Evaluating Evidence for Topics Outside Your Area of Expertise

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

 

I wasn't arguing any specific point other than I thought the God of the Gaps argument was weak, and in one of the comments he essentially stated it had been done, i.e., fine turning, prophecy etc. I know the work hasn't been done, but I was finding it difficult to state exactly why. It's like trying to cram years of surveying the arguments, counter-aruments, etc., and trying to collectively insert why the evidence wasn't there - and anything I did say he simply said it was "my opinion."

 

I good example of a god of the gaps was the god of thunder and lightening. The lightening foretold the coming of the god of thunder. Now such ideas are obviously ridiculous.  But this is also true for any and all god stories IMHO.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

Help me sort my thoughts out here, because unless I am misunderstanding what Pantheory is stating about trusting experts, it is quite literally impossible to become expert-level knowledgeable in a vast amount of fields. I work in digital forensics/cybersecurity, and that is a lifelong field of learning. There is simply too much to master everything. That being the case, and it ties back to my original posts, how much do we rely on experts? When it comes to higher criticism, it seems a lot of us rely on the works of Carrier, Price, Ehrman, etc., because we don't have the time and resources to learn a bunch of ancient languages, ancient southeast religion, and so on to get a good idea of what is probably the case. Then there is evolution, and cosmology, and a seemingly never ending list. Is there a method to flesh out who is completely wrong or omitting information?

So, appealing to authority is not, in and of itself, necessarily a logical fallacy.  There are a number of factors that even layperson novices, such as ourselves, can evaluate. 

 

In no numerical order, the first is the motivation of the claimant(s).  If most scholars agree on something, one possible reason why might be that they are all part of an international conspiracy to decieve and defraud the public.  It's also possible that they have all been paid off by big pharma, big tobacco, big NRA, big whoever...  Multiple experts spanning many years, hailing from different parts of the globe make these options less plausible. 

 

Still yet, another possibility is that the conclusion they have all reached is most likely the best conclusion available based on the data and evidence currently on hand.  They are, after all, experts in that particular area and have spent as much time, effort, energy, and money as each of us have in our respective careers.

 

Credibility is another factor that can be evaluated.  If one guy claims that social distancing will help people not get sick in the midst of a pandemic, and another guy extols the safety and effectiveness of drinking bleach, both of those claims might be equally erroneous.  However, if one of those guys is a world renowned epidemiologist with decades of research under his belt, and the other guy is basically just a mouth with a microphone and an audience, there's nothing illogical about deferring to the wisdom of the expert. 

 

This is often where some confusion comes into play; because people conflate "expert" with "authority."  These two terms are not interchangeable; nor do they share the same meaning, even remotely.  A cop might be an "authority" when it comes to the law; but have one represent you in a court of law and I guarantee you'll wish you'd consulted an "expert."

 

Expertise in a particular area is another that can easily be assessed.  If Tony Hawk tells me which wheel he thinks is best for riding on concrete, I'm likely to get a set for my board before I head off to the skatepark for my next midlife crisis (since a convertible sportscar is financially infeasible).  On the other hand, if he confides that he gets cheap knock-off tadalifil from Mexico that is so effective that it even makes his wife's dick hard, I might take that claim with a grain of Cialis.  Not because the claim seems implausible; but, rather, because, while Mr. Hawk is clearly a master of his craft, and a childhood hero beloved by many, he simply lacks the pharmacokinetic expertise to make a reliable claim concerning the effectiveness of a prescription drug.  

 

Similar to the conflating of "expert" with "authority," this would be the conflating of "expert" with "celebrity."  Often celebrity carries a certain respect; and, more to the point, if people didn't like to hear you talk, or think you had interesting things to say, you'd never get popular enough to be a celebrity in the first place.  But a celebrity opinion, outside the field of said celebrity's craft, should never be treated with the same deference as that of a legitimate expert in the field.  There are rare exceptions, like if the lead singer from Bad Religion gave a lecture on evolutionary biology.  But, for the most part, who Jennifer Anniston is voting for should not influence me once I get up to the ballot box.

 

There is also a rarely considered facet of the appeal to authority that bears mentioning: the sort of "counter-authority" aspect.  "4 out of 5 dentists prefer Trident gum."  Obviously a direct appeal to the authority of those 4 dentists.  But, what if the 5th guy actually has a good point, only nobody will hear him out on it because it's not the "popular, widely held" opinion? 

 

This is, I think, where your original question about argument from popularity was maybe heading.  And, in my worldview, that 5th dentist's idea should initially be treated with just as much credibility as the other guys.  I don't owe any of them anything; but I do owe it to myself to hear each of them out with honest curiosity and open-mindedness, so that, in the end, I can form a truly educated opinion as to where I stand on the Trident gum question.  Because, as I've often said, "Not knowing anything about a subject doesn't automatically make one an expert."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

On the other hand, if he confides that he gets cheap knock-off tadalifil from Mexico that is so effective that it even makes his wife's dick hard, I might take that claim with a grain of Cialis.  Not because the claim seems implausible; but, rather, because, while Mr. Hawk is clearly a master of his craft, and a childhood hero beloved by many, he simply lacks the pharmacokinetic expertise to make a reliable claim concerning the effectiveness of a prescription drug.  

