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]

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.

The use of hyperbole?
Samson may have killed countless enemy warriors, but you know what some folks are like, they reduce claims, and so to tell that he killed 'hundreds' or 'thousands' attempts to balance out listener's skepticism.

We do this ourselves sometimes, in so many ways....... and we can tend to be skeptical about the claims of others sometimes.

[boatsnguitars]

Now in some cases we can't do that.......

In MOST cases we can't do that. I don't know how you feel about your own capacity to become so well-versed in every topic known to man to feel that you can have a valid opinion to contradict the people who study the one topic, solely, for their entire lives, but most people can't become well-versed (note I am avoiding saying "become experts") to the point they can challenge scientific theories.

Perhaps you have both the time, resources, and amazing brain power to be a polymath in every subject, but most people don't.

Therefore, my point stands. And, worse, not only does my point stand, but it highlights the very deficit you claim to be able to overcome: that is, you don't even seem to have the capacity to understand you are wrong, yet you feel you can - by not being lazy - understand all kinds of complex issues and have valid opinions about them. You are proving my point, and self-pwning at the same time.

Tell us, what concrete ought you use to build a bridge in Japan? What ratio of what materials, what size of aggregate, how long to mix?
Then, tell us what my Aunt is suffering from and what surgery might she need? Are you qualified to perform the surgery?
Which toothpaste is best, and why? What are the most important aspects when brushing ones teeth?
Can you land a rover on Mars? What are the issues involved in doing it, particularly the molecular properties of the metals and the fuel.
What do I need to build a Quantum Computer? How do I test it? What are the metrics?
How do I best defend against a modified Erhardt-Perkins offensive system? Which players are best to select for it?
How do I build a car to compete at LeMans? Not only the technical aspects, but the funding and administrative aspects of putting together a team.
How do we enact a Single Payer Health Care system in America, including all the existing laws that need to be re-written to allow it? How do State laws affect it?
How does mitochondrial dna show speciation, what is it made of, what are it's limitations, how can I detect it, what can affect it?
What makes a dog a winner in the AKC National Championship?
What distribution chain issues do I need to deal with when creating an online wine company?
Which fishing flies are best for each location for catching Rainbow Trout?
What are the tonal characteristics required to design a recording studio?


Shall I go on? There is a never ending list of human activities that require deep, institutional knowledge to either operate at a high level, or to simply function at all. In Climatology alone there are unique specialties that would render one person who is exceptional at one thing (say, ocean currents), unable to digest the complexity of another area of Climatology (say, tree rings).

It appears you think you can Google some stuff and challenge them all. As I said, that's you doing a self-pwn.

Worse, it appears that the religious people on this forum don't even have to Google it, they just have to believe in Jesus to contradict the Experts.

[LittleNipper]

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.

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

[Clownboat]

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.

The use of hyperbole?
Samson may have killed countless enemy warriors, but you know what some folks are like, they reduce claims, and so to tell that he killed 'hundreds' or 'thousands' attempts to balance out listener's skepticism.

We do this ourselves sometimes, in so many ways....... and we can tend to be skeptical about the claims of others sometimes.

Then surely you agree that it is reasonable and logical to question claims made in religious promotional material.
Like, did a 3 day dead man reanimate to life and did the bodies of long dead saints break from their graves to walk the streets of Jerusalem and did Muhammed fly on a winged horse?
It seems that I am justified to remain skeptical about such claims, yet threats of eternal hell get leveled at people for being reasonably skeptical. It's very odd to me.

[Clownboat]

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?

[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.

[oldbadger]

In MOST cases we can't do that. I don't know how you feel about your own capacity to become so well-versed in every topic known to man to feel that you can have a valid opinion to contradict the people who study the one topic, solely, for their entire lives, but most people can't become well-versed (note I am avoiding saying "become experts") to the point they can challenge scientific theories.

Perhaps you have both the time, resources, and amazing brain power to be a polymath in every subject, but most people don't.

Therefore, my point stands. And, worse, not only does my point stand, but it highlights the very deficit you claim to be able to overcome: that is, you don't even seem to have the capacity to understand you are wrong, yet you feel you can - by not being lazy - understand all kinds of complex issues and have valid opinions about them. You are proving my point, and self-pwning at the same time.

What makes you think that I believe that I know so much?
You mention people who have studied a subject 'for the entire lives'............ these people don't need to give themselves titles like 'expert', they just tell us what they do.

Tell us, what concrete ought you use to build a bridge in Japan? What ratio of what materials, what size of aggregate, how long to mix?

Very interesting question! I'll take just that one for the sake of brevity. In the UK we have just had to close many of our schools, just at the beginning of the new year curriculum, because specialised surveyors have decided that the concrete used in building construction at such premises is dangerous and risks sudden collapse. This is a major calamity because thousands of pupils must continue their studies in separate premises until the situation is resolved.

Now you would have (would have!) titled the original designers and quantity surveyors as 'experts', I reckon, and you would have believed in their work absolutely. But you wouldn't now, I expect.

Shall I go on? There is a never ending list of human activities that require deep, institutional knowledge to either operate at a high level, or to simply function at all. In Climatology alone there are unique specialties that would render one person who is exceptional at one thing (say, ocean currents), unable to digest the complexity of another area of Climatology (say, tree rings).

Tree rings? Dendo Chronology or Dendrology? Such researchers are mostly wood scientists, but wood scientists (like car drivers) can make mistakes........ their work is usually peer reviewed.

You see, we don't take people's words automatically, but learn about peer-reviews.

It appears you think you can Google some stuff and challenge them all. As I said, that's you doing a self-pwn.

I don't challenge the world........ I'll leave that to you, but you'll influence nobody by trying to tell them that you are surrounded by 'experts'.

Worse, it appears that the religious people on this forum don't even have to Google it, they just have to believe in Jesus to contradict the Experts.

You've got your own religion.......... you just believe in ..................Experts!
What's the difference?

[oldbadger]

Then surely you agree that it is reasonable and logical to question claims made in religious promotional material.

I think about most claims with as much care as possible.
And I take each claim on its own merits, or lack of them. I haven't got a problem with Samson and his jawbone, I just think that such a man may once have lived. It just isn't a big deal to me.

Like, did a 3 day dead man reanimate to life and did the bodies of long dead saints break from their graves to walk the streets of Jerusalem and did Muhammed fly on a winged horse?

For a start Jesus was not left in a cave-grave for three days! If you just read the depositions you'll notice that he was left there on a friday at about dusk (by our 7 day calendar) and returned to on a Sunday at first light.......... about one and a half days.
And personally I think that Jesus didn't die on that Friday........the gospels give me all kinds of clues about that.

Now Muhammed and his flying horse.......... I remember that Elijah was taken up by a chariot of fire....... strange.
Can you show me the passage that relates to Muhammed's horse? I am not acquainted with the Qurun.

It seems that I am justified to remain skeptical about such claims, yet threats of eternal hell get leveled at people for being reasonably skeptical. It's very odd to me.

Of course you can be! I'm skeptical of all kinds of claims, whether about wonder show polish or gods. I don't mind debating with people, but I try to discuss claims rather than rant about them.

Yes..... I've been told that a fiery hell awaits me at least twice in the last month, once by a Canadian Christian and once by a Texan Christian, and I've seen pictures of women outside abortion clinics waving signs that say 'God tells us to shoot these devils'. It's all very scary, but whether its more scary than atheists like Stalin I wouldn't like to guess.

[brunumb]

In the UK we have just had to close many of our schools, just at the beginning of the new year curriculum, because specialised surveyors have decided that the concrete used in building construction at such premises is dangerous and risks sudden collapse. This is a major calamity because thousands of pupils must continue their studies in separate premises until the situation is resolved.

Now you would have (would have!) titled the original designers and quantity surveyors as 'experts', I reckon, and you would have believed in their work absolutely. But you wouldn't now, I expect.

Maybe these specialised surveyors are not the experts people think they are.

[oldbadger]

In the UK we have just had to close many of our schools, just at the beginning of the new year curriculum, because specialised surveyors have decided that the concrete used in building construction at such premises is dangerous and risks sudden collapse. This is a major calamity because thousands of pupils must continue their studies in separate premises until the situation is resolved.

Maybe these specialised surveyors are not the experts people think they are.

Well I expect that they are efficient, because it was those people who have discovered this problem, but here is an excellent example of why it's not a good idea to trust in claims if the only information that can be given about the claimant is that s/he is 'expert'....... a totally sham introduction, whomsoever is being introduced.