Where was a link to said post?
Why are you making hard to properly assess your perspectives and arguments?
1 Like
Iâm with you on this one, Richard. Youâve raised a very good point in this thread, and if people just end up arguing about whether or not it is about evolution, they are only going to derail it. So, @Bill_II and @Dale, could we just stay on topic please?
With that off my chest, here are my thoughts on the subject matter at hand.
Personally, I prefer to look at the substance of the argument before considering the credentials of the person making it. Ground-breaking ideas can often come from outsiders, while established experts arenât always honest (they may have conflicts of interest, for example being paid by the oil industry to deny man made climate change). In particular, I start off by asking if it has any particularly egregious errors that are within my competence to check. For example, does it demonstrate failings of basic GCSE mathematics, obvious logical fallacies, or sloppiness in its methodology? If they canât get the basics that I am able to fact-check right, why should they expect me to believe that they are any better with the more esoteric stuff that I am not?
If it doesnât, then I will start to consider expert opinion, but I will expect the experts to explain why the consensus is what it is. If there are two sides to the argument, and one side is backing up its case with evidence, data, experiments, measurements and demonstrations, while the other side is only saying âso-and-so said this,â then it is the side that is presenting evidence, data, experiments, measurements and demonstrations that I will consider to be credible.
Ad hominem arguments arenât always completely useless. In fact there are two forms of ad hominem argument that can carry considerable weight: conflicts of interest and an established track record of dishonesty. Credentials are a somewhat weaker argument though, for reasons that Iâve already stated.
8 Likes
So, following your arguments. Your participation in this thread is due to your authority and standing. And I should just bow down and accept it.
Richard
PS And I am enjoying counting the number of people (sheep?) who apparently agree with you
Expertise matters but is not a proof of being right. My background is from biology and I have been taught and also been telling myself that facts matter, not who is the person who claims something. Teaching in natural sciences relies on facts. The opinions of experts are not that important if they are not based on facts.
After retiring, I have started basic studies in theology. The culture seems to be very different. Qualifications of experts, opinions in commentaries and the theological background of experts seem to matter a lot, often more than facts.
To some extent I can understand it. Knowledge of language (Hebrew and Greek) helps to avoid misunderstandings based on translations. Knowledge of ancient cultures helps the understanding of many passages that would be hard to understand without it. Knowledge of theological debate around passages that may be difficult to understand or translate helps a lot. Because of this kind of issues, I listen carefully on what an expert of language or history is saying but I try to remember that what is important is facts, not opinions of experts or traditions of interpretation.
Opinions of those who are not experts can be so far from facts that it would be too time consuming and frustrating to read and try to correct the false opinions. Yet, if a non-expert seems to say something credible, I listen. Who says is less important than the facts.
The sad point in these discussions is that non-experts may sometimes be quite convincing when they tell about their misguided interpretations. Being convincing is not a proof of being right. An expert may spot the errors more rapidly than the inexperienced, both in biology and in theology.
3 Likes
Theology, particularly American theology, suffers from more train wrecks in Yale level theologians, cited on this Evangelical site, than Princeton level physicists and biologists do in their spheres.
False premise.
Leads to invalid conclusion.
What are the standards required to participate?
Not subtle insult coming from a preacher. Who would have thunk it.
1 Like
This is a discussion forum. My participation here is not producing âargumentsâ that challenge accepted scholarship, nor am I asking people to evaluate my arguments. I mostly just inform people of what reliable experts say. When I have wanted to argue for something, I have written up my ideas with appropriate citations, gone through an editorial process, and gotten articles published. My arguments have been evaluated by peers with expertise, not random conversation partners on the internet, and my credentials are listed so people can evaluate whether I am worth listening to. I donât expect anyone to value what I say on an internet discussion board just because I said it.
2 Likes
I think you are taking your adversarial stance against me a little too enthusiastically.and it may even damage your standing interms of being able to understand and apply an argument.
Despite protests, I stand by my analysis of what ChristyChristy HemphillModerator wrote on this thread and I will leave it to the readers to decide if it was correct or not. I am not going to belittle either you or myself by explaining or justifying it.
I found it to be a direct insult of me and anyone who is deemed unworthy of anything other than ModerationâŚ
âYou brood of Vipersâ is much more vicious.
Richard
1 Like
To be clear, I am not going to respond directly because what I wrote was too laced with anger.
I know that I am only the fool who blabbers on about gaps in Evolution, but I think that there are others who may not be aware of their standing on this Forum.
Richard
Is it an ad-hominem to inappropriately accuse someone of an ad-hominem?
That was a sincere question BTW. I mean I have suggested that this was the case in the past but I thought I should check what other people thought about this.
1 Like
Well you missed the humor in that post for sure.
Certainly not the first to complain and probably not the last. I think we have had some in the past that were perhaps more intense.
And no idea what you mean by this.
I would say yes.
Exactly!
Which makes the precise definition of ad hominem very important.
Though looking into the definition reveals there are two uses of this; an ad hominem (which means against the man) and the ad hominem fallacy.
The ad hominem fallacy is an argument that what the other person is saying is wrong because the righteousness of their character is in question. It is basically a red herring fallacy.
But an ad hominem can also refer to simply attacking the person rather than their argument. Though I suppose that can also be considered a distraction in the sense of being off topic⌠this being aside from the fact that most forums and discussion formats prohibit this.
The latter can be difficult because sometimes people feel they are being attacked when such was not the intention of the person thought to be attacking them. Quite a few people seem to see an attack upon their position to be an attack upon them personally.
2 Likes
Exactly. I donât think saying âYou donât have expertise in this subject and clearly donât know what you are talking aboutâ is an attack. Itâs an evaluation. It might not be a fair one. But itâs not necessarily an insult. Sometimes itâs just the facts of the situation.
3 Likes
It could also be a personal attack on one of the other personâs sources, to discredit them and thus, falsely, their argument.
That also calls for considerable caution. Some famous scientists feel qualified to make statements about reality which amount to little more than a philosophical opinion. It can therefore mislead people concerning what sorts of things their expertise actually apply to. Perhaps it can even take an expert to draw the line correctