3 ms·

The simple answer, once again, is we choose our experts based on evidence. By default, the experts in any particular area are the people who have proven they a

by mthoms 6y ago

The simple answer, once again, is we choose our experts based on evidence. By default, the experts in any particular area are the people who have proven they are (based on evidence of education and work experience). The fun fact is, anyone can challenge an expert opinion. Just present compelling evidence that supports your claim. It's okay to have alternate opinions, but don't try and argue they are valid just because you "chose" a different "expert" to believe. Present evidence or GTFO. Please, go troll someone else with your circular reasoning nonsense. You're not being insightful or intellectual, you're being childish.

Lammy 6y ago
I think my reasoning seems circular because we're talking about different things, but I doubt there's one single fact that all 8 billion of us would agree on. Let's try moving our focus of value away from the contents of peoples' beliefs and toward the knowledge that people sincerely believe them and we value the people. I agree that some beliefs (e.g. the vaccine stuff) are actively harmful, but from where I'm sitting it seems like browbeating everyone until they agree with us hasn't been working out too well these last few years. You can keep trying that and hoping for different results, but I've found more actual success in these matters by changing my own views in the way I'm describing. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who is telling you you're being insincere, ya know? :)
- mthoms 6y ago
  > I doubt there's one single fact that all 8 billion of us would agree on. So, we should cater to the lowest common denominator of human intelligence/education? Sorry but no. That's both illogical and impractical. > Let's try moving our focus of value away from the contents of peoples' beliefs and toward the knowledge that people sincerely believe them and we value the people[...] it seems like browbeating everyone until they agree with us hasn't been working out too well [...] One can be tactful and understanding without compromising truth. The definition of words matter. You can't tell people their alternate views are "facts" or "truths" just because they believe them. As (I think) we've agreed, strong evidence is required before we can describe an idea as anything approaching truth. > A person's sincere belief in something is what that makes that thing true. and > the only thing that makes something factual is when enough people share the same opinion about it. Attempting to bend the meaning of the words "truth" and "fact" to include "opinion" is an extraordinarily dangerous idea. The end result can only be an Orwellian nightmare where nothing, and everything, is true. I don't want to live in that world. >It's hard to have a conversation with someone who is telling you you're being insincere, You seemed insincere because you were exclusively responding with drive by, single sentence comments whose only goal was to disingenuously poke a hole in the previous comment via circular reasoning. You weren't presenting an actual coherent argument (until now). I think your approach is great. Let's be more empathetic and understanding. Let's educate people about objective reasoning and evidence-based approaches. But, let's do it without compromising truth.

by mthoms 6y ago

Lammy 6y ago

I think my reasoning seems circular because we're talking about different things, but I doubt there's one single fact that all 8 billion of us would agree on. Let's try moving our focus of value away from the contents of peoples' beliefs and toward the knowledge that people sincerely believe them and we value the people. I agree that some beliefs (e.g. the vaccine stuff) are actively harmful, but from where I'm sitting it seems like browbeating everyone until they agree with us hasn't been working out too well these last few years. You can keep trying that and hoping for different results, but I've found more actual success in these matters by changing my own views in the way I'm describing. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who is telling you you're being insincere, ya know? :)

mthoms 6y ago
> I doubt there's one single fact that all 8 billion of us would agree on. So, we should cater to the lowest common denominator of human intelligence/education? Sorry but no. That's both illogical and impractical. > Let's try moving our focus of value away from the contents of peoples' beliefs and toward the knowledge that people sincerely believe them and we value the people[...] it seems like browbeating everyone until they agree with us hasn't been working out too well [...] One can be tactful and understanding without compromising truth. The definition of words matter. You can't tell people their alternate views are "facts" or "truths" just because they believe them. As (I think) we've agreed, strong evidence is required before we can describe an idea as anything approaching truth. > A person's sincere belief in something is what that makes that thing true. and > the only thing that makes something factual is when enough people share the same opinion about it. Attempting to bend the meaning of the words "truth" and "fact" to include "opinion" is an extraordinarily dangerous idea. The end result can only be an Orwellian nightmare where nothing, and everything, is true. I don't want to live in that world. >It's hard to have a conversation with someone who is telling you you're being insincere, You seemed insincere because you were exclusively responding with drive by, single sentence comments whose only goal was to disingenuously poke a hole in the previous comment via circular reasoning. You weren't presenting an actual coherent argument (until now). I think your approach is great. Let's be more empathetic and understanding. Let's educate people about objective reasoning and evidence-based approaches. But, let's do it without compromising truth.