Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FatherMithras · 05-03-2006, 04:27 AM

Quote:

It may be significant but what does it prove about what actually happened?

A lot. It shows that the evidence clearly contradicts the minority claim and its not rational or intelligent to believe contrary to that without a damn good reason. Hint, you wanting it to be true isn't a good reason.

TomboyMom · 05-03-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Have you met your grandparents?

Yes, at least one of them. What's your point?

TomboyMom · 05-03-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

How does consensus prove anything?

It proves absolutely nothing. However, it is quite good evidence. Speaking for myself, I have very little expertise in the field. I do not read or understand Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, and have not spent years comparing original documents. Therefore I rely on the opinion of those who know better than me. I figure that the chances are that they are at least as smart, reasonable and objective as I am. So until someone gives me a good reason not to go along with the majority of scholars who know much more than I do, I provisionally accept their opinions in their limited area of expertise, and I think it is reasonable to do so. I do the same thing in the areas of medicine, nuclear physics, automobile repair and the like. What is your practice?

Doug Shaver · 05-03-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

So you are saying consensus proves something. Ok fine.

I don't know about FatherMithras, but *I* would never say anything like that.

What I would say is that a consensus of scholars could give me a good reason to believe something.

buckshot23 · 05-03-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

A lot. It shows that the evidence clearly contradicts the minority claim and its not rational or intelligent to believe contrary to that without a damn good reason. Hint, you wanting it to be true isn't a good reason.

BS. You act like evidence is interpreted in a vacuum. You act like the evidence is conclusive in a mathematical sense.

buckshot23 · 05-03-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't know about FatherMithras, but *I* would never say anything like that.

What I would say is that a consensus of scholars could give me a good reason to believe something.

Sure but consensus changes so it cannot be the path to what actually happened.

darstec · 05-03-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

So you are saying consensus proves something. Ok fine.I don't know about FatherMithras, but *I* would never say anything like that.

What I would say is that a consensus of scholars could give me a good reason to believe something.

Something like the consensus of doctors a little over a century ago that prescribed blood letting?

When biblical scholars shed their theological/religious mantel then perhaps their consensus might mean something. Until then most of their opinions require they uphold the tenents of faith.

buckshot23 · 05-03-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

It proves absolutely nothing.

Agreed.

Quote:

However, it is quite good evidence.

Of what? Of what the consensus is and that is it.

Quote:

Speaking for myself, I have very little expertise in the field. I do not read or understand Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, and have not spent years comparing original documents.

Neither do or have I.

Quote:

Therefore I rely on the opinion of those who know better than me.

Consensus of opinion?:huh:

Quote:

I figure that the chances are that they are at least as smart, reasonable and objective as I am.

Nobody is obective.

Quote:

So until someone gives me a good reason not to go along with the majority of scholars who know much more than I do, I provisionally accept their opinions in their limited area of expertise, and I think it is reasonable to do so.

Be my guest but what is consensus actually evidence of? Especially in a speculative field like this.

Quote:

I do the same thing in the areas of medicine, nuclear physics, automobile repair and the like. What is your practice?

I self medicate, produce my own nuclear energy via a homemade reactor, and fix all of my cars myself of course!

Of course the people I trust in this matter at hand have alot more training than do you or I in the relevant fields and the fact that more people may disagree with them than agree with them is irrelevant and is absolutely worthless in determining what actually happened with the texts.

buckshot23 · 05-03-2006, 08:46 AM

When skeptical scholars shed their athiestic/skeptical mantel then perhaps their consensus might mean something. Until then most of their opinions require they uphold the tenents of faith.

Angrillori · 05-03-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Something like the consensus of doctors a little over a century ago that prescribed blood letting?

You are aware of course of the modern use of the leech?

This, from the University of Wisconsin highlights.

Bloodletting is not bad medicine, and in fact actual leeches are still used often, which is what prompted UW researchers to develop a mechanical bloodletter, superior to the creepy little buggers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the previous link

Lineaweaver:
Leeches are used in modern medicine because they work. They're an extremely effective artificial vein in certain situations where uh, a body part such as a finger has been replanted after an amputation, but only the arterial side is working. The, the leech then serves as an artificial vein by drawing off the excess blood or the congested blood, until the person can actually grow back small, venous capillaries.

BUT, the point is that until someone gives you a good reason to disagree with the consensus of people who know more about, are better studied on, and have more extensive training with a subject than you, it's a good, safe, and reasonable practice to accept what they have to say.

IOW, argument from authority is a good argument when it appeals to valid authorities. It's not a 100% guaranty, so you can't use it in a deductive PROOF, but it's a strong, good argument, and would merit equally strong, equally good arguments to dismiss it.

From here:

Quote:

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1) The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

<snip lengthy explanation, but definitely check the site for it, good clarification>

2) The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

<snip lengthy explanation, but definitely check the site for it, good clarification>

3)There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

<snip lengthy explanation, but definitely check the site for it, good clarification>

4)The person in question is not significantly biased.

<snip lengthy explanation, but definitely check the site for it, good clarification>

5)The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

<snip lengthy explanation, but definitely check the site for it, good clarification>

6)The authority in question must be identified.

<snip lengthy explanation, but definitely check the site for it, good clarification>

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.
...
What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

Appealing to a valid authority, working in the appropriate field, is a good argument. In this case, folks are appealing to the consensus of valid authorites, working in the appropriate field--an even stronger argument!

It'll take a lot more than:

"Sometimes experts are wrong!" to generate a sufficient reason to dismiss the argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2006, 08:46 AM	#269
buckshot23 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Lansing, Michigan Posts: 4,243	When skeptical scholars shed their athiestic/skeptical mantel then perhaps their consensus might mean something. Until then most of their opinions require they uphold the tenents of faith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.