ken_sylvania wrote:Bootstrap wrote:Of course we should respect the intelligence and value of people at various educational levels, and that includes farmers and car mechanics and machinists and plumbers - but that includes scientists and doctors and astrophysicists too.
Before mocking your car mechanic, you really should get to the point that you can fix cars better than he can. At that point, you could be a car mechanic too. The mocking arrogance of educated people is a terrible thing. If someone like me talks about fixing the carburetor in a Nissan Versa, someone who knows about cars should step in and correct the facts.
Before mocking scientists and proudly claiming to know so much more than they do, you really should thoroughly understand what they are saying and why, and get to the point that you are better informed than they are. At that point, you can publish papers. The mocking arrogance of less educated people can be just as bad.
Mocking arrogance is a problem at any educational level. Pretending to be an expert without real expertise is a problem at any educational level. People have the same virtues and faults across the educational spectrum, we just point our faults in different directions.
I don't like the term mocking, as I do think every person deserves respect, being in the image of God. Distrusting the opinions of others doesn't necessarily equate to mocking.
Aside from that, while I agree with what you say to a point, I think your insistence that we accept the scientific consensus unless and until we can prove it wrong is misguided.
I don't insist that we accept the scientific consensus. I can disagree with my doctor, even though I do not have his training. I can go to another doctor, compare opinions, and choose the advice that makes the most sense to me. In fact, we live in a world where none of us can be experts on everything. I can decide which pilot I trust even if I don't know how to fly an airplane.
But I think we are wise to acknowledge that most doctors believe smoking is bad for you, exercise is good for you, and you are more likely to lose weight eating carrots than chocolate. If you disagree with those things, fine. If you campaign against the consensus of medical opinion, at least start by acknowledging the consensus, and explain your reasoning. And please don't be too hard on us poor fools who continue to avoid smoking because we think the doctors might be right.
And the mocking of experts in fields we don't understand really does bother me. After all, we are especially vulnerable to being mocked when we do that. If I make fun of a car mechanic because he thinks my Nissan Versa doesn't have a carburetor, someone out there is probably trying hard not to laugh at me. I see some people mocking others while demanding respect for themselves. That bothers me.
And the ignorant arrogance bothers me. It's pretty obvious that some people have no idea what the IPCC report says, they might think it claims that all human life will be exterminated, and they have no idea what scientific reasoning is given for their conclusions, how many independent lines of evidence are given, etc. Yet they claim that they know enough to refute it. I see the same thing in other lines of expertise, people who are experts in Greek but cannot read a sentence in Greek, or people who are experts in cybersecurity but don't even know the basics. Each of us claims to be the expert in every field of expertise, and people are offended if that is questioned.
Humility is important. Scientists and philosophers talk about "epistemological humility", being humble about what we claim to know with any certainty. I think that's an important kind of humility. Some people give the impression that anyone with less education is automatically more humble. I don't think that's true.
ken_sylvania wrote:Take your example of a car mechanic above, for instance. Suppose I am on an extended trip, and I stop in at an auto mechanic shop to get the oil changed in my car. If the mechanic pulls my car into his shop and changes the oil, then comes back out and tries to tell me that I need brakes all the way around and that the transmission is almost shot, and wants to do an $8,500 repair job, I'm not going to believe him. I don't care how many professional associations he's a part of, I couldn't care less about his ASE certification and badge, and I don't care whether he knows how to rebuild an engine better than I do. All I have is a hunch that there's something wrong, and that's enough for me to make what is probably the best decision I can, which is to pay the bill for the oil change, get my car back, check the oil level, and get back on the road.
Yes, that's a good analogy. And we live in a world where we each need to make decisions based on incomplete information, talking with experts who we may disagree with even if we know less than they do about many things. That's why we get second opinions or three quotes on a big project. We try to know enough to develop an intuition.
But to do that, you at least need to know what the mechanic recommended. If you don't even know what he said your car needs, and why (at least in layman's terms), you don't really know enough to make an informed choice.
For what it's worth, I tend to trust expertise more than credentials. In any field, the experts know who the other experts are. Often, some of these experts do not have all the formal credentials. Often, some people with all the credentials do not have the expertise you want. Before you get surgery, ask the lead nurse in the operating room which surgeons have good hands. Some don't. And the people who work with them know who they are.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?