An expert is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. That's what the dictionary tells me. So how do we determine who is an expert? Psychology Today isn't helpful. "Bottom line: We cannot know for sure. There are no iron-clad criteria." Well, now, that's nice. We're looking for those with comprehensive and authoritative knowledge but can't really know whose knowledge we can classify as either comprehensive or authoritative. So what do we do? We look at various factors. Are they respected by their peers? Are they reliable? Do they have a good record of successful performance? And, as you can tell, Psychology Today is right; it's all pretty subjective.
So why is it that they keep telling us we need to believe the experts? And the experts we're supposed to believe happen to be the ones that agree with them. Could it be that they determine "expert" based on who agrees with them? Could it be that "authoritative" and "respected" and "reliable" are simply "Whatever I think it is"? We know that happens sometimes. I knew a climate scientist back in 2005 (remember, when Gore was making the rounds) who said that if the climate did warm, it could be a good thing because lands that are currently unusable could become farmable. They fired him. It is routine on university campuses to eliminate professors and such if they teach against the current mantra. No question of whether or not they're right; it's just not accepted, so they're not "experts." It isn't that unusual for us to reject as authoritative that with which we disagree simply because we disagree.
"The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9). That's what the Bible says. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Rom 8:7). That's God's position. "A Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). That's the biblical evaluation of natural human capability. These (and so much more) do not align with popular culture including popular-culture-saturated Christianity. So they will reject them as unreliable and tell me to get with the program and believe the experts ... who disagree with God's Word, our true (John 17:17) and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16-17) source. That would be an "expert" by Another Standard. The point is not to jettison experts. The point is to be sure your "experts" meet a valid standard.
9 comments:
The answer, apparently, is "Yes, 'experts' are whoever we define them to be and you need to follow mine or you're stupid."
All experts are old drops of water
Really? Dad jokes? Good on you, David.
I learned from the best.
Your reference to the climate scientist presents us with an example of what is so commonplace regarding "experts". Given he's a climate scientist, an honest person would expect he has some level of expertise. Yet, as mentioned, his perspective was unwanted because it conflicts with the popular narrative. And I say "popular" narrative because it's really no more than one opinion. If we wish to be generous and conceded that "popular" narrative has some basis in data and evidence, that doesn't mean an opposing person with expertise of his own doesn't have an equally...if not better...case based on data and evidence as well. Sometimes, it's even the same data and evidence, but the opposing person has a better explanation for it, or one which is, to the listener, more reasonable and obvious.
I'm constantly accused of not listening to "experts" (not always directly or specifically cited for the purpose of making a case), when that's not even true. What's true is that I'll listen to "experts" cited by those promoting the "popular" narrative and weigh what they say against those opposing experts who came to what seems to me to be more reasonable and sensible conclusions. And that's where it always ends, with no legitimate, honest scrutiny of the conflict between one set of "experts" and another by the person(s) promoting the "popular" narrative.
I get the same thing, even in Scripture. "You only believe that because it's from your tradition. Experts disagree with you." I only believe it because that's what it says and "experts" believe it doesn't mean at all what it says, so why should I buy into the so-called "experts" when they disregard the subject matter at hand?
What I've found is that when I suggest that the experts or theologians have believed that X doctrine is correct for thousands of years, I'm then accused of the bandwagon logical fallacy or the appeal to authority fallacy. Somehow, when other do those things it's not a logical fallacy, I wonder why that is.
You're accused of the appeal to authority fallacy which, apparently, is only a fallacy if you appeal to the "wrong" authority.
Especially when pro abortion folks cite Guttmacher and act like that's an unbiased source.
Post a Comment