I had one semester of senior-level philosophy. You? — jgill

More, of course.

My prof laughed at metaphysics. Although I proposed Leibniz's monads to him as a legitimate metaphysical actuality. I think it is — jgill

So you think, like me, that everything that exists is made of indivisible, simple entities? Good!

Can someone congenial prescribe a god to a non-believer? Can a proof be so shallow that ducks even won't wade in it? Can someone ask questions if he is only able to do that in lieu of coherent speech and thought? — god must be atheist

Erm, hmm, okaaay. Not really an answer to my question, but okay.

I think it works better if it is a consensus of experts, and I tend to take it seriously. But they've been wrong. — Coben

Well certainly experts can make mistakes (and expert philosophers spend a great deal of time pointing each other's mistakes out). But so too do those who lack expertise. And of course, those who lack expertise make the mistakes far, far more often.

And I agree that if there is a consensus among experts that X is a proof of God, then other things being equal non-experts are more justified in believing that X is a proof of God than if it is one expert alone who is saying that X is a proof of God.

But in this hypothetical situation, if one expert says that X is a proof of God, and what this expert is saying is not positively contradicted by a consensus of experts (because the other experts simply haven't scrutinized the argument yet), then a non-expert should take seriously that X is a proof of God.

I mean, why shouldn't they? If the expert really is an expert, then they know their beans. They've spent years and years thinking about these matters - far more than a non-expert. So they're far less likely to mistake a proof of God for something that isn't one. Non-experts do that kind of thing all the time. Their 'proofs' are the work of an afternoon, not thousands and thousands of hours. They've read one or two things - probably popular books and Wikipedia entries - not hundreds of peer reviewed articles and a pile of dry academic books. And they're used to being cautious and to checking and rechecking their arguments - for their career depends on them doing so. That's part of what expertise involves - it involves doing all the tedious checking and cross checking, reading and re-reading - that non-experts just can't be bothered doing (not a criticism of course - it is why we have experts).

So, given all that, even if one solitary expert says that X is a proof of God, then even if that supposed poof has not been verified by other experts, a non-expert should still take seriously that X may be a proof of God.

Expert philosophers make mistakes, but not as many as non-experts, and so other things being equal it is wise to trust the expert over the non-expert.

This from Wikipedia: — A Seagull

Wikipedia? What next? You going to quote from some toilet cubicle graffiti?

Wikipedia is not written by experts. It isn't peer reviewed. You could write a Wikipedia entry, yes? So how is quoting from Wikipedia quoting from any kind of authority?

Wikipedia? What next? You going to quote from some toilet cubicle graffiti? — Bartricks

Well no.

If the quote from wikipedia is not attributable because it should be considered original research, then it will probably already have been flagged as such in the page itself. If not, the sources mentioned in the page may not support the quote. That is also possible. Otherwise, the quote can be considered to be sound.

Wikipedia is not written by experts. — Bartricks

How exactly do you know that?

If you cannot justify that this particular quote was not written by an expert, then your own views are certainly not the ones of an expert.

Furthermore, who decides who is an expert and who isn't?
By using the one or the other citation carousel?

It isn't peer reviewed. — Bartricks

How exactly do you know that?
Did you verify the page's revision history?
Did you compile that information from the talk section for the page?

You could write a Wikipedia entry, yes? — Bartricks

You would still have to follow the regulations of the wikipedia regulatory framework. Do you know its rules and how they are enforced? If not, then you are yourself not an expert on wikipedia.

So how is quoting from Wikipedia quoting from any kind of authority? — Bartricks

So, how is your own opinion any kind of authority on Wikipedia?

Seriously, what do you even "know" about Wikipedia?

Do you happen to be familiar with the MediaWiki source code (at github)? Can you even read it? Not that it is particularly hard, but you really sound like someone who does not need to read anything but still knows everything.

Seriously, what exactly do you actually "know"? You may think you "know" it, but in the end, just like in the case of Wikipedia, you obviously know fuck all.

What if you believe there is no god? Then would this directive not lose its punch? — god must be atheist

Even if it were possible to test, I don’t anyone would actually want to prove that God exists, basically because the only meaningful God is a human God or some sort of ‘sky father’ figure that is relatable. An incomprehensible God is meaningless and the most essential ingredient of religion is meaning.

p

Expert philosophers make mistakes, but not as many as non-experts, and so other things being equal it is wise to trust the expert over the non-expert. — Bartricks

But if it's on the issue of there being a God, I still have to choose which expert. I could follow your expert opinion that today's experts are not the right ones, but then other experts will have a different take on that. Suddenly I need to be an expert in experts in metaphysics. Now your argument that current metaphysics experts are to be ruled out to a great degree is an argument I an understand, without being an expertin metaphysics, but I can imagine that other current metaphysics experts would mount other arguments against the experts you consider the real experts who coincidentally or not have the same postion you do, if not because of the same argument. And many of those experts concluded there was a God based on proofs that have not held up or at least are not the one you think is the proof. Which raises more questions about their expertise. On the sidelines of all this, for me, the choice to go with practice and experience wins hands down. Mine, not necessarily for everyone. I am not sure what one does once one has accepted this proof. One still, it seems to me, in most forms of deity, still need to enter into practice and experience anyway. But that's even more of a tangent.

But in this hypothetical situation, if one expert says that X is a proof of God, and what this expert is saying is not positively contradicted by a consensus of experts (because the other experts simply haven't scrutinized the argument yet), then a non-expert should take seriously that X is a proof of God. — Bartricks

Take seriously leaves open a huge range of responses. And they don't have to rely, for their beliefs, on arguments (alone or at all).

I mean, why shouldn't they? If the expert really is an expert, then they know their beans. They've spent years and years thinking about these matters - far more than a non-expert. — Bartricks

Sure, but there's no hurry. And it's not like a situation with a dentist where one can already have experience, as a layperson, with credentials and dentists who are licenced and perhaps even check what others have said. With a metaphysics expert, it would almost take an expert to know if the other is an expert. You could check their education, sure. But then to know that their dissertation was actually in metaphysics or a relevant area. And perhaps they are every strong at certain kinds of explication but not necessarily proofs. Perhaps they are strong on evaluation other people's ideas, but not their own. Perhaps they have a bias related to their own desires, either way. It's not like experts in a number of other fields with more concrete results that can be looked at.

I would trust a metaphysics expert, in general, when judging an argument or essay in metaphysics, over my own ability to judge such an argument in a thorough way. But that's in general, over a bunch of arguments. I would not put their ability outside of that area above my abilities. IOW I would value my experiences, in this case, and what I have learned through practice and direct experience at least equal to their ability to draw the correct conclusion on paper. I am not saying laypeople in general. I am saying my ability.

Non-experts do that kind of thing all the time. — Bartricks

Sure, we do. But in my case I see it in most cases as choosing between

And they're used to being cautious and to checking and rechecking their arguments - for their career depends on them doing so. — Bartricks

Good arguments, not necessarily correct conclusions. They can have their office across the hall from someone who is also skilled with arguments and who has at the same time completely different opinions, sometimes over things where more direct empirical evidence plays a role in the issue.

So, given all that, even if one solitary expert says that X is a proof of God, then even if that supposed poof has not been verified by other experts, a non-expert should still take seriously that X may be a proof of God. — Bartricks

Take is seriously, I guess. I would likely respect it as the product of skilled thought. In my experience people overestimate what deductive arguments that are quite abstract but are not symbolic, for example, are capable of. So, I'd have a healthy dose of skepticism.

And, yes, it does take time for an idea to reach consensus in philosophy. On the other hand an argument that should convince any metaphysics expert should be making the rounds. It would be an earthshattering proof. I would think it would have a buzz around it, and certain some acquaintance supporters in the expert community. If not now, if just written say, then soon.

And if we are told that there is closemindedness amongst the experts, well, this cuts into the argument that I as a layperson should trust experts on these issues.

And then there is the alternative: direct immersion in experiences and practices.

I had one semester of senior-level philosophy. You?
— jgill

More, of course. — Bartricks

Proves beyond a reasonable doubt that one can be formally educated and be quite wrong, and thus not an expert... unless experts can be wrong... oh wait!

They can... and you are.

What exactly do you say metaphysics is? — tim wood
The study of the fundamental nature of things. — Bartricks

Then metaphysics is best left to the physicists and not the incoherent ramblings of philosophers who have no understanding of physics.

You would still have to follow the regulations of the wikipedia regulatory framework. Do you know its rules and how they are enforced? If not, then you are yourself not an expert on wikipedia. — alcontali

I consider wikipedia a very good source for introductory material on many math topics. If a topic is fairly popular, it is likely to be accurate. For minor topics not quite so accurate at times. The same can be said of peer reviewed articles, having been there and done that while active. :cool:

BTW I hope you realise that ad hominems are a disappointing tactic used by people who cannot put forward any rational argument. — A SeagullWell, to be fussy, no, I don't think that's the case. I have seen people mount excellent arguments and use ad homs. It might be a tactic used by someone who cannot put forward a rational argument or it might not. — Coben

Well, you do have a point. Philosophy is all about opinions and as such is personal. But this doers not mean that the ideas presented cannot be evaluated entirely on their own merit and, particularly on a forum such as this, the integrity of the poster be respected.

