Julian

I would argue that the credentials of any particular writer are entirely irrelevant. It is not the knowledge of the writer but the knowledge of the reader that is essential. Being credentialled does not automatically mean that the argument made is factual, correct or even plausible. It is the knowledge of the reader that is important. We shouldn't ask if the writer has the competence to make the argument he makes, anyone can make good or bad arguments, what we should ask is whether or not the reader has the competence to judge the value of the argument. Certainly, someone with credentials is more likely to make a better argument but it is by no means a guarantee and if the reader is not equipped to make that judgement it makes the skills of the writer moot.

For example, to take a vague example from my favorite field, when Ehrman makes a particular text critical argument, I don't just accept what he is saying. If I know the particulars surrounding a statement I can make a quick judgement. If I don't know, I will look up the readings, compare various apparati, even consult facsimilies of the actual manuscripts. I will run some statistical analyses, if necessary, and possibly consult some articles on the subject. Once I feel I have the requisite knowledge I will then make a judgement as to the level of believability of the argument. As this clearly shows, it is my ability, understanding and legwork that determines how I assess the value of the argument. The argument could have been written by the kid who bags my groceries at the supermarket, it is entirely irrelevant.

This is why attacking the credentials and competence of a writer is pointless. It is not pointless, however, to attack the credentials, or rather the knowledge, of a reader who makes a strong statement regarding the veracity of an argument.

Julian

jakejonesiv

Hi Julian,

This is a very good observation. I think there is another factor at play also. I am going to take the opportunity to post it in a neutral thread. Otherwise, it may easily be thought to be ad hominem when in the heat of discussion.

It is a well known principle that most people do not make entirely rational choices based on the "preponderance of the evidence." Almost everyone has a preference for a previously held position.

This is the "status quo bias." There is a "psychological switching cost" associate with changing postions. That makes it tough for new ideas to gain acceptance.

The psychological switching cost takes many forms. The faith of the believer in Falwell's evangelicals provides a high switching cost.

For professional Historians and New Testament scholars there is a high cost institutional investment. Inquiries into the JM theory may be seen as alien to their own interests.

The motivation to stay with the status quo is so powerful that merely designating an option as the status quo, and for no other reason than that it is so designated, makes this option more desirable to most people.

For an alternative to be chosen it must be more desirable than the status quo PLUS the psychological switching cost. If not then why move?

Individuals who have high psychological switching costs will be revealed by frequent appeal to authority, especially authority associated with groups they identify with.

Rod Green suggested a corollary. Time spent with a single status quo position automatically raises the switching cost. Most of us find it hard to embrace the idea that we have wasted our time.

Proponents of the MJ position are no more immune to PSC than HJ proponents.

Jake Jones IV

Bede

I think this is the kind of weird dystopian thinking that makes the internet much less than it could be. Credentials tell us something. That Jeffrey has a PhD in a relevant subject tells us that he has read widely in the field, impressed other knowledgeable people with his expertise and that it is rational to rely on what he says in his field. For this reason society rightly demands credentials from people in positions where expertise is necessary - ie. law, medicine and accountancy etc.

If you think a writers credentials are irrelevant, you should logically look askance at all expert opinion. In that case, I advise you keep well away from the doctor, airplanes and other potentially dangerous situations. Otherwise, you'll be dead pretty quick.

Best wishes

Bede

Julian

I pointed out that someone with credentials is more likely make a good argument. Credentials does imply a certain level of knowledge but it provides us no guarantee that the arguments resulting from that knowledge are necessarily sound. Why is there such a thing as medical malpractice? Enron accounting? Even PhDs make mistakes or propose erroneous theories. All this is entirely irrelevant since you didn't read what I wrote. If you had you would have noticed that the title of this thread was NT credentials, not General credentials or Medical credentials or whatever. I was talking specifically about the field of New Testament studies, hence the title.

Julian

Bede

Anything you say about NT credentials must apply to other areas or it is certainly fallicious. There is nothing special about NT studies that makes credentials uniquely irrelevant to it.

Of course, experts make mistakes. But society has wisely come to the view that they make fewer mistakes than amateurs. This is as true for NT studies as it is for any other field. That is why credentials are important.

Best wishes

Bede

Chris Weimer

Wow, I end up agreeing with Bede for once. Credentials are very important in any and every field, albeit they are neither necessary nor qualifying for their holder's reliability. But certainly they must be taken in account.

I am instantly reminded by that Crazy character in here arguing that iesus = id est sus, which anybody with a smidgeon of Latin would instantly know is false. Certainly a university education in Latin far outweighs his English-only knowledge of the language. If you had no Latin in you, who would you believe on the basis of credentials alone?

As Bede remarked, credentials show us that this person has been accepted by a community with standards we have been shown that can be trusted. There are actual reasons why these institutions, such as Harvard or University of Chicago, are trusted. Time and time again, the people coming from it, the staff that teaches there, and the entire atmosphere has been shown to be beneficial to the academic fields. They've been proven right on many occasions.

Since credentials mean that someone has passed the standards of the prominent community, and furthermore that they've produced some work of merit, perhaps several, than they should be listened to.

Do credentials mean that the person in question is an authority? Yes. Do credentials mean that the person in question is always right? Of course not. We question authority. We have to. But it does not nullify their authority.

Furthermore, credentials automatically mean that the person has had a rigorous education in the field in question. Relating back to the language question, a person with a degrees in Classical languages have usually read much more than the average person without a degree, no matter how long that person spent on learning the language.

We start to agree, that further research must needs be done before merely accepting an argument - I doubt any would disagree with you there - but that doesn't make the person who makes the argument irrelevant. Kids who bag groceries are infinitely less likely to come up with the same research as a professor accessing a university library, subscriptions to numerous journals, and interaction with other professors. That you would even mention a bagger borders on the absurd.

It is supposed that yes, he could make a compelling argument, but we've seen time and time again, born out by scientific experiments, that laymen do not outstrip professional scholars of their judgement, with very few exceptions.

Chris Weimer

Jake,

Certainly you see the hypocrisy in your argument? Would you also use the "status quo bias" against Doherty? He has spent much time, energy, and money into his pet theory, and to switch it now would be costly. Does that mean we can invalidate Doherty? Or what of the American Atheists, who (for some reason which is far beyond me) have dogmatically assumed that Jesus never existed. That's their official position - case closed. I would imagine that switching now would be disastrous to both AA and all American atheists who associate themselves with AA.

Don't be ridiculous.

Chris

jakejonesiv

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the reply!

I was hoping for a reply from you!

Did you notice that I said, "Proponents of the MJ position are no more immune to PSC (psychological switching cost) than HJ proponents?" Yes, since Earl has spent so much time on JM, that is his status quo postion, and he would have a relatively high switching cost.

It doesn't have anything to do with invalidation, it has to do with human nature.

The reason for my remarks was to explain why, despite good arguments offered by one side, the minds of intelligent people on the other side most often remain unchanged.

The collorary to this is that sweeping changes like accceptance of the Christ Myth occur as generations change. (I think jacob aliet made this observation). You aren't likely to get any fifty-something credentialed scholars to change their minds no matter what the evidence; that would seem like ripping up their degrees and starting over from scratch. As the old timers die off, the younger folks who aren't already set in their ways grow up and take over. The more people who hear about the CM theory while they are young, the less status quo bias there will be later. ymmv.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Julian,

I think you have less Status Quo Bias than almost anyone around here. It is evident in the way you base you decisions on independant verification.

Jake Jones IV

Clivedurdle

In physics there are huge differences in theoretical perspectives that have not been concluded. Debate continues. Why does that way of working feel so difficult here?