Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whom do you assert does have expertise on these topics? (I trust modesty will forbid you from claiming that position.)
I'm afraid your obsession has distracted you from the relevant point, which was about whom a lay person should take as an authority in a given field:
Of course it makes sense - the lay person takes them as authority because he doesn't know the field; he has to chose between the view of people who spend their lives working in that field and some bloke off the internet. An intelligent person knows there's a chance the authority could be wrong, but they're an authority because they're generally considered more likely, on average, to be right than anyone else, including blokes on the internet.That might make sense were it not for the fact that 95 percent of their "beliefs" amount to placeholder terms for human ignorance, and every "test" of their "cold dark matter" claims hadn't come up empty. It might make sense of their baryonic mass estimates had stood the test of time over the past decade, but they haven't, not even close.
If the people who spend their lives working in a field don't gain any 'real or special expertise', how does anyone gain 'real or special expertise' ?As it stands, there's no evidence that your "expert authorities" have any real or special expertise on these topics in the first place.
It depends what the argument is. If an acknowledged authority gives a relevant judgement in their speciality, that counts as evidence, albeit indirect. You just have to be careful about what the claimed authority is (see below).So you'd accept that same argument from a theist who essentially quotes their "pastor" and ignores your request for evidence?
Who said anything about changing their minds? whether you should 'trust' them is up to you. I might want a second opinion for a pastor's view on anything but their own life and beliefs...So it would be a "reasonable" expectation to expect you to change the minds of the pastors of planet Earth, otherwise we should just trust them?
I don't recall having disputed what 'young earth' creationists believe, so I haven't needed one. I'd probably check more than one source.Who do you personally accept as an authority on "young earth creationism" who's opinions on the accuracy of that claim you will accept as being "more accurate" on that topic than yours?
As I understand it, the pope is the figurehead authority on Catholicism; but every theist religion has its own authorities on God. That's a large part of the problem...Same question as it relates to the topic of God? Is the Pope the only relevant "authority" on that topic too?
Who do you personally accept as an authority on "young earth creationism" who's opinions on the accuracy of that claim you will accept as being "more accurate" on that topic than yours?
Same question as it relates to the topic of God? Is the Pope the only relevant "authority" on that topic too?
You really need to go back to the House of Tudor to find out how the Church of England began and how the Roman Catholics lost their influence. I'm probably not wording this right but its actually really interesting
Of course it makes sense - the lay person takes them as authority because he doesn't know the field; he has to chose between the view of people who spend their lives working in that field and some bloke off the internet. An intelligent person knows there's a chance the authority could be wrong, but they're an authority because they're generally considered more likely, on average, to be right than anyone else, including blokes on the internet.
If the people who spend their lives working in a field don't gain any 'real or special expertise', how does anyone gain 'real or special expertise' ?
It depends what the argument is. If an acknowledged authority gives a relevant judgement in their speciality, that counts as evidence, albeit indirect. You just have to be careful about what the claimed authority is (see below).
Who said anything about changing their minds? whether you should 'trust' them is up to you. I might want a second opinion for a pastor's view on anything but their own life and beliefs...
You really need to go back to the House of Tudor to find out how the Church of England began and how the Roman Catholics lost their influence. I'm probably not wording this right but its actually really interesting
I don't recall having disputed what 'young earth' creationists believe, so I haven't needed one. I'd probably check more than one source.
As I understand it, the pope is the figurehead authority on Catholicism; but every theist religion has its own authorities on God. That's a large part of the problem...
Wouldn't we all?
The key problem is 'what makes a good answer or explanation?' - this is what the philosophy of science addresses and the scientific method tries to implement (philosophy has been called 'asking questions like children and answering them like lawyers').
This is where abductive criteria ('Inference to the Best Explanation') come in, providing a means to compare the quality of competing explanations.
There's a difference between belief and provisional acceptance of the current consensus.... it's no better than claiming: My pastor is an expert on the topic of God, and you're not, therefore I believe in God, unless you can convince my pastor to switch his position.
<sigh> You really haven't understood anything I've said about the appeal to authority fallacyShe doesn't understand the theories to start with, so the whole thing can *only* be an appeal to authority fallacy, particularly with billions of dollars of *failed* tests!
Now you're confusing authorities. An authority on YEC is not necessarily an authority on what is real or true about the world. If I want to know what YECs believe and how they interpret scripture, etc., I'll find an authority on YEC. If I want to know our best understanding of reality I'd talk to scientists.I'll bet if someone told you that YEC is true unless you can convince the "experts" on YEC that it's false, you'd probably laugh. That's about the same reaction I have to claiming that believers in invisible unseen particles are somehow "experts" on them even after all those failed lab results.
Nothing to worry about. There are multiple hypotheses in science for many observations that have not yet been explained. The difference between them and religions is that they are simply proposals for testing, they are not claims of truth.Like there aren't multiple "dark matter" models to worry about?
Look at it this way:
We are not debating a finer point of dark matter theory or astrology, like some debate about the finer points of axion models, or the meaning of "Aquarius", rather we are debating the *accuracy/legitimacy* of the whole dark matter hypothesis or the actual usefulness of astrology.
Since I'm questioning the *merits* of astrology/dark voodoo *entirely*, it's not a legitimate argument. Either she has evidence to support the idea and she can cite that specific evidence, or she has no evidence to support the idea. Appealing to some "expert", who's very "expertise" has been called into question doesn't cut it.
No; we can't accept the best explanation as true, because we can't be certain that it is true. We can only accept it as the best explanation we currently have. The best explanations can be taken to be correct FAPP (For All Practical Purposes) within their scope, but even the best explanations have their limits. A good scientist must learn to live with uncertainty; I think it would be beneficial if everyone did.... One still has take a small leap in order to accept what appears to be the highest quality explanation based on subjective interpretation of evidence, lest they wait indefinitely for a better explanation than what's currently being presented to them.
IOW, no matter what evidence or explanation is being presented, one still has to take the step and accept it as true or else they're caught in a state of denial, not accepting any truth, irregardless of the strength of the evidence and/or the explanation.
In this case we're debating whether or not exotic forms of matter actually exists in nature, not whether or not the "field of science" is considered to be a field of "science". I'd willingly grant you that M-theory is considered a branch of theoretical physics, but I have no evidence it's actually *correct*!
Same issue here. I have no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, and every "test" has been a dud. Even the entire basis for the claim to *need* exotic types of matter has been undermined by later studies.
Atheists around here in particular wish to see "evidence" to support any supernatural construct related to "God". Why wouldn't I expect the same thing from you as it relates to your "beliefs" in dark supernatural constructs?
Now you're confusing authorities. An authority on YEC is not necessarily an authority on what is real or true about the world.
If I want to know what YECs believe and how they interpret scripture, etc., I'll find an authority on YEC.
If I want to know our best understanding of reality I'd talk to scientists.
Nothing to worry about. There are multiple hypotheses in science for many observations that have not yet been explained. The difference between them and religions is that they are simply proposals for testing, they are not claims of truth.
So what are you saying....
That if someone denies that cancer exists, you can't cite medical experts to counter such a claim?
The problem is that you are basically done once you pretend that dark matter theory is in the same league as astrology.
It is not.
The difference is that astrology isn't a scientific field. Astronomy, cosmolog and physics... is.
There's a difference between belief and provisional acceptance of the current consensus.
Gah! You're still trying to ignore the difference between *empirical* physics, and *hypothetical* physics! That won't fly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?