For a person not to do so is an indication that they are not so much interested in exploring the ideas of philosophy as they are determined to preserve their own opinions.

Once a discussion has devolved into ad hominems, it is the end of the discussion.

Oops Please ignore this comment.

↪tim wood
What exactly do you say metaphysics is?
— tim wood

The study of the fundamental nature of things. — Bartricks

Sounds good! Now, unless I have lost track of the discussion, which can happen, you adduce not a metaphysical argument for the existence of God, but rather the proposition that a) such an argument exists, and b) is the only proper argument that can exist. Have I got that right?

Of course that leaves a whole lot of questions, but if I've got it wrong there's no point is considering them.

No, I believe there is a proof, but I am not sure why you think I think it is the only proof - there may be others, and other arguments that by themselves fall short of proving God's existence might nevertheless do so when accumulated.

The point here, though, given that this thread is on expertise, is that if an expert - a metaphysician - believes there is such an argument, then other things being equal non-experts have good reason to think he/she is correct, even if what the expert is saying contradicts what they believe, for they haven't thought about it as much or as well as the expert has.

Proves beyond a reasonable doubt that one can be formally educated and be quite wrong, and thus not an expert... unless experts can be wrong... oh wait! — creativesoul

The classic opinion of a non-expert. "Experts are no better than us non-experts" Er, no. Experts can be wrong. But that's true of non-experts as well. And non-experts are wrong a lot more often - they're not experts after all.

If the quote from wikipedia is not attributable because it should be considered original research, then it will probably already have been flagged as such in the page itself. If not, the sources mentioned in the page may not support the quote. That is also possible. Otherwise, the quote can be considered to be sound. — alcontali

Gibberish.

How exactly do you know that?

If you cannot justify that this particular quote was not written by an expert, then your own views are certainly not the ones of an expert. — alcontali

Well, because there's nothing in it for them. Why would an expert write a Wikipedia page? It isn't peer reviewed, so it won't count for anything. I mean, I suppose they might if they wanted to just promote themselves - they could cite their own articles a lot or make out they're a bigger name than they are or something - but then that this might be the sort of motivation that could drive an expert to devote some of their valuable time to writing Wikipedia pages only underlines why such pages are unreliable.

How exactly do you know that?
Did you verify the page's revision history?
Did you compile that information from the talk section for the page? — alcontali

It isn't peer reviewed by academic standards. Hence why an academic wouldn't cite such pages in their work and why students are told not to cite them in their work.

Not that it is particularly hard, but you really sound like someone who does not need to read anything but still knows everything. — alcontali

I think someone exactly like that would think what you've just said is true.

Seriously, what exactly do you actually "know"? You may think you "know" it, but in the end, just like in the case of Wikipedia, you obviously know fuck all. — alcontali

Do you, by any chance, write Wikipedia pages? If the answer is 'yes', then case closed.

Well, you do have a point. Philosophy is all about opinions and as such is personal. But this doers not mean that the ideas presented cannot be evaluated entirely on their own merit and, particularly on a forum such as this, the integrity of the poster be respected. — A Seagull

I am not saying one should accept ad homs. And my point wasn't that it was personal and about opinions. I wasn't justifying the ad hom, but arguing against the conclusion that people who use them cannot mont a good argument. Those people exist, yes. But other exist who occasionally or often use ad homs but are also capable or rational argument. It's a fussy point. I mentioned it because it's a claim to know things about the other person that even involve a kind of mind reading claim. You did that and you did it because you can't do X. IOW that person is covering up their weakness intentionally. Here this is a fussy point. If the other person used an ad hom they can't expect the response is simply logical and rational. But it's a kind of conclusion jumping I see a lot on the net. You believe X so you are Y. You believe X because you are or experienced or can't face or......

To me it seems better to just call out the ad hom, even with some passion, but not present as logical conclusions things that are not.

Are you an expert in either philosophy or physics?

The point here, though, given that this thread is on expertise, is that if an expert - a metaphysician - believes there is such an argument, then other things being equal non-experts have good reason to think he/she is correct, even if what the expert is saying contradicts what they believe, for they haven't thought about it as much or as well as the expert has. — Bartricks

Aha! I accept this as the sense of the thing and withdraw. As Roseanne Roseannadana might say, nevermind.

It's not really God of Gaps. The list a metaphysical postion things do not depend upon our mind. Questions of whether things have been explained in our mind hasn't been touched. God of gaps would need the supposition that when things appeared to us, they are inexplicable or unexplained.

All we have in the list is the fact our minds are not equivalent to what is true. We might reason about many things, but it is not that we are reasoning about them which makes that reason true.

There is a mistake in the list, an equivocation between the defintion of reason and the mind of a God. Thinking of a God is in a no different postion than us: reason cannot be instances of the existence of a God either, for reasons is always true, not just when a God might happen to think about it.

I could follow your expert opinion that today's experts are not the right ones, but then other experts will have a different take on that. — Coben

But I don't think any expert in metaphysics would deny that, historically, most expert metaphysicians - including most of the undisputed best - have thought that God's existence could either be proved or shown to be overall more reasonable than not. They may not themselves think that God's existence has been proved or shown to be more reasonable than not, but they will agree that the bulk of the best have thought the opposite.

Note too, the quality of the metaphysician counts for a lot. Let's say 100 third rate expert metaphysicians think that there is no good case for God's existence. But 5 of the very best metaphysicians - as judged by the harshest of all critics: time - think that there is a good case for God's existence. Well, then despite the difference in numbers it is probably wiser to think the 5 are correct than the 100 third-raters.

Of course, comparing cohorts is not how one does metaphysics - one has to assess arguments on their own merits. The point, though, is that for non-experts the fact that the majority of great metaphysicians have judged God's existence either to be rationally demonstrable, or to be more reasonable than not, provides them with good reason to suppose that this is in fact the case, even if they - non-experts - can't see why, or believe otherwise, or find what some other non-expert has said on the matter more convincing.

But if it's on the issue of there being a God, I still have to choose which expert. — Coben

I don't think you do. It is surely sufficient for a non-expert to have reason to believe there is a proof of the existence of a god that an expert has said so, especially when the proof in question has not yet been assessed by other experts.

Say you are in some kind of a diamond hall and the diamond experts are sat at their tables sifting through piles of diamonds and paste fakes, putting diamonds in one pile on their respective desks and paste fakes in the other.

You go up to one of these tables. There is a pile on the left marked 'diamonds' and a pile on the right marked 'paste'. Stones have been put in these respective piles by one expert - the expert sat at this particular desk. So no other expert apart from this one has inspected these stones. And it is also well known that diamond experts do sometimes - though far more rarely than any non-expert would - mistake a paste diamond for the real deal. Nevertheless, as a non-expert yourself you surely have very good reason to think that a stone taken from the pile marked 'diamonds' will be a diamonds and not paste? And that's the case no matter whose table you go to.

Now imagine you go to a 'God proof hall' full of expert metaphysicians sat at tables sifting pieces of paper into two trays on their respective tables. In each case one tray is marked 'proof of God' and the other 'not a proof of God'. You look around the room. On all of the tables bar one, there is nothing in the 'proof of God' tray. Do you have reason to think that the piece of paper in the pile marked 'proof of God' in the tray on that one metaphysician's table is a proof of God?

I think you should take seriously that it is. It hasn't been checked by the others, and even experts make mistakes. But still.

Why would an expert write a Wikipedia page? — Bartricks

Mathematics is a social or community endeavor to a large extent. And, yes, many experts from that community pay attention to what is written on their areas' Wiki pages, correcting mistakes and contributing info. The only other subject I'm familiar with is climbing, and, there, things are not quite as disciplined, but still mostly accurate.

Several years ago there was an effort to compare the accuracy of articles on the same subject appearing in Encyclopedia Britannica(online) and Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, in general Wikipedia was slightly more accurate than EB.

for reasons is always true — TheWillowOfDarkness

In ancient Greece a bolt of lightning was reasoned to be due to Zeus. Reason evolves.

Would any expert academic in your field cite a Wikipedia page in a peer review article?

Well, because there's nothing in it for them. Why would an expert write a Wikipedia page? It isn't peer reviewed, so it won't count for anything. I mean, I suppose they might if they wanted to just promote themselves - they could cite their own articles a lot or make out they're a bigger name than they are or something - but then that this might be the sort of motivation that could drive an expert to devote some of their valuable time to writing Wikipedia pages only underlines why such pages are unreliable. — Bartricks

Now you assume that some kind of incentive psychology that would govern the behaviour of all experts. How do you justify that? Where is the paperwork with the justification that we can mechanically verify?

Furthermore, I can give you a simple counterexample.

An anonymous author, named Tom Elvis Jedusor, published his MimbleWimble whitepaper in July 2016, which later on turned out to be an impressive breakthrough in the cryptocurrency field:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/mimblewimble.txt

Why did he publish this anonymously, if according to your incentive psychology he would never be able to benefit personally from doing that?

It isn't peer reviewed by academic standards. Hence why an academic wouldn't cite such pages in their work and why students are told not to cite them in their work. — Bartricks

According to academic standards, students are supposed to be paying off their student loans for another 14 years after graduation. That is an incredible scam that is busy destroying the lives of the millions of students who believe in that so-called "academic standard".

After everything is said and done concerning the student-loan scam, the academic world will simply have destroyed itself. You can already treat it today for what it truly is: a dangerous scam.

Do you, by any chance, write Wikipedia pages? If the answer is 'yes', then case closed. — Bartricks

No, I am merely a user/reader of Wikipedia pages. I am grateful to the people who volunteer their time to maintain this incredible knowledge database.

I am not grateful to the academic world for destroying the youth of the world with student loans meant to fund their participation in the gigantic promiscuity fest that is college, and getting them to graduate with a worthless degree that will only get them a job at Starbucks. Seriously, the world is better off without that dangerous scam, called "the academic world".

I am also mostly a user of free and open-source software. I am grateful to the people who volunteer their time to maintain the linux kernel, the gnu operating system, its wonderful applications, and so on. According to your incentive psychology these things should not even exist, but they certainly do.

So you say... but how can we trust this if "Reason evolves" is not true?

If "reason evolves" does not carry across times, then there will be instances in which lightening is still being generated by Zeus.

"Would any expert academic in your field cite a Wikipedia page in a peer review article?"

Most of my publishing was done years ago, before Wikipedia, and I don't read the journals very much anymore. So I can't say with any degree of accuracy. But times are rapidly changing, and in the past I have found mistakes in reviewed articles, so I would guess that in time Wikipedia will be cited if merely to acquaint a reviewer with arcane material or the latest breakthroughs.

The entire structure of reviewing, refereeing, and dissemination should change and should put journal publishers out of business. This should be an age of open, free discussions. :chin:

Wikipedia is not really the place to go for the latest breakthroughs, because it's meant to be a tertiary source, which means a secondary source needs to have first vetted the notability and reliability of the primary sources, which takes time. Someone who just published a paper can't immediately add their results to Wikipedia (I mean, they can, but they'll be reverted); some journal or news source first has to look at their paper and say it's important and largely regarded as correct, and then someone (not the original researcher) can add something to the wiki citing that journal.

Also, since every claim in Wikipedia besides things like "the sky is blue" are supposed to be cited to reliable sources, there's really no reason to ever cite Wikipedia directly: just cite whoever it cites instead. If a claim in a wiki article doesn't cite a more reliable source, then maybe that particular claim isn't so reliable, and probably shouldn't be cited in something that's supposed to be professional.

But in a casual conversation like this, Wikipedia is generally very reliable, especially about anything big and contentious, because anyone who disagrees with a claim will fight to remove it and whoever has the best reliable citations to secondary sources will win.

I said, in time Wikipedia will be cited, because I think there will be significant changes to academic vetting. Not now. I never had any problems publishing articles in math journals, but when you get a chance to look under the surface in a discipline you see the problems - and the profit motives. The scholar does the work, the reviewers do the work, and the institution pays the publisher, then other institutions pay for subscriptions. Nice racket. Has that changed? I know all the reasons for the system, but it is mildly corrupt.

On the other hand the proliferation of online journals with weak refereeing standards exacerbates problems.

You're a bit boring - to me - to be an expert. A very talented rhetorician though. Gifted, perhaps, in the art of persuasion. A keen eye for using certain fallacious means at the appropriate time.

Or...

I'm overestimating your mental grasp upon the world, yourself, and your place in it. Could be that I have it wrong as well. Your participation on this forum could be the one activity that keeps you thinking positively about yourself. I mean, some folk find picking on other people to be an acceptable worthwhile ability/habit/personality trait.

Now, you're attempting to use the notion of "expert" as a means of what... exactly? Self comfort?

:kiss:

A rhetorical means of devaluing another person's thoughts on matters... matters of God notwithstanding...

Appeal to authority - "I'm an expert, and you're not" - "Experts are mistaken less often than non-experts" - "I'm an expert, and you're not" - is wrong for very good Reason.

:rofl:

As is poisoning the well.