You’re too funny. The police and the NSA know it’s me, though. Meta-data and all — Noah Te Stroete

Ah. So you are a metaphysical entity. I always wondered what they would look like in person.

Pleased to meet you.

Ah. So you are a metaphysical entity. I always wondered what they would look like in person.

Pleased to meet you. — god must be atheist

:smile:

I like to troll the authorities for their harassment of me. I put someone in the hospital once. I didn’t get charged, but his friend is a cop. I’ve also trolled the FBI and NSA toll free numbers, too.

Expert
Etymology
From Latin exspurtus.
ex: a has-been.
spurtus: big drip under pressure.

I think it's important to be knowledgeable about areas where expert opinions are varied. If they're not varied then there's probably hard evidence for their position but if many experts have differing or opposing positions then it might be an issue of interpretation. I am always particularly distrusting of experts that haven't actually demonstrated their proficiency. To me, that generally means doing something or achieving something that required proficiency.

I think it's important to be knowledgeable about areas where expert opinions are varied. If they're not varied then there's probably hard evidence for their position but if many experts have differing or opposing positions then it might be an issue of interpretation. I am always particularly distrusting of experts that haven't actually demonstrated their proficiency. To me, that generally means doing something or achieving something that required proficiency — Judaka

Unfortunately the experts in the fields with good models of explanation with the hard evidence to back it up OFTEN think they know how to run things. The thing is no one knows how to save humanity from itself.

Is there such thing as imperative (or 'significant') knowledge?

If I play Rainbow Six Siege, a First-Person-Shooter, in the first inings of a match-up, I don't know where the enemy are located. This means I must scout, or fortify a strategic location.

I'm less agile when it comes to offense and defence in this match-up; this knowledge is imperative, and I've not acquired it yet.

If my team mate spots an enemy and tells me over the microphone, I will defer to his expertise.

This decision is based on trust obtainable in a virtual contest; some scenarios - such as real combat - may require that evidence is produced.

Contrary to imperative knowledge, is the knowledge of, per se, what shade of blue a pixel in the sky is. If someone communicated in the game, all the various shades of every pixel, I would never defer to his expertise - it's off topic.

To conclude, I will only defer to another's expertise, if it's knowledge is imperative, and I don't regard that every known expert, is righteously known as an expert. Knowing the shade of every pixel in a game just means it's spent a lot of time with an available resource. Does it account for imperative knowledge?

Presumably, experts are purveyors of current convention...

Sometimes convention is wrong.

Expert
Etymology
From Latin exspurtus.
ex: a has-been.
spurtus: big drip under pressure. — Galuchat

Nowadays this etimology only only apples to very old lady's breasts.

I like to troll the authorities for their harassment of me. I put someone in the hospital once. — Noah Te Stroete

You harrassed him to first degree harm?

Or you are talking about your wife when she went into labour to bear your child.

I’m sure I don’t understand you. My wife is a stepmom to my boys, by the way.

When I was married to my ex-wife, she told me that the guy I beat had “fucked her best friend in her sleep.” I already didn’t like the guy because he would spend nights over at my house with my ex and her best friend when I was away. He also made fun of me for being “weak” for taking medications for depression and psychosis.

So when he called my house that same day that my ex told me that, I was irate and threatened him and told him to never come to my house again. Well, he showed up at my front door about an hour later with his buddy to kick my ass. I fought both of them, and his buddy cut my eye which I needed stitches for later (he was wearing rings). After his buddy cut my eye, I didn’t go down but yelled, “you fucker!” and I stood my ground. He must have been, well, I don’t know what he thought but he told me to fight the alleged rapist. I walked up to the guy and jacked him in the face, and I kept hitting him. He didn’t go down as I expected him to but kept ahold of my shirt with his clenched fist. So, I kept hitting him in a rage. Mind you I was rushing with adrenaline from the cut eye. He still didn’t go down but kept clutching my shirt. I finally stopped when his buddy said something. I can’t remember what he said, but I realized that I had done enough. His buddy helped him to their truck, and it was over.

This guy’s best friend from high school is a Sheriff’s deputy in that county. Even though I was never charged by the DA because no jury would ever convict me, I’ve been harassed by the police ever since. I’ve also been under surveillance ever since.

Oh well.

belief is a form of knowledge. It is not absolute knowledge, but a form of it. Therefore all faith or belief is a form of knowledge as well. — god must be atheist

Other way around: knowledge is a form of belief. Justified true belief, traditionally, but it's recently come into question whether that is enough. But it's still necessary, even if not sufficient: to know something, it must be true, you must believe it, you must be justified in believing it, and maybe some other things too, still being debated. "Belief" is not a synonym for "faith".

Your username reminds me of how in the Lord of the Rings, the Elves, who openly perform what Men consider "magic", declare that there is no such thing as magic. Similarly, your username makes me imagine a being that many humans would call "God", declaring that there is no such thing as God. The resolution to both apparent paradoxes is that those with lesser knowledge see something mystical and supernatural, while the so-called "mystical" or "supernatural" beings themselves possess superior knowledge and know that everything about them is in fact perfectly natural and amenable to science.

The resolution to both apparent paradoxes is that those with lesser knowledge see something mystical and supernatural, while the so-called "mystical" or "supernatural" beings themselves possess superior knowledge and know that everything about them is in fact perfectly natural and amenable to science. — Pfhorrest

All humans have “lesser knowledge”. We are all ignorant of what causes us to be conscious. Don’t fool yourself. Science cannot even answer this question as it deals with matter and energy and fields. Science can’t even prove to you that others aren’t philosophical zombies. Consciousness is not in science’s purview. Neither is God.

