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]

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.

I was responding to when you said this:

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.

That seems different from your question above. This seems to say we should withhold judgment on things that don’t have a consensus among experts. I disagree. Otherwise, no one would parent their children because they’d be withholding judgment. Sure, we wouldn’t be starving our kids (as if we would need “experts” to tell us that), but I’m talking about all the real nuts and bolts of how to parent kids.

As far as philosophy goes (your bonus question), even if one is considered an “expert,” there won’t be a consensus of experts on much of anything. It’s still prudent (and, in fact, impossible not to) to hold philosophical views on numerous issues that affect how we live our lives.

As far as the above question is concerned, I think scientists should often go against the consensus opinion when new scientific discoveries warrant it. That’s how science works; we are consistently improving or even overturning previous scientific consensus.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

I was responding to when you said this:

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.

That seems different from your question above. This seems to say we should withhold judgment on things that don’t have a consensus among experts. I disagree. Otherwise, no one would parent their children because they’d be withholding judgment. Sure, we wouldn’t be starving our kids (as if we would need “experts” to tell us that), but I’m talking about all the real nuts and bolts of how to parent kids.

As far as philosophy goes (your bonus question), even if one is considered an “expert,” there won’t be a consensus of experts on much of anything. It’s still prudent (and, in fact, impossible not to) to hold philosophical views on numerous issues that affect how we live our lives.

As far as the above question is concerned, I think scientists should often go against the consensus opinion when new scientific discoveries warrant it. That’s how science works; we are consistently improving or even overturning previous scientific consensus.

I mean that you should withhold judgment on whether it is true or not (that one way to parent, e.g., is the right way or not). It seems to say, "I understand it's prudent to not claim one parenting method is better or not, but I need to do something, even if it's wrong, I still need to do it. However, I will reserve judgement on whether it is right or wrong, only that it is the course of action I have taken. If it works, and is contrary to expert consensus, I can only say it is an outlier in the data and not a rule that it is universally true."

Clearly, we have to act in the world, but I am trying to address a more common phenomenon in debate, or political discourse, where people often cite non-experts, or choose positions contrary to the consensus of experts.

I think that point not only still stands (that we ought, not knowing the subject matter to an expert degree, agree with the expert consensus unless we can prove, overwhelmingly that the experts are wrong). In the case of there not being a consensus, it is more prudent to withhold a firm position than choose one randomly and declare it true. This is not about actions, but about holding philosophical positions or beliefs.
It is better to say, "I don't know" when you don't know, rather than "I know" when you don't know.

For example, is the Universe Deterministic or not? I don't know. I have an opinion, but I don't even know if the experts have the proper information to come to a conclusion. I think the experts themselves would tell you that.
It would be, therefore, prudent for me to not claim the Universe is or isn't Deterministic. Claiming it is or isn't doesn't gain anything for anyone. That is the point I am trying to make.

[The Tanager]

In the case of there not being a consensus, it is more prudent to withhold a firm position than choose one randomly and declare it true. This is not about actions, but about holding philosophical positions or beliefs.
It is better to say, "I don't know" when you don't know, rather than "I know" when you don't know.

How are you using “know” here? Is it about 100% certainty?

[boatsnguitars]

In the case of there not being a consensus, it is more prudent to withhold a firm position than choose one randomly and declare it true. This is not about actions, but about holding philosophical positions or beliefs.
It is better to say, "I don't know" when you don't know, rather than "I know" when you don't know.

How are you using “know” here? Is it about 100% certainty?

Warrant.

[The Tanager]

In the case of there not being a consensus, it is more prudent to withhold a firm position than choose one randomly and declare it true. This is not about actions, but about holding philosophical positions or beliefs.
It is better to say, "I don't know" when you don't know, rather than "I know" when you don't know.

How are you using “know” here? Is it about 100% certainty?

Warrant.

How are you using "warrant"?

[boatsnguitars]

In the case of there not being a consensus, it is more prudent to withhold a firm position than choose one randomly and declare it true. This is not about actions, but about holding philosophical positions or beliefs.
It is better to say, "I don't know" when you don't know, rather than "I know" when you don't know.

How are you using “know” here? Is it about 100% certainty?

Warrant.

How are you using "warrant"?

Why is this important?

Here is an article on Justification and Warrant, and is the basis of my understanding.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tran ... n-warrant/

But, I'm not clear on how a non-expert would "know" (justified or not) more than an expert would "know" given that they (the expert) clearly has a better vantage point.

If there's a point you're trying to make, make it, but I'm - again - not seeing a defeater to my premise that:
1. A consensus of Experts is prudent to heed.
2. If the Experts haven't come to a consensus (conclusion), neither should you (if you are a non-expert, and even if you are).

My fear is that while we could find a few areas of contention, I'm not clear on how this impacts our discussions for this forum.

We are all non-experts, I assume. And the few experts that may post here, are probably prudent enough to recognize how much we, as a species, don't know about things.

So, look, I'm not the brightest tool in the sea. Can you explain your line of questioning?

[The Tanager]

How are you using "warrant"?

Why is this important?

I think it’s important to note whether someone is using ‘know’ or ‘justified’ or ‘warranted’ in a 100% certainty sense or a less than certain but more reasonable than any alternatives sense because most of what we talk about in life (science, history, philosophy, etc.) is of the non-100% type. “I don’t know” is very different when saying 100% certainty is needed than when it’s not about 100% certainty. I think 100% certainty is probably only reserved for definitions and pure mathematics.

If there's a point you're trying to make, make it, but I'm - again - not seeing a defeater to my premise that:
1. A consensus of Experts is prudent to heed.
2. If the Experts haven't come to a consensus (conclusion), neither should you (if you are a non-expert, and even if you are).

I agree with the first. I don’t agree with the second because most of the things we study and talk about can’t reach 100% certainty and, therefore, will not reach a consensus among those deemed “experts”.

My fear is that while we could find a few areas of contention, I'm not clear on how this impacts our discussions for this forum.

Almost all of the discussions on this forum are about things that are less than 100% certain.

[boatsnguitars]

I don’t agree with the second because most of the things we study and talk about can’t reach 100% certainty and, therefore, will not reach a consensus among those deemed “experts”.

This 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?

[The Tanager]

This 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

I reckon a provisional trust is okay, but the wording here can be problematic...

Do I provisionally trust a majority consensus of biblical scholars whe say there's a god?

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?

Considering that many stories, and even lies, are based on a nugget of truth, I don't object to the idea of an ancient carpenter finding it easier to grift the masses with his preachings.

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....)

I don't even rely on climate scientists to think that emitting dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere ain't the smartest thing a human ever did.

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?

This is a quirky one. Would I rather die of covid, where I can be spotted right there, dead and all, or would I rather be alive, and still be located anyway?

My fear on being tracked has less to do with the government, and everything to do with the pretty thing finding my hiding spot when it comes time to do me my chores.

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?

Faith ain't no airline I'm buying me a ticket on.

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?

My data indicates the most knowledgeable about god're that bunch that rakes in millions of tax free dollars by carrying on about how difficult it is for the rich to get into Heaven.