Are they in the room with us now? You seem to have google confused with "everyone".
Google is the gateway to what they have to say genius.
It's like you don't understand a search engine finds what you asked for.
It is biased by its very nature, and has 0% chance of representing the views of "everyone".
We base it on whether other experts in the feild regard the individual or the organization as credible.
Which is why your epistemology is no different than a medieval trust in the priesthood.
Still believe the best argument determines the truth regardless of the speaker? Yes I never stop believing that.
You continue to pretend that's where our disagreement is because you can't support your own nonsense with straightforward honest argument.
rofl, I didn't make the original assertion here; although both sides are positive assertions. Want it in concise format?
There is no reason to expect that the conditions which have for the past billion years caused a magnificent abundance of fresh potable water to flow over the surface of the earth will change in the next billion years.
Saying there is "no reason" is not a statement which incurs a burden of proof. You are the one who needs to come up with a reason.
We're not talking about how truth is ultimately determined.
I am.
We're talking about how we deal with the fact that we cannot be experts in everything.
It's simple: If you don't understand don't pretend you do. Shut-up. Your decisions about who experts are is personal and not something that can be debated because expertise is only proven by proving the underlying claim.
Your position appears to be that we never trust any information that we have not verified for ourselves personally
...
Actually no you can't accept the facts you were told because you did not verify those yourself so instead you have to perform all of the experiments yourself in order to establish that the human body does in fact work the way they're telling you it does in order to then read all of the test results for yourself in order to determine that their medical assessment is accurate... Then you'll approve.
No, that's your strawman. In fact you should know very well that I'll trust third party data as I used it to disprove your claim that George Floyd could not have been killed by fentanyl.
You ignored that data by the way because you're scientifically illiterate or practically equivalent due to selective bias.
which followed to it's logical end means if your doctor tells you that you need surgery then you will not accept until you have seen all of the test results and had someone explain every fact of how the human body operates before you approve...
I sure as hell would immediately doubt the expertise of any doctor who refused to explain until we were well outside of my knowledge base.
By then you'll be dead, but at least you didn't appeal to an authority before you formed a belief.
Since that's your strawman, no; but it's not like this is symmetric. I mean the axis powers existed because of trust in so called authorities leading to the deaths of millions.
"Trust but Verify" is the phrase I believe?
