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?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

I think we should provisionally trust a clear consensus view, although I'm not sure if there is a real consensus on many things. The key here is provisionally place our trust in it. Since there isn't a consensus on God or the supernatural, we need to look at the actual arguments for and against, which go beyond holy texts.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

I think we should provisionally trust a clear consensus view, although I'm not sure if there is a real consensus on many things. The key here is provisionally place our trust in it. Since there isn't a consensus on God or the supernatural, we need to look at the actual arguments for and against, which go beyond holy texts.

Agreed, though I'd question why we'd call them 'holy texts' if we are still unsure of their validity? Until there is some consensus among experts (again, I have no idea what this means when talking about the Supernatural, since it seems everyone and their brother claim to know more about the Supernatural than everyone else), it seems prudent to withold judgement. Which, thinking about it, should really speak to Christains, since they are told not to judge!

[The Tanager]

Agreed, though I'd question why we'd call them 'holy texts' if we are still unsure of their validity?

Because ‘holy’ has different meanings for different people and contexts.

Until there is some consensus among experts (again, I have no idea what this means when talking about the Supernatural, since it seems everyone and their brother claim to know more about the Supernatural than everyone else), it seems prudent to withold judgement.

Why? I agree that if there is a clear consensus, it’s reasonable to hold that view unless shown good reasons otherwise, but this doesn’t mean that one needs a clear consensus to make a sound judgment. Why do you think a clear consensus is needed?

Which, thinking about it, should really speak to Christains, since they are told not to judge!

Why do you think Christians are told not to judge the truth of an issue?

[boatsnguitars]

Why? I agree that if there is a clear consensus, it’s reasonable to hold that view unless shown good reasons otherwise, but this doesn’t mean that one needs a clear consensus to make a sound judgment. Why do you think a clear consensus is needed?

I think the view is most defensible with a clear consensus. Like Evolution, Global Warming, Safety of GMOs, Population Growth will be a major problem, etc.

But consider this question put to economists:

"A ban on non-compete clauses would lead to a measurable increase in innovation."
35% Agree
42% Uncertain
32% Disagree
https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/

I am not an economist. I have not read anything on this topic. It would be prudent for me to withhold judgement. Sure, I could pick a side and defend it, but for what? I could use my anecdotal experience, but that's not right, either.

This is why I say, if there is no consensus from experts, non-experts should (it would be prudent to) withhold firm belief. I'm not saying one can't have an opinion, but we ought to consider that opinion with the weight it deserves.

All of this is with the presumption that we are trying to act and think rationally.


Please give me an example where it would be rational to take a position on something the experts don't all agree on?

[historia]

If there is a consensus among experts on an issue, should we - presumably non-experts - provisionally accept their view?

Yes. This is a point I often make on this board.

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?

Yes. People who have heard of Jesus should too.

How do you know if someone is an expert on God or the Supernatural?

This question strikes me as overly broad. People aren't "experts on the Supernatural" so much as they are experts in a particular area of philosophy or experts in a particular aspect of a religious tradition. A Ph.D. is a good indicator of expertise in those areas.

[The Tanager]

Why? I agree that if there is a clear consensus, it’s reasonable to hold that view unless shown good reasons otherwise, but this doesn’t mean that one needs a clear consensus to make a sound judgment. Why do you think a clear consensus is needed?

I think the view is most defensible with a clear consensus. Like Evolution, Global Warming, Safety of GMOs, Population Growth will be a major problem, etc.

But consider this question put to economists:

"A ban on non-compete clauses would lead to a measurable increase in innovation."
35% Agree
42% Uncertain
32% Disagree
https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/

I am not an economist. I have not read anything on this topic. It would be prudent for me to withhold judgement. Sure, I could pick a side and defend it, but for what? I could use my anecdotal experience, but that's not right, either.

This is why I say, if there is no consensus from experts, non-experts should (it would be prudent to) withhold firm belief. I'm not saying one can't have an opinion, but we ought to consider that opinion with the weight it deserves.

All of this is with the presumption that we are trying to act and think rationally.


Please give me an example where it would be rational to take a position on something the experts don't all agree on?

How one will raise their children.

[Miles]

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


.

[boatsnguitars]

Why? I agree that if there is a clear consensus, it’s reasonable to hold that view unless shown good reasons otherwise, but this doesn’t mean that one needs a clear consensus to make a sound judgment. Why do you think a clear consensus is needed?

I think the view is most defensible with a clear consensus. Like Evolution, Global Warming, Safety of GMOs, Population Growth will be a major problem, etc.

But consider this question put to economists:

"A ban on non-compete clauses would lead to a measurable increase in innovation."
35% Agree
42% Uncertain
32% Disagree
https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/

I am not an economist. I have not read anything on this topic. It would be prudent for me to withhold judgement. Sure, I could pick a side and defend it, but for what? I could use my anecdotal experience, but that's not right, either.

This is why I say, if there is no consensus from experts, non-experts should (it would be prudent to) withhold firm belief. I'm not saying one can't have an opinion, but we ought to consider that opinion with the weight it deserves.

All of this is with the presumption that we are trying to act and think rationally.


Please give me an example where it would be rational to take a position on something the experts don't all agree on?

How one will raise their children.

Do experts agree that you shouldn't starve your children for days, while keeping them locked in a dark basement? Point being that the experts who study childhood psychology do agree on a number of things.

But, your point is taken that there may be a few areas that you may be strongly motivated to ignore the experts consensus - I'm not sure, though, if that is prudent.

That is, I worded my question carefully: Ought we do something opposite to expert opinion and still consider it prudent?


If there are examples, I'm sure they are few and far between.



For reference, here is a study by experts:

Do you feel we Ought to disregard this?

https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articl ... 20-00973-0

It's 31 pages on the importance of exercise.

[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?

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


.

I agree we shouldn't listen to them.
I'd ague they aren't experts on those subjects since there is no formal, logical' scaffolding' for how one determines if, for example, palmistry is being done properly or not. There is no group of Palmists that can regularly show their methods are superior - and produce more reliable and better results - than some other group.

But, your point is taken. I'd dismiss all of them as "Non-Experts", but I'm sure someone will balk at that. We could do a deep dive into each one, but not me. I try not to waste my precious time on obvious woo, though I do falter when it comes to religion.