If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #1

Post by 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?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #21

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:09 pm
boatsnguitars wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:18 pmThis seems to be the point of contention, so let's discuss.

I agree, and in a forum, we are clearly able to voice our opinions, or even vent our spleens, however, I'm not sure if this rises to the level of a coherent argument for the truthfulness of our position.

Yes, we are often in the position to choose a course of action, but that doesn't mean that course of action is right, or based on logic, reason, or even good sense.

I still find it more prudent to resist the urge to declare one is right about something in which the experts, themselves, have not come to some conclusion.

Perhaps you can give me a good explain?
It's prudent to resist the urge to declare oneself is obviously right about something that the field is the type of field that a consensus is able to be reached (math, some sciences, some parts of historical record, what certain religious teachings are, etc.), but not for areas where a consensus should not be expected, which includes philosophical beliefs, which are most of what gets talked about in forums like this. In the areas that no consensus should be expected, it is not prudent to resist the urge to support one's beliefs where a consensus doesn't sit.
I can agree with that. My post is really talking about areas where consensus could be expected at some point. For example, I think it's reasonable to guess (not assert for sure) that we will come to some conclusion on what "Consciousness" is. At that point, we'd expect experts to coalesce around a single hypothesis until they work it into a Theory. Whatever their determination is, I think it would be prudent for non-experts to accept it, regardless of how it impacts their prior views.

Like Evolution.

But, I think you are right about some areas. I might give a long Think about, say, Musical Experts: what do they think makes "Good Music" and if there are objective criteria that apply. Maybe I listen to crap?

I already know that Biology Experts think what I eat is crap, so as far as Taste in Food goes, I'm already not listening to the experts! (Well, I hear them, I just have trouble following their advice... Buffalo Wings and beer.... ami right?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #22

Post by Purple Knight »

boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:48 am 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?
If you don't know anything about something, all you have is a guess, and that's fine. The more you educate yourself, the better that guess will be.

Trust is earned.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #23

Post by boatsnguitars »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 11, 2023 4:23 pm
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:48 am 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?
If you don't know anything about something, all you have is a guess, and that's fine. The more you educate yourself, the better that guess will be.

Trust is earned.
I agree, which is why we trust experts. If we call them experts, we are agreeing that they have educated themselves and earned our trust. (Christians - again - tell us Up is Down when they talk about experts - they say "experts", like "do-gooders" - they mean the opposite.)

So, it's very clear by the success of science and failure of religion, that science has earned our respect and religion has not, for example. Disagreeing with each ones claims is not the important part - it's the results that each can claim. Science has results far and wide that prove it's effective, religion is still bickering over which man in a funny hat is right.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #24

Post by boatsnguitars »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #23]

Bumping this post for others to read, as it has implications to current discussions.

Again, I contend that if one is not an expert, one ought to tentatively accept the consensus of experts on an issue. If there is no consensus, one ought to reserve judgement.
This doesn't mean one can't have an opinion, or a feeling about things - that's expected. However, ones opinion on a matter is NOT the same weight as an expert's explanation.

Particularly, Religious people who side against experts because of their chosen religious view is the most worthless of all opinions. An Evangelical might choose to believe in YEC one day, then convert to some other religion and decide OEC is valid. These are not scientific reasons to change ones belief.

Likewise, any religious view is of this same caliber. It's based on the whim of someone deciding one day that Yahweh made the universe in 6 days, to next suddenly deciding it was "Tawa who created the First World, in which insectlike creatures lived unhappily in caves. With the goal of improvement, Tawa sent a spirit called Spider Grandmother to the world below. Spider Grandmother led the first creatures on a long trip to the Second World, in which they took on the appearance of wolves and bears. As these animals were no happier than the previous ones, however, Tawa created a new, Third World, and again sent Spider Grandmother to convey the wolves and bears there. By the time they arrived. they had become people." Spider Grandmother taught them weaving and pottery, and a hummingbird brought them a fire drill."

Asserting scientific fact because of ones latest Religious belief is no basis for a system of knowledge.

(BTW, note how correct I was when I said: "(Christians - again - tell us Up is Down when they talk about experts - they say "experts", like "do-gooders" - they mean the opposite.)" This is EXACTLY what 1213 did.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

LittleNipper
Scholar
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #25

Post by LittleNipper »

I accept that the Bible is ultimately the expert revelation that a Christian should trust for historic and spiritual information.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #26

Post by Clownboat »

LittleNipper wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:15 am I accept that the Bible is ultimately the expert revelation that a Christian should trust for historic and spiritual information.
And a Muslim would accept that the Quran is ultimately the expert revelation that a Muslim should trust for historic and spiritual information.
Are you able to see just how meaningless your reasoning is?

No matter...
It is not logical that a God would create a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests, shamans or imams to then interpret the said message.

Therefore your reasoning is both meaningless and illogical, but feel free to reject the consensus of experts, just don't be too proud of it would be my advice.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

LittleNipper
Scholar
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #27

Post by LittleNipper »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #26]

Dear Clownboat, All religious concerns are not valid in the eyes of the LORD. As for "experts," the reality is that 1 Corinthians 1:27-29
God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #28

Post by boatsnguitars »

Note: there is a difference between a person being an expert on a story, like Lord of The Rings, or the Bible, and being an expert on Elves and God.
The former is a demonstrable expertise. The later is not demonstrable.
One can't claim to be an expert on God, unless one is claiming to be an expert on Norse deities.

But one can't claim to be an expert in something that can't be tested.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #29

Post by boatsnguitars »

LittleNipper wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 1:30 pm [Replying to Clownboat in post #26]

Dear Clownboat, All religious concerns are not valid in the eyes of the LORD. As for "experts," the reality is that 1 Corinthians 1:27-29
God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
Another example of Christians gaslighting people. Up is down, experts aren't experts - non-experts are experts, right is wrong, left is right, weak is strong, the meek shall inherit, wise isn't wise, etc. It's the perfect religion for people who want to remain ignorant but feel their ignorance is a feature not a bug.

And Why is God wanting to shame anyone? Why would he want to shame the wise? To show that we aren't as wise as we think?

Well, why punish humanity for the sin of Adam and Eve (trying to gain wisdom) if we aren't benefiting from the wisdom we presumably stole? Or, if that's not the appropriate narrative (depending on which Christian you are), why did God create a species (humans) that would aspire to be wise only to make it impossible and therefore something to punish them for?

It's like I purposely fed my child lead to make him stupid, then continually pointed out how dumb he was every time he tried to learn something. It's downright cruel.

What a bizarre religion to worship such a monsterous God!
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: If not the Consensus of Experts, Who ought we Trust?

Post #30

Post by Clownboat »

LittleNipper wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 1:30 pm All religious concerns are not valid in the eyes of the LORD.
Who here argued that all religious concerns are valid in the eyes of anything? Your preaching isn't even 'on point' here.
As for "experts," the reality is that 1 Corinthians 1:27-29
God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
Again, you are wrong. Societies have done what you credit a god did.

Why even quote my post if you are going to fail to address even a single point I made? This site is for debate, not for preaching. Perhaps your LORD can help you to follow the rules better going forward?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply