Trust the "Experts"

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 191
#91
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
you trust the MSM
I think an important part of the issue is “listening to the science” as presented by news journalists. They are not known for their accurate representation and grasp of technical matters.

#92
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh yeah. So if that's your answer, that "researching" means "doing the experiment yourself"
Wanna take a second guess since you are all into the "guessing game" on this site?
I asked you to explain your position and you responded with a question, so I replied with an if/then which is a logical statement that replies to your point while taking into account the possibility that your position wasn't well represented by your response.

I'm sorry rational conversation is so difficult for you to follow.

it's who you should trust
And you have said before that you trust the MSM. They said the people love Kamala. They said crime, immigration, and the economy is not something the people really care about. They said Biden was super cogent and just wanted to let Kamala get her turn when he dropped out. They said Trump was worse than Hitler.
Pretty much everything you just listed here is bullshit, at best it's a list of caricatured exaggerations, first off all.

Second, when I say I trust MSNBC I'm speaking generally. It does not mean I believe every claim made by every host and every pundit on the network. It means I believe the network operates with journalistic integrity, because they demonstrate it.

Third, again, trust is not an all or nothing. You seem incapable of understanding this.

Fourth, trusting reporting is not the same thing as certainty of outcome. If a reporter says that talked to a source that said Trump is planning to nominate Jim Jordan to his cabinet, I trust that he spoke to a source who said that. It doesn't mean the source was being truthful or had full knowledge of the situation. Integrity =/= perfection.

If pundits on MSNBC give their predictions on what will happen on election day, they're just that, predictions. Being wrong doesn't mean they are untrustworthy, it means they're not Nostradamus. Anyone who thought they were or holds them to that standard is a moron, as is anyone who thinks that them being wrong on a prediction makes them untrustworthy as a network. The difference between MSNBC and MAGA is that MSNBC will admit when they are wrong.

None of that was true, and Biden's smiling face today tells you everything you need to know about the deep state subverting democracy by pulling the donors out from under Biden.
This argument is so stupid.

Biden had a terrible debate performance and it worried everyone in the Democratic party as well as those within his own campaign ad to whether he could possibly recover. Many felt, probably rightly, that for him to continue as the nominee would effectively hand Donald Trump the White House, so they used their free speech you guys love to obsess over to our pressure on him to step aside. Political donations are also free speech, presidential candidates are not entitled to your money.

It was a completely rational response to three circumstances, to call that a subversion of democracy is such a ridiculous attempt of third grade "I know you are but what am I?" tactics.

The simple fact is: you lack the ability to decide who to trust.
You don't even know what trust is so your assessment of me is less than worthless.
#93
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,457
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
They are not known for their accurate representation and grasp of technical matters.
Among many other things.
#94
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,329
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In Universe we trust

Roadway auto drivers place their trust/faith in fellow roadway drivers --experts of experience or not--   all of the time, and, same goes for all modes of travel. Sometimes that trust is violated for various reasons

Seek truth and moderation { balancing } of  our emotional highs and lows as well as staying connected with the empathy centers { anterior insular cortex } of our brain to engage in compassion.

These pathways can be aided by those with experience, whom we may ---and often do--  entail our trust, to varying degrees.

In Universe we trust, --to varying degrees---  that, our self mechanisms and those of other are operating correctly.

Errors { unintentional } occur.

Intentional malbehavior/malconduct violates our trust, and our response to these experiences guides us to our future behavior and trust.

There exist no gurrantees of survival for any individual or humanity on Earth.

In Universe { @ } we trust { ^ @ ^ }

..." That is, not everyone can trust the universe's benevolence. The notion that the universe “has your back” is easier to accept when luck has favored you with a loving family, a good education, health, a regular income, and a favorable race and sexual orientation. But it's a much tougher sell for someone whose ration of luck involved being born into poverty, a war zone, a religion that features a punishing god, or who's living a paycheck away from homelessness, or in a refugee camp because their government declared war on their kind. One is likely to make you feel paranoia (the belief that the universe is conspiring against you) and the other paranoia (the belief that it's conspiring in your favor). "...

Wife and I COVID free five years now and one other family member also. 

My 1st shot ---before mRNA was avaialble--  was booster shot from my childhood years vaccine, that, was said to wane over time and some evidence it might help with COVID symptoms should I get COVID.

Wife and I have gotten regular COVID vaccines every time. 
Topic's author
#95
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
First off all, trust isn't black or white.
Irrelevant.


Second, everyone puts some level of trust in the expertise of others because it's not avoidable.
Irrelevant.


so the question isn't whether you should trust people with expertise but what processes you should run through and what standards should be applied earn your trust.
Relevant.

There are indicators of expertise and indicators of incompetence. There are indicators of honesty and indicators of dishonesty.

The most reliable general indicator of incompetence and dishonesty is appealing to one's own authority rather than providing an argument. Honest competent people know why they believe what they believe and they know that their reasons are the reasons.

Debate is not where we rely on trust. Debate is where trust is vindicated or betrayed.
Topic's author
#96
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
unless you're an expert in virology, you must appeal to authority at least as much, but actually more than, someone who trusts consensus.
I have expertise in philosophy which is the only expertise needed to point out when someone is not making a good argument.

Saying "I trust somebody therefore you must" is not a good argument.


we listen to our doctors and to consensus scientists.
I don't want to make it personal, but you've  been fooled on science before and carried your misconceptions onto this website. I'm thinking of your confusion on theory and experimental basis of quantum mechanics. You are the perfect example of how it is impossible to determine who the experts are without at least some education in the subject.

You haven't met a "consensus of scientists" you've encountered blogs, tabloids, and psuedoscientific documentary videos.

There is no shortcut to knowledge and the tendency of human communities to generate consensus through trusting secondhand assertion is constant and history as well as a great and ongoing danger. This can be seen by playing the simple game called telephone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game. Add into that false initial statements and the fact that if people hear the same thing from multiple sources they tend to believe it more and you have an epistemological chaos generator.

That generator is every human society and we fight that chaos only through observation of reality, which is repeatable objective experiment, and logic.

In order to prevent self-reinforcing myths it is is a moral duty for people who do not understand the supporting arguments to not repeat and insist upon the conclusion.
#97
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
If the person can still make a mistake, you can't rely on the individual as the be all end all .

You can take what the person says into consideration. But you don't rely on the person as if the person is evidence alone.

You don't do that with flawed people. You sometimes get second opinions. You don't always accept what a professional medical expert physician tells you or automotive professional expert.

Also sources and links aren't evidence but only of what somebody has said or written. The evidence is actually what you can witness, observe for yourself.
#98
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
We don't have time huh. Do we have to see things for ourselves?
#99
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First off all, trust isn't black or white.
Irrelevant.


Second, everyone puts some level of trust in the expertise of others because it's not avoidable.
Irrelevant.
When your critics lack the ability to see anything other than black or white, pointing out that gray exists is absolutely relevant.

Debate is not where we rely on trust. Debate is where trust is vindicated or betrayed.
Experts become authorities in their fields by demonstrating their knowledge and abilities with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates.
#100
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
We don't have time huh. Do we have to see things for ourselves?
No idea what you're asking.
#101
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,177
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if you're not an expert in virology and you dont trust anyone to tell you what to think, what do you base your opinion on? any third grade logic about the scientific method lacks expertise when they try to pick apart the expert's opinions. the only way I can figure someone wouldn't use third grade logic against experts, is to find some experts who in the minority, or even a fringe minority. at that point, they're 'appealing to authority' by your measure. so which do you do, use third grade logic against experts, or appeal to fringe expert authority? if you do neither, how do you form your opinion on the effectiveness of the vaccines? 
#102
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,177
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
what I meant was, the odds of dying from the shot are next to zero. maybe one in a million. super rare. I wasn't saying the odds of dying from the disease after the shot are near zero, but the shot drastically reduces the risk of death. your point that the shot doesn't have long term testing is true, and that a healthy person is less likely to need the shot. but, the experts say the long term safety is okay, and I base my opinion on trusting them on their expertise, which you aren't saying why doubt them other than by you using third grade logic about the scientific method against their expertise. plus, even for the healthy people... if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? you just assume you know the answer or that it's better than the shot. maybe the odds are one in ten thousand healthy people will die without the vax... that's still a lot more dangerous than one in a million risk from the shot, isn't it? the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts. 
#103
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,177
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
well what's the answer smart guy who did his research? how dangerous is the disease for a healthy young person? and, how do you respond to my hypothetical, cause it seems pretty reasonable and you ignored it...
"if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? you just assume you know the answer or that it's better than the shot. maybe the odds are one in ten thousand healthy people will die without the vax... that's still a lot more dangerous than one in a million risk from the shot, isn't it? the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts"

#104
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,457
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
but, the experts say "the long term safety is okay,"
With no long term testing. That makes them "fake experts"

If they lied about what the vax could do AFTER the testing showed the limitations of the vax....why should we trust them to predict the results of long-term testing that are not available yet? Whether it was a lie of omission such as omitting obesity as a major mortality risk or an outright lie saying you can't infect others if you take the shot, it doesn't really matter, does it?

I'm not going to trust a liar, no matter where he got his PhD from. I get it that many were guessing what the vax could do at the start, but there was no excuse for paid government experts to keep spreading misinformation years after the initial studies came out to the public.

if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? 
There are well documented studies about this. Don't take my word for it.

the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts. 
well what's the answer smart guy who did his research?
Ad-homs are even less convincing than fake experts declaring a vax safe with no evidence or testing.



#105
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,177
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
also I did back during the pandemic look up how long it takes for side effects to show up. the said with every vaccine in history, the bad effects show up within a couple weeks or a month, almost never longer. plus, the experts know how the vaccine interacts with our body, info I wouldn't claim to know. and, skeptics say the vaccine creation was rushed, but as the experts point out, the background research was already done before the pandemic even started. so its not that much of a rushed vaccine either.
again, the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion. 
#106
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,457
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
 the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion
And I will continue to do so, because a 3rd grade result from a scientific study will always be more trustworthy than the consensus of a bunch of dudes without any study.
#107
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,177
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I was trying to move the debate forward and you dropped my responses. how do you respond? 

well what's the answer smart guy who did his research? how dangerous is the disease for a healthy young person? and, how do you respond to my hypothetical, cause it seems pretty reasonable and you ignored it...
"if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? you just assume you know the answer or that it's better than the shot. maybe the odds are one in ten thousand healthy people will die without the vax... that's still a lot more dangerous than one in a million risk from the shot, isn't it? the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts"

also I did back during the pandemic look up how long it takes for side effects to show up. the said with every vaccine in history, the bad effects show up within a couple weeks or a month, almost never longer. plus, the experts know how the vaccine interacts with our body, info I wouldn't claim to know. and, skeptics say the vaccine creation was rushed, but as the experts point out, the background research was already done before the pandemic even started. so its not that much of a rushed vaccine either.
again, the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion. 

#108
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,242
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
If the person can still make a mistake, you can't rely on the individual as the be all end all .
And I don’t. I just value their opinion highly. Again, trust the experts doesn’t mean blindly put your faith in them, it means put stake I what they have to say.


You don't do that with flawed people. You sometimes get second opinions. You don't always accept what a professional medical expert physician tells you or automotive professional expert.
That’s why the phrase is plural, trust the experts. You obviously don’t put everything on their opinion, but it’s smart to just realize that they probably know more than you. They can obviously be wrong, but they’re more likely to be right that you are.


Topic's author
#109
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Debate is not where we rely on trust. Debate is where trust is vindicated or betrayed.
Experts become authorities in their fields by demonstrating their knowledge and abilities
Which is to say they have the best argument.


with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates.
"results" that are a not a subset of "the best argument" is irrelevant.

If I went back in time (or to sentinel island) with a bunch of antibiotics claiming to be a prophet of god would "the results" be all the "miracles" I did?
Topic's author
#110
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
if you're not an expert in virology and you dont trust anyone to tell you what to think, what do you base your opinion on?
That's not the question. The question is what you repeat to others with confidence. What you insist that others believe lest you call them fools.


any third grade logic about the scientific method lacks expertise when they try to pick apart the expert's opinions. the only way I can figure someone wouldn't use third grade logic against experts, is to find some experts who in the minority, or even a fringe minority. at that point, they're 'appealing to authority' by your measure. so which do you do, use third grade logic against experts, or appeal to fringe expert authority? if you do neither, how do you form your opinion on the effectiveness of the vaccines? 
What is "third grade logic"?
#111
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,329
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
but as the experts point out, the background research was already done before the pandemic even started. so its not that much of a rushed vaccine either.
again, the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion.

This above appears to me as much greater than third greater logical, common sense critical thinking.

3 weeks after! my first covid shot, I was kinda of half awake in bed, reaching with right hand over to scratch and itch on my left bicep. Fell back asleep.

In AM awoke to the same itch and now there was rasied bump size of quarter { aprox. } and and oozing a little goo.

Did search on internet, and found some info about itch or bump, yet not this size or with oozing goo. Talk to pharmacist who gave the shot, they said not that unusual, just watch to see if it gets any worse if so go to doctor.

By end of day less itching, less goo and size was diminshing. All three symptoms totally gone the next day { aprox. }.

With the other 5 or more covid shots since, maybe had some little itch within day or so, and same with any tiny bump. If so, cant really remember because so insignificant.   That 1st one, after three weeks, got my attention for sure.

Did get sore arm after maybe one tor two of those shots, but It was after a pneumonia or shingle, vaccine I had the most sore arm I can ever recall.

I suppose if the all the anti-vaccinators were correct then with the amount of vaccines Ive gotten in my life, I technically am a ' Waliking Dead " zombie like the mummy or Frankentein, or Dracula out their looking to suck the pure un-vaccinated blood...........Make America Fat Again { MAFA } with only the pure-breeds blood and scrap all of the science poo-poo.......the vaccinated dead are amongest us........(( @ v. .v @ )).....I see all of you their at your PC's, unaware of the powers I now have to smell your purest blood over the internet......I smell you!!!!...Your blood is strong Duke of Earl......
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/bloodsucking-cinema

#112
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
DO....WE....HAVE.... TIME....TO....SEE....THINGS...... FOR.....OUR....SELVES?

Very basic yes or no question. 
#113
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
So when you're trusting an expert , do you accept what the person says as being true outright on its face?
#114
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,242
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
No, I read their study, see what other experts also have to say, and if all that supports their claim, I trust them.

That’s if I have time on my hands. In the case that I don’t, I obviously don’t outright believe what they say, but I recognize that they’ve spent their lives studying this topic, and have a much greater chance of being right about their opinion than I do. The one thing I do check is if they are actually an expert or not, because some news sources get the worst people to talk about something, and play it up like they’re the top of their field.
Topic's author
#115
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
The one thing I do check is if they are actually an expert or not
How?
#116
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,329
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Moozer325
ADL...." How? "...

1} check reviews,

2} get 2nd expert opinion,

3} gut feelings about the expert we choose, after spending time disscussing the issue,

4} do your own research prior to seeing an expert,

I saw vid of Steve Jobs on stage saying how he wished he had gone the chemo-therapy pathway, instead of the wholistics-type pathway for his cancer.

So now we get into options, presuming the they exist. 

Eventually it comes to trust/faith in Universe that, whatever will be will be, the futures not ours to see, casa-ra sara.

If annesthsia is needed, then we trust the expert doctor and the anesthesiologist, and the PA's, and the RN's etc.

Unintentional errors do occur.   In expert staff we trust.

Intentional malpractice   ---malconduct/malbehavior---  is whole other pathway we will avoid at this time

Oh yeah, avoid  OGParrots 3rd grader advice.

..." Third graders are no longer learning to read; now they’re reading to learn. They’re reading longer books with chapters and using more complex reading strategies.
They also should be able to:
  • Use reading strategies such as asking questions, making inferences and summarizing.
  • Describe characters in a story.
  • Understand the different genres of fiction.
  • Determine the main idea and details in non-fiction texts.
  • Use and understand text features in non-fiction texts.
  • Use context clues to learn new vocabulary.
  • Compare and contrast information from texts."...
#117
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Experts become authorities in their fields by demonstrating their knowledge and abilities
Which is to say they have the best argument.
If presenting the best argument is the profession they're in, then sure. Otherwise it's largely irrelevant.

with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates.
"results" that are a not a subset of "the best argument" is irrelevant.
That's ridiculous.

A mechanic can explain to you all day long why your car is not running and what needs to be done to fix it, it's not till your car is actually running again that he proves he knows what he's talking about and should therefore be taken seriously.

If I went back in time (or to sentinel island) with a bunch of antibiotics claiming to be a prophet of god would "the results" be all the "miracles" I did?
One does not need to have subject matter expertise when they are able to wield the power of God. Wrong subject.
#118
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,242
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I Google their name and see what other experts in the field have to say.

Basically a shorter version of what ebuc just said.
Topic's author
#119
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
I Google their name and see what other experts in the field have to say.
Wait a second, how did you populate the set of "experts" in the first place?

You say "other experts" but that implies you've already identified a group of experts that can be used to validate new candidates. How did you validate the first expert when there were no other recognized experts?


Basically a shorter version of what ebuc just said.
ebuc is insane and I rarely read his posts.
Topic's author
#120
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,392
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates.
"results" that are a not a subset of "the best argument" is irrelevant.
That's ridiculous.

A mechanic can explain to you all day long why your car is not running and what needs to be done to fix it, it's not till your car is actually running again that he proves he knows what he's talking about and should therefore be taken seriously.
That is wrong on both counts.
First, you can certainly verify or disprove the mechanics expertise by his explanation if you have enough expertise yourself to understand it or to understand that he is not using terms correctly.

Second, causing the car to run does not prove he is an expert. Some problems solve themselves, an overheated coolant system, engine oil that was too cold until it was brought into the shop, a computer that was reset when he blindly unplugged the battery.

It is a strong indicator, but not the best. The man who knows why the car stopped working and can predict that the same thing will happen after you take the car home is the truer expert.

Moreover if "results" are defined as "fixing something" then what has Anthony Fauci fixed in your sight? What about the people who run the fed? The EPA?

You've witnessed nothing of the sort. All you have is their arguments and in those particular cases you don't even have that.


If I went back in time (or to sentinel island) with a bunch of antibiotics claiming to be a prophet of god would "the results" be all the "miracles" I did?
One does not need to have subject matter expertise when they are able to wield the power of God. Wrong subject.
Antibiotics are "the power of god"?