I had one semester of senior-level philosophy. You? — jgill
My prof laughed at metaphysics. Although I proposed Leibniz's monads to him as a legitimate metaphysical actuality. I think it is — jgill
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
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
Wikipedia? What next? You going to quote from some toilet cubicle graffiti? — Bartricks
Wikipedia is not written by experts. — Bartricks
It isn't peer reviewed. — Bartricks
You could write a Wikipedia entry, yes? — Bartricks
So how is quoting from Wikipedia quoting from any kind of authority? — Bartricks
What if you believe there is no god? Then would this directive not lose its punch? — god must be atheist
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.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
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).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
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 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
Non-experts do that kind of thing all the time. — 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.And they're used to being cautious and to checking and rechecking their arguments - for their career depends on them doing so. — 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.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
I had one semester of senior-level philosophy. You?
— jgill
More, of course. — 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. — alcontali
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
↪tim wood
What exactly do you say metaphysics is?
— tim wood
The study of the fundamental nature of things. — 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! — creativesoul
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
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
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
Not that it is particularly hard, but you really sound like someone who does not need to read anything but still knows everything. — alcontali
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
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......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
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
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 if it's on the issue of there being a God, I still have to choose which expert. — Coben
Why would an expert write a Wikipedia page? — Bartricks
for reasons is always true — TheWillowOfDarkness
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
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
Do you, by any chance, write Wikipedia pages? If the answer is 'yes', then case closed. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.