(Or it's "more likely" that the 3% are bought off by fossil fuel interests -- which indeed is the case. It's also "more likely" that the small group of Creationists who argue for a Biblical flood are influenced by religious beliefs. But you go with those guys.) — Xtrix

I appreciate it. — Xtrix

So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile. Fair enough. Stick with it. — Xtrix

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%? — Xtrix

Give up all aspiration for self-improvement? That seems like the zenith, or should I say nadir, of stupidity. If you had said 'surrender trying to appear smart' I could agree. — Janus

Do you know what an expert is? Or what the designation means? I ask because it appears you do not. — tim wood

The essence is this. An expert may be presumed, in terms of his or her personal understanding and knowledge, to be at or near the limit of what in his area of expertise can be known or understood. — tim wood

Thus if something can be known or understood, then on that at least experts should agree. — tim wood

the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, — Yohan
It does exactly that. — Xtrix

If you're going to abstractly, academically philosophize, then do it, instead of being foolish. Xtrix makes the case already, but I'll add that you have not troubled to think about what an expert is, how they work, or how they think, as experts. — tim wood

By the way, ad verecundiam/populum isn't quite applicable here. The world (nature, evidence) is the authority here anyway, that's what subject matter experts point at

The part that refers cannot be referred to while referring. Indeed. But what's so important about tha? — Gobuddygo

Making a prediction cannot be part of that what is to be predicted. — Gobuddygo

That's right. And this is an indication of the inherent ambiguity within "pointing". To clarify, and resolve the ambiguity, we need to ask, 'what are you pointing at, and the pointer must provide further context to ensure that the person being shown the thing interprets the pointing in the same way as the person pointing. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you use the mirror, doesn't the tip of your finger point at itself through the means of reflection? Can't a pointing be reflected? — Metaphysician Undercover

You were never serious about questioning the experts, nor are you an expert yourself. — Xtrix

Any sophomoric question you have are out there for experts to answer, and they have -- and it's all over the internet. newspapers, the internet, and at your doctor's office. — Xtrix

We can always abstract things into irrelevance, cutting some corners/particulars here and there. We still have to deal with the current outbreak.. — jorndoe

By the way, ad verecundiam/populum isn't quite applicable here. The world (nature, evidence) is the authority here anyway, that's what subject matter experts point at.

As laymen, it’s prudent to listen to the consensus of experts. This is so commonsensical it’s essentially a truism. If you want to have an abstract, academic conversation about it, I’m not interested. — Xtrix

It does. That's not what "begging the question" means. I wonder if you and AJJ are the same person. — Xtrix

99 doctors tell you you need surgery on your heart or else you'll probably die, and 1 says you shouldn't -- knowing nothing else, what do you do? (Assuming you want to continue living.)

Seems like an extreme example -- but that's exactly the level we're at with, again, climate change. (Actually it's said to be around 97%, but other studies have it higher, and I suspect it is.)

I'll give away the answer: you go with the 99% of doctors. It's as simple as gambling: do we put all our money on an event that wins 99% of the time, or not? Of course we go with the greater chances of success -- again, assuming we wish to win money and not lose money. — Xtrix

99 doctors to 1 doesn't translate to 99% odds, not if all we know is that they are doctors. — Yohan
:roll:
Yes, but that’s not the question. — Xtrix

What about that mirror thing? It's pretty freaky. Just remember to account for the inversion or you'll get all fucked up. The mirror image is said to be identical, because it has the same chirality, but's really not identical because it is a reflection. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do we know that going with the majority of experts is more likely to be true, or more likely to give us the results we want? — Xtrix

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. — Xtrix

Also, there is nothing inherently irrational with being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan
I agree. — Xtrix

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too. — Xtrix

You think it's a truism, but it isn't. It treats everything as if there are "two sides," and there aren't. Are there really "two sides" to whether the earth is flat? No. Also, even in less extreme examples, like with climate change, where one person is in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the other isn't, it's completely misleading to suggest they're equally irrational. — Xtrix

I meant to say that both sides, those who are married to mainstream narratives, and those married to counter-mainstream narratives can both be immune to facts. — Yohan
Both are non-experts who choose who they trust. . — Xtrix

If one trusts the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, that's simply a better choice than the other non-expert who chooses to trust Internet conspiracy theories. — Xtrix

This is misleading. Try arguing both-sides to the flat earth “debate.” It simply looks ridiculous there. — Xtrix

But most of the time, our real choice lies in who we deem trustworthy— because we can’t be questioning everything at all times, and we can’t do “deep dives” into every medical, mechanical, scientific, or physical issue that we face— we rely on those with the requisite experience, knowledge, expertise to guide us as we get on with our lives. — Xtrix

To argue that both sides are equally irrational is irrational. — Xtrix

We live on the surface of a planet surrounded by gaseous nitrogen within a temperature range between -10 C and 50C and able to perceive a limited range of sound waves and electromagnetic radiation yet the Andromeda Galaxy, x-rays, and quarks are part of our world. — T Clark

Neither of us. The idea of "world" as we are using it is a metaphysical term. As such, it is not right or wrong, only useful or not in a particular situation. It's just our different ways of looking at the same thing. — T Clark

I often say "There's only one world," so, clearly I disagree. There are, on the other hand, lots of ways to think, talk about it. I think humans, men and women, are much more alike than different. Ditto with people with different languages and cultures. It may take some work, but we can understand each other. — T Clark

The only things we can know that aren't established by induction are those that come from deduction, which have nothing to do with the real world. — T Clark

This is science apologetics. — Yohan
Explain please. — T Clark

It says "confirm to a degree" and "provisional assent." I don't see any problem, just follow the scientific method, i.e. provide evidence. — T Clark

I think you're playing around with language. Do you really not know what Gould is saying? — T Clark

I get that this is a sort of dictionary meaning, but there is an alternative usage that's roughly "to the best of our knowledge and with very high confidence". — Srap Tasmaner

Stephen Jay Gould said:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens — Xtrix

You mean you ate it? — Prishon

Del? — Prishon