Is it reasonable to believe that something's is objectively true based primarily on the fact that some person or people assert the truth of the proposition?
Is is reasonable to assert the truth of a proposition based on the fact that others also assert the truth of a given proposition?
21 comments:
Of course not! Isn't your blog largely "I make an assertion and those who disagree with me disagree" and not "Well, Craig made the assertion, so it must be true."? (Or is that just too basic thinking?)
On that level I agree with you. I'm thinking more along the lines of people with specific knowledge as opposed to just in general.
For example, there are many people who believe that Darwinian evolution is a proven fact, based solely on the word of others. That's more the direction I'm thinking. As in the other post I'm being a bit intentionally vague so as not to influence any responses.
Have you ever asked someone, "What was the pivotal evidence that finally convinced you that Darwinian Evolution is true?" I have yet to get an answer on that. It is, almost without exception, "My teacher told me" or some such. Like you said.
I agree that there is a fair amount of that. I'm wondering if it's always a negative thing.
For what it's worth, I find it reasonable to take the word of experts as reliably true if I have no reason to suspect that it's not true.
For example, I don't speak or read ancient Greek. So I tend to rely upon biblical translators to be reliably accurate when they translate the language, especially when there are multiple biblical translators and no great dispute on the topic.
For things that are verifiable but where I may not have an expertise (various sciences, other languages, etc) and those who are offering the assertion are open and verified by others, I think it's reasonable to take what they're saying as reliable. Where it is objectively provable and demonstrable and the idea is not in serious contention amongst the experts, I tend to take it as objectively true. Where it isn't necessarily provable, then I might take it as reliable, if not objectively provable.
I would further clarify that there's probably normally a spectrum running from certainly verifiable and thus, conclusions reached can be objectively true, to not verifiable but reasonable to reach a conclusion to not verifiable and not reasonable to reach a given conclusion.
We have no way, for instance, of verifying "God's position" on any topic, so I'm dubious of any claims by anyone to say, "This and only this is God's position on this topic and I can not be mistaken on it!"
I think this is a reasonable skepticism just because of the nature of reality and the known world. I think it is a skepticism we all share when someone says they are speaking for Thor or Rama or Krishna or some other god, and one that is reasonable to share when someone might claim to speak for the Christian God with 100% confidence.
Thank you for your first comment, I appreciate the reasonably firm commitment to a specific answer.
The second however seems to be off topic and intended to reiterate one of your frequent unproven claims rather than an answer to the question. If you would like to delete the second comment that would be fine, if not please understand that I will either delete it myself or simply ignore it and anything that stems from it.
If you are merely wanting a Yes/No answer to the question asked, then by all means, delete the second one.
The second one is related IF you want to know WHY do I think this, which seems to be pertinent to the question.
Delete as you wish, or not.
I'll think about it.
I'm intrigued by your comment that you will take the word of experts, as long as you believe that their word is true.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you essentially saying that you would place your own suspicions ahead of the word of experts. I'm curious what would cause you to put your suspicions over the testimony of experts.
Honestly, it seems as if you're saying that you'll agree with experts as long as you decide to.
I'm sure that there is more there, but I'm flummoxed by what it could be.
What I said was, "I find it reasonable to take the word of experts as reliably true if I have no reason to suspect that it's not true."
To help make it clear:
If there are 100 scientists working in the health field and they all find that the research suggests smoking likely leads to cancer, that is one thing.
If, on the other hand (and contrary to the 100 scientists mentioned above), 10 scientists in the employ of the tobacco industry find data that suggests that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer, I have a reason to suspect it may not be true.
Does that make sense? I think it does.
For another example, if someone claims "I objectively know what God wants beyond all possible doubt on the topic of gay guys marrying... or driving cars... or Christians going to war..." I have reason to doubt it, because 1. who says they're experts? and 2. They are making an objective fact claim that is objectively, observably not demonstrable... that is, they are making fact claims beyond what the known data allows, and that blindness to their own inability to recognize this raises reason to suspect they do not know what they think they know. They don't even recognize that they don't know it, objectively speaking.
Lacking any reason to doubt a claim by what appears to be reasonable experts, I tend to take their claims fairly seriously, why wouldn't I? But if they make claims they can't support (If you smoke even ONE cigarette, you will die a horrible and premature death because science says so, so it is a fact!), then I have reason to doubt the claim.
Does that make sense? I'm not not not saying I'll agree with experts as long as I decide to. I'm saying if there is reason to doubt multiple experts, then I would doubt them. If I have no reason to doubt multiple experts testifying to the same thing, I tend to treat the claim as reliable.
