved? Experts providing evidence and justification for their claims are not just relying on their status as experts. I would not simply accept someone as an expert without at least checking their credentials.

And so you check credentials to discover who and what the person was/is. Well now you can introduce that person with their research and findings.
That begins to look as if you're on the road to a debating success, I think.

If they are demonstrating levels of knowledge and understanding significantly higher than the average person then I see no problem with giving them expert status. Then, not accepting what they have to say would have to involve me providing some degree of credible refutation of their claims, not just denial of their expertise.

But will you give 'expert status' to those who make claims that you disagree with?
A person being described as an expert makes no difference to me, only what they claim to have found.

[boatsnguitars]

Samson had the LORD on his side. The Philistines worshiped manmade idols. Who had the greatest power?

I would assume the powers were equal. Why would anyone assume that one god concept is greater than another?

YOU ASSUME.

YOU FAILED to debate again and why are we using all caps?
It seems that you would prefer that I pretend know that which I don't. When it comes to the gods, we can either admit that we lack knowledge if they exist or not, or ASSUME that they do exist.
So I ask again... Why would anyone assume that one god concept is greater than another?

Why should I debate the obvious? If the idols of the Philistines were equal with that of Samson, they would NOT have been killed by Samson. It certainly wasn't a draw!

Maybe he cheated?

You're grasping at straws. One against 1000 ---- how is cheating possible?

Maybe he threw sand in their eyes?

BTW, doesn't this sum up the Religionists position? Someone claims it was 1 against 1000, and they believe it. "It must have been God! How else could he have won!?"

Um, maybe the story isn't true? Not everything people say is true, even in books some people claim are perfectly true.

But you can't get a Religionist to admit to that. They first assume it's all true, then claim we have the burden to show it isn't. It's absurd, but that's Religion for you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #88]

If you want to see 1 against 1000, check out the movie "RRR". Way over the top scene early in the film, but great fun if you like that sort of thing.

[LittleNipper]

Samson had the LORD on his side. The Philistines worshiped manmade idols. Who had the greatest power?

I would assume the powers were equal. Why would anyone assume that one god concept is greater than another?

YOU ASSUME.

YOU FAILED to debate again and why are we using all caps?
It seems that you would prefer that I pretend know that which I don't. When it comes to the gods, we can either admit that we lack knowledge if they exist or not, or ASSUME that they do exist.
So I ask again... Why would anyone assume that one god concept is greater than another?

Why should I debate the obvious? If the idols of the Philistines were equal with that of Samson, they would NOT have been killed by Samson. It certainly wasn't a draw!

Maybe he cheated?

You're grasping at straws. One against 1000 ---- how is cheating possible?

Maybe he threw sand in their eyes?

BTW, doesn't this sum up the Religionists position? Someone claims it was 1 against 1000, and they believe it. "It must have been God! How else could he have won!?"

Um, maybe the story isn't true? Not everything people say is true, even in books some people claim are perfectly true.

But you can't get a Religionist to admit to that. They first assume it's all true, then claim we have the burden to show it isn't. It's absurd, but that's Religion for you.

The point is, if one doesn't believe in GOD, one isn't going to accept that Samson was assisted by GOD to kill 1000 heathen soldiers.