4 ms·

Let's take the Galileo case. There were a consensus of experts on Aristotelian cosmology, the best rational worldview of that day, and Galileo's model did not

by yters 6y ago

Let's take the Galileo case. There were a consensus of experts on Aristotelian cosmology, the best rational worldview of that day, and Galileo's model did not match observations at that point. So, his proposal was rejected. Obviously, Galileo was right to not listen to the consensus of experts in that case. So, what makes current scientific consensus different than the Aristotelian consensus of Galileo's day? Why are dissidents wrong to question modern scientific consensus (of which climate change is only one controversial element), but right to question the medieval consensus? In both cases, the consensus meets the then current standard for rational worldview, so we can't use hindsight.

vaidhy 6y ago
The answer is in the second part.. Galileo was willing to go deep to find the answers. It is perfectly fine to challenge the status quo and the experts, but do so only if you have spent the time to do the research and have facts to back up your claims (or invalidate theirs)
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
As I indicated, Galileo was an expert dissident, who had spent years looking at the question, and so he could rationally reject the consensus of the other experts. You can still do that today. A expert person today can absolutely disagree with climate change or any other consensus theory. But for most of these issues, the amount of time required to be an expert, even a dissenting expert, is counted in 5-10 years of full time work on the subject. If someone is such a person and they disagree with climate change consensus, I highly encourage them to continue pursuing their line of reasoning. We need people like them in all fields. On the other hand, if someone has read a couple of books, or taken a few courses, or looked at the issue for a couple of months, I am going to completely ignore them. Particularly, a common person in the 1600s, who had not spent years studying the stars, but claimed that the Aristotelians were wrong, was doing himself a disservice.
- yters 6y ago
  Alright, so it looks like the conclusion of this discussion is Sagan is not quite correct, there are plenty of situations where arguments from authority are indeed valid, if the authority is conferred by the consensus of experts in the subject. One is only justified in dissenting from the authority of experts if one has spent 10-15 years diving deep into the subject to become an expert themselves. I assume another area where dissent from authority is justified is when experts make claims outside their realm of expertise, since they themselves have not fulfilled the requirement to become an authority in the field. This also brings up the question as to what makes an expert. Is someone a self appointed expert? Or, if a group appoints themselves as experts, if they've studied a subject enough? Or, is expertise validated empirically by making predictions that are correct more often than those made by non experts? If a body of labelled experts make predictions which consistently are incorrect, are they experts? Do they retain their authority conferred by being a group of experts? What we really need is a consensus of experts in expertise and authority :)
  - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    Nope. You are using the word "authority" in a way that Carl Sagan did not. When he says "argument from authority", he means that someone declares that what they say is true is because of their position in the sociopolitical hierarchy, and no other reason. On the other hand, an expert claims that what they say is true because they have spent 10 years to distinguish truth from falsehood; and you can read their analysis and papers to figure out exactly what they discovered. Morever, scientific models and theories are presented in a way that, in principle, some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done and reach the same conclusions. So Carl Sagan is arguing against "argument from sociopolitical hierarchy to prove objective facts about the natural world". He is, and most reasonable people, are in favor of "argument from expert who has demonstrably done a lot of work on the subject, and you don't have the time to go through the whole exercise yourself, so you will believe her". Of course, as you say, determining, who is or is not an expert is a very difficult question in the real world. I am not going to comment on it.
    - yters 6y ago
- yters 6y ago
  Alright, here's another example. Let's say I'm living in Nazi Germany, and the top population geneticists are unanimous in their opinion that Jews are an inferior and evil race, seeking to undermine the volk. I'm pretty sure they're wrong, Jews seem just as human as myself. Am I justified in dissenting from the authority of experts, even though I myself have not put in the 10-15 years of researching population genetics to become an expert? I would say so. What gives me this right to dissent from the authority of consensus of experts?

by yters 6y ago

vaidhy 6y ago

The answer is in the second part.. Galileo was willing to go deep to find the answers. It is perfectly fine to challenge the status quo and the experts, but do so only if you have spent the time to do the research and have facts to back up your claims (or invalidate theirs)

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

As I indicated, Galileo was an expert dissident, who had spent years looking at the question, and so he could rationally reject the consensus of the other experts. You can still do that today. A expert person today can absolutely disagree with climate change or any other consensus theory. But for most of these issues, the amount of time required to be an expert, even a dissenting expert, is counted in 5-10 years of full time work on the subject. If someone is such a person and they disagree with climate change consensus, I highly encourage them to continue pursuing their line of reasoning. We need people like them in all fields. On the other hand, if someone has read a couple of books, or taken a few courses, or looked at the issue for a couple of months, I am going to completely ignore them. Particularly, a common person in the 1600s, who had not spent years studying the stars, but claimed that the Aristotelians were wrong, was doing himself a disservice.

yters 6y ago
Alright, so it looks like the conclusion of this discussion is Sagan is not quite correct, there are plenty of situations where arguments from authority are indeed valid, if the authority is conferred by the consensus of experts in the subject. One is only justified in dissenting from the authority of experts if one has spent 10-15 years diving deep into the subject to become an expert themselves. I assume another area where dissent from authority is justified is when experts make claims outside their realm of expertise, since they themselves have not fulfilled the requirement to become an authority in the field. This also brings up the question as to what makes an expert. Is someone a self appointed expert? Or, if a group appoints themselves as experts, if they've studied a subject enough? Or, is expertise validated empirically by making predictions that are correct more often than those made by non experts? If a body of labelled experts make predictions which consistently are incorrect, are they experts? Do they retain their authority conferred by being a group of experts? What we really need is a consensus of experts in expertise and authority :)
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Nope. You are using the word "authority" in a way that Carl Sagan did not. When he says "argument from authority", he means that someone declares that what they say is true is because of their position in the sociopolitical hierarchy, and no other reason. On the other hand, an expert claims that what they say is true because they have spent 10 years to distinguish truth from falsehood; and you can read their analysis and papers to figure out exactly what they discovered. Morever, scientific models and theories are presented in a way that, in principle, some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done and reach the same conclusions. So Carl Sagan is arguing against "argument from sociopolitical hierarchy to prove objective facts about the natural world". He is, and most reasonable people, are in favor of "argument from expert who has demonstrably done a lot of work on the subject, and you don't have the time to go through the whole exercise yourself, so you will believe her". Of course, as you say, determining, who is or is not an expert is a very difficult question in the real world. I am not going to comment on it.
  - yters 6y ago
yters 6y ago
Alright, here's another example. Let's say I'm living in Nazi Germany, and the top population geneticists are unanimous in their opinion that Jews are an inferior and evil race, seeking to undermine the volk. I'm pretty sure they're wrong, Jews seem just as human as myself. Am I justified in dissenting from the authority of experts, even though I myself have not put in the 10-15 years of researching population genetics to become an expert? I would say so. What gives me this right to dissent from the authority of consensus of experts?