It's all about the claim and whether or not there is data to support the claim.
More directly:
Is is reasonable to assert the truth of a proposition based on the fact that others also assert the truth of a given proposition?
Yes. WHEN "the others" are experts in their field
AND can demonstrate their data
AND that data holds true whoever looks at it.
No. WHEN "the others" are offering a position
that can't be proven
AND not everyone who looks at the data agrees with "the others" hunches.
That is, it's reasonable to assert something as an objective Truth/fact when the others are experts with data to support it and the data is there regardless of who looks at it.
If "the others" are merely asserting an opinion that they find compelling, but is not demonstrable and not everyone agrees, then it's not reasonable to accept it as an objective fact. One may or may not agree that is a reasonable hunch, depending on their case, but it is an opinion, not a fact.
Two comments and I'm still not quite sure where you stand. You appear to be saying that it's reasonable to make claims based on what experts assert, yet then you seem to suggest that the amount of credibility you give is based on your (non expert) analysis of the data as well as on the numbers involved.
I can't help but note that you offer as examples people who you believe to be so biased as to be non credible, yet it seems possible that the majority is not always right.
I hope you'll pardon my confusion.
At some point, I think there is personal bias that comes into play regardless. Look at Dan's example on smoking. He implies, intentionally or not, that those ten who work for the tobacco industry are not credible, it seems, simply because they're in the employ of the tobacco industry, as if being so means they are wrong, unreliable or somehow not totally objective in their research. Had Dan stopped short of including by whom the ten were employed, then the point would not be suspect. That is, a mere comparison between what 100 experts say versus 10 who say something different. Dan seems to imply that those who oppose the majority can't be trusted because they work for the tobacco industry. Before such a suggestion can have a shred of integrity, one must provide evidence that supports a contention of dishonesty by that industry. Merely the desire to protect profit potential is not good enough, because who wouldn't want to protect their potential to perpetuate their income stream? What actual evidence exists to suggest that doctors in the employ of any industry are not objective?
Just sayin'.
If scientists without a motive find X and a few who work for a company who is hurt by X discover Not X, that is a reason to be suspicious. It's not to say the minority is wrong, but it's cause for skepticism. Let's not be naive.
Just for the sake of discussion could we assume that all "experts" with biases can be ignored or given less credibility?
Clearly it's ridiculous to argue that the source of funding or biases automatically drive scientists to reach conclusions that disagree with the evidence, but for the sake of answering the question let's put that aside for now.
Dan,
What makes you think that scientists don't have motive that drives them simply because they are not employed by an industry? Are they somehow beyond bias simply because they get a gov't grant or university support? That's nonsense and shows your own bias. One must start with likelihood that all scientists are motivated in the same way, to find the truth. Who pays them doesn't matter unless you have evidence of wrongdoing. Clearly, the tobacco, oil and gun industries (to use a few examples of those the left finds evil) believe in their products as well as in their belief that those products are beneficial or enhance life on earth for those who want or need them. To the extent that it does may be debatable, but to presume that anyone who works for them is motivated solely by greed is not an example of embracing grace.
Art, I agree that to assume negative intent based on where someone gets paid from is obviously kind of silly. I'm hoping that it is possible to somehow stipulate something that will prevent this from degenerating into a discussion purely about motive. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that it's not what I'm hoping for.
There is a difference between assuming a negative intent and being reasonably skeptical. Are you suggesting that we should not be reasonably skeptical?
I'm suggesting that I'm trying not to get bogged down in making judgement calls about someone's intent or integrity based on superficial information. I'm also suggesting that intent isn't the point of the post.
And I never said it was. I'm not talking of intent, you two are. I'm answering the question you asked with a Yes/No answer, and explaining the reasoning I have for reaching those answers. My answer is yes, of course, we should listen to experts AND at the same time, we should be reasonably skeptical, not blindly listening to all who offer opinions.
I would guess that you could probably agree, but you tell me.
Once again, thank you ever so much for the reasonably clear and minimally ambiguous answer.
I realize that you probably don't even realize that your answer comes off the way it does, but when your "example" is based on an extreme hypothetical situation, the appearance is that you are assuming that your hypothetical scientists are "experts" and you're assuming that these hypothetical scientists would ignore the evidence when they present their conclusions.
Maybe a better way to have asked the question would have been...
Are there any people or a collection of people who have enough credibility that they as individuals or as a group it's reasonable to accept what they say or believe to be accurate or true?
I hope that this rewording might help you to reconsider your "Yes, but..." answer in favor of a yes or a no.
Post a Comment