This is not to say that I automatically dismiss Mr. Hawk's personal experience out of hand.  As we all know, personal experience is difficult, if not impossible, to argue against.  Rather, it does mean that I am willing to accept his claim only tentatively, pending further evaluation and analysis. 

 

Obviously, Mr. Hawk is the foremost leading expert on his own personal experience; and I'd have no choice but to defer to his expertise on that score.  However, the overall claim that his Mexican pecker-pill is effective is a claim that can be investigated further.  It could be every bit as true as he says.  It could also be that said pill is nearly pure testosterone, laced with oxytocin and a bit of citrus flavoring, which may enhance the sexual encounter, but would do nothing for the flaccidness of his member.  There's also a possibility that it's just a sugar pill that provides a wonderful placebo effect.  But I can't know until I explore the claim, which could be as simple as getting a couple months' worth of pills and trying them myself. 

 

What Mr. Tom here has built for you is a house of cards surrounded by smoke and mirrors and ultimately resting on a foundation of personal experience.  He admits as much toward the end of the dissertation you quoted above.  After all of the evidence is said and done, the analyses completed, the data reviewed, it is his personal experience that really convinces him of god's existence.  The rest of it just enhances that predetermined conclusion. 

 

And, Mr. Tom is the expert on his own personal experience. 

 

But, so are you, concerning yours.  You've taken the pill.  You know whether it is real or placebo.  When it comes to which experts to believe and accept, never discount yourself. 

[walterpthefirst]

In theory, could the Christians be right and we just suck at evaluating evidence?

 

 

I'm arriving late a the party Hierophant, but you write two things that I'd like to comment on.  The first is quoted above.

 

Christians have no right to even imply that we just suck when it comes to evaluating evidence.  Why?  Because their god explicitly told them they have no need of evidence to believe anything.  Here, in Hebrews 11, when the apostle Paul describes faith in action.

 

 

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

 

See?  Evidence doesn't even come into the equation when it comes to being a Christian.  Just believe (without evidence) what you are told is true.  So, if any group of people suck at evaluating evidence, then it's the Christians and not us.  So, if a Christian has the chutzpah to imply that the opposite is true, then they should deal with the plank lodged in their own eye before they point to the speck in ours.

 

 

 

I believe Christianity is both faith based and evidence based (emphasis mine).

 

 

How can that be, Hierophant? 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong here, I'm just asking you to do what any member of this forum can rightly ask another, to justify their beliefs.  On the basis of the point I made above Christians do not NEED any evidence at all to support their beliefs.  So I'm puzzled as to why you believe that Christianity IS evidence based.  Therefore, could you please explain to me, as one member to another, why you believe Christianity is based upon evidence?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

52 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I believe Christianity is both faith based and evidence based (emphasis mine).

 

 

How can that be, Hierophant? 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong here, I'm just asking you to do what any member of this forum can rightly ask another, to justify their beliefs.  On the basis of the point I made above Christians do not NEED any evidence at all to support their beliefs.  So I'm puzzled as to why you believe that Christianity IS evidence based.  Therefore, could you please explain to me, as one member to another, why you believe Christianity is based upon evidence?

I believe Hierophant was quoting a christian from a different website here.  Fellow by the name of Tom.  I might be mistaken; but that's the way I read it.

[walterpthefirst]

Ah yes, I see it now, Prof.

 

 

Sorry about this, Hierophant...  my bad!

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter.

[TABA]

On 1/16/2024 at 11:58 AM, Hierophant said:

My question to the group is this, the dilemma I find myself, and this is probably true for most people, when you have scholars in a field, who do not agree, how are we to evaluate the weight of their arguments.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 11:58 AM, Hierophant said:

Tom also goes on about how Daniel was not written late because of his use of ancient Hebrew, but I have listened to Dr. Joshua Bowen say the exact opposite. As layman, how can we know? To me this would go into a larger issue of we don't have a million lifetimes to live to become specialists in every single relevant field such as philosophy, linguistics, history, cosmology, etc. to then know all the relevant evidence, how to weigh it, and what the majority of the evidence points to.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 12:24 PM, Hierophant said:

We could say, hey the majority of scholars think this, but isn't that Argumentum ad populum, which is not inherently invalid, but just because the majority thinks something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. What if our friend Tom is right, and the skeptic scholars just bumbled some stuff up....seems unlikely, but that's kind of where I am stuck thinking about this.

 

Unless you have the resources to independently verify or debunk a claim, when scholars/experts disagree you may just have to remain agnostic on that particular question.  So, for example, I am agnostic on which Gospel stories about Jesus are factual. or even whether he existed at all.  I am agnostic on the question of the multiverse, whether our universe had a beginning, when the book of Daniel was written, how life came to be on Earth, whether we have free will, and many other issues.  The answers to some of these questions may simply be unknowable.  But none of that means that I am an agnostic when it comes to the God of the Bible:  I'm not on the fence, I don't believe He exists.  I would stake my life on it, and in a sense I do, every day that I persist in supporting and encouraging apostasy.  

My disbelief does not depend on any of the disputed topics I mentioned above, but is based rather on facts:

• The fact of evil and suffering, experienced every day and throughout the world by men, women, children and animals alike.
• The fact that while the Bible - and therefore "God" - assures us He wishes that none should be lost, generations continue to be born with most people failing to become Christians and become "saved".  There is a word for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and that word isn't "divine".
• The fact that in spite of the stakes - either eternal life or damnation, the requirements for being "saved" are not clearly communicated or agreed upon even by believers:  is belief in Jesus sufficient, or is baptism required?  Are good works required?  What quantity?  Must believers succeed in winning others to Christ in order to make it to Heaven?  Or is just sincerely trying good enough?  
• The fact that the nature of "God" visibly evolves through the course of the Old Testament.  From being YHWH, one of the gods assigned oversight over various nations by EL, the creator, to the one and only god that ever existed.  
• The fact that Satan, Heaven and Hell similarly can be seen to evolve steadily throughout the scriptures, visible for all to see, for all who wish to know what is true and what is obviously myth.  

 

You get the idea.  Our member @Wertbaghas been posting an outstanding series of articles, the many Reasons for Disbelief.  I encourage everybody to take the time and read what he has posted.  I think you will find that the vast majority of his reasons are based on facts that are either readily observed or almost universally accepted as true.  

 

Some of the claims that cannot be evaluated by laymen like us may be fun or interesting to discuss, whether with believers or other heathens.  But none of them need to be resolved in order to evaluate the claims of Christianity or its god.  Christians confidently reject the claims of Islam and other theistic religions.  The claims of Christianity are no more credible.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

You get the idea.  Our member @Wertbaghas been posting an outstanding series of articles, the many Reasons for Disbelief.  I encourage everybody to take the time and read what he has posted.  I think you will find that the vast majority of his reasons are based on facts that are either readily observed or almost universally accepted as true. 

By far the single most important thread ever presented on this website. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Hierophant, Ive been gone a few days and have not kept up with everything that has been written here, but I spent years arguing minor points in, and about the Bible.  If you keep focusing on the minor points, you can do that for years, going around in circles, getting nowhwere.  By the way, that's what you do with true believers regardless of your knowlwdge.  Why not look at the major, overall "picture" or points?  that is what undermined Christianity in a hurry for me.  Here are the major points as I saw them.  There are major inconsistancies.

 

First of all, the fundamental churches whole platform is based on the idea that the bible is gods inerrant word. And that god is perfect and unchanging.  If he is perfect, he gets it right the first time and doesn't have to change his mind.  If everything he does is perfect, how did he screw up creation?? Why weren't the things he created perfect, therefore obeying him perfectly?? (Adam and Eve)  Why were there fallen angels?? Etc.  His imperfection in creation set the world up for chaos.

 

And perfection is consistant.  Why the 10 commandments to not steal, kill, etc, then turn around a few years later and have his children slaughter the Canannites, take their land and virgin daughters?  And then divide the virgins among the soldiers.  Is that a consistant, loving GOD?? 

 

And if Jesus was the final answer, with a message of love, and eternal life, Why not introduce Jesus as soon as he ran Adam and Eve out of the garden??  Why would a loving GOD wait thousands of years, killing almost everyone off in the flood, and then thousands(?) (millions(?) in the process of the Exodus??  Why did god take so long make such a HUGE mind change about how to deal with the humans he loves so dearly??

 

And lastly, What made the Bible the WORD OF GOD?  It is a collection of writings, made by humans.  Many, if not most of the authors are not known for sure.  Then a group of humans argued for centuries over which writings should be put in the "canon".  And we have 3(?) canons.  The Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholic, and the Protestant.  And then the group that did most of the canonizing later spent centuries stamping out and killing those who did not agree with them.  So, JUST WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES THE BIBLE THE WORD OF GOD???  Looks to me like it was the work of humans.

 

I guess I said all that to say, I recommend you not get bogged down in the minor points of who said what when, etc.    Steer the discussion to the major points---the foundation of the whole movement.  

 

And another point.  Remind them that if they had been born in India to a devout Hindu family, and grew up in that society, Believing that was the truth, and never researching the history of other religions to see which one was the TRUE religion, They would likely be Hindu. 

 

If the whole thing is man made myths, why argue the minor points?? 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

46 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

By far the single most important thread ever presented on this website. 

 

It does hit most of the major points!