What fool would want to not give his or her true self under circumstances like these, eh? — god must be atheist

The problem must be that you don’t know yourself well enough, and that basically amounts to ignorance or the opposite of wisdom.

Some experiences here on these forums, however, have made me doubt that opinion, because there are some people who seem far more knowledgeable than me in some areas, and yet clearly and completely wrong in other areas, but claim that their position in the latter areas can be justified by things I just don't understand in the former areas. And I'm not sure how to handle that. — Pfhorrest

Why not just stick to assessing arguments rather than worrying whether the arguer is an expert or not? That is, why not just consult your reason? I think the problem is that you're focussing on the arguer, not the argument.

That is my usual approach, which is what makes circumstances like this interestingly problematic to me: when I can’t follow the line of argument, but the person presenting it seems like someone who probably has a followable argument. I don’t want to be like the creationist who dismisses all the scientific arguments against creationism because they’re too uneducated to follow them, but it also seems wrong to just accept an argument you can’t follow because the person making it seems like they should know what they’re talking about. That’s really the thing that makes this seem an interesting problem to me, not so much my handling of people on this forum, but the general principle behind that and how it would apply to things like public education. If the ignorant creationist is too ignorant to follow the scientific arguments against him, should he ignore the science or accept its conclusions blindly? Obviously, ideally, he’d learn the science and then accept its conclusions with eyes wide open, but that’s a big undertaking, so until they’re able to do that (which may be never, depending on their circumstances and abilities), what should they do for now?

But you're still assessing the arguer, not the argument. Presumably if a creationist makes an argument for creationism, you're going to dismiss it because you think - ahead of investigation - that they're not an expert and thus their argument has no authority.

That's completely the wrong approach (if creationism is true, you'll made yourself blind to it). Forget who's making the argument and just assess it on its own merits.

Just a comment from a personal perspective in an academic environment: for years before Fermat's Last Theorem was validated, math departments would receive putative "proofs" by novices. Sometimes these were well-reasoned, with current math concepts and procedures, but usually the full professor to whom they were addressed would pass them on to a graduate advisee with the instruction, "Find the mistake." And they always did.

What fool would want to not give his or her true self under circumstances like these, eh?
— god must be atheist

The problem must be that you don’t know yourself well enough, and that basically amounts to ignorance or the opposite of wisdom. — praxis

Thanks, but I don’t know if I’m wise or reckless. It’s easier to be brave when you’ve been pushed into a corner with nothing to lose but your false freedom. Lies, lies, lies all around from the streetwalker all the way up to Congress, the President, CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. etc. etc.

Isn’t it refreshing to hear some honesty for a change?

What are you talking about? I wasn’t even addressing you.

LoL. I thought godmustbeatheist was addressing that to me originally. I wrongly inferred that you were sticking up for me. I should’ve known better.

There are no experts in philosophy, only specialists; just as there are no experts in phrenology, only specialists.

This is because there are no objective or provable truths in philosophy; it is all opinion.

A lot of philosophy is systems-thinking and you can make right or wrong moves within systems.

I think you understood my example backwards. This isn't about you or me arguing with a creationist. This is about what if you or I are like the creationist? The reason I'm talking about the arguer rather than the argument is because the scenario that interests me here is when the argument is above one's head, when one is not up to following or critiquing the argument. Of course, if you can follow an argument, then address the argument not the arguer. This is about what if you can't follow it. What if you're the ignorant creationist and someone throws a wall of science at you proving you're wrong, but you're too dumb to understand it? Do you ignore the science you can't understand and go on being wrong, or do you accept what they say because they're obviously smarter than you and believe something without really understanding why?

My view has long been "when you can't work something out yourself, recognize the limits of your own knowledge and believe people who are clearly smarter than you", but I've almost never actually been on that side of the equation before, except in an educational setting where I've set aside the time and effort to dedicate to studying more and more until I can understand and critique the argument itself. But outside of the classroom a lot of people don't have the time or energy or opportunity or maybe just the intellectual ability to do that, to learn about every topic they're faced with until they can adequately understand explanations as to why they're wrong or else adequately argue that they're actually right. So now I'm questioning that long-held view.

Is your username "A Seagull" because you're just here to shit on everything?

Haha.

Is that all seagulls do?

I've always liked the voice of seagulls - such a beautiful chord.

And don't get me started on the grey seagulls.

I suppose you’ll have to trust me when I say that no one needs support in a confrontation with the forum clown.

You should defer to experts as a general rule, so long as they are talking within their area of expertise.

But when they're not, then you shouldn't.

So take the creationist and the scientist. Well neither is an expert on metaphysics. Yet whether creationism is true or false is a metaphysical matter, not a scientific matter.

For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics.

And reading Sam Harris's 'The Moral Landscape' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out about the nature of morality, as he has no more than a BA in philosophy and no peer review publications in relevant journals in the area.

And so on.

↪Pfhorrest
You should defer to experts as a general rule, so long as they are talking within their area of expertise.
But when they're not, then you shouldn't. — Bartricks

Sounds reasonable. I think that pretty much sums it up. :cool:

Unless they are in areas like medical science, where experimental results frequently are in conflict, particularly over time. Then what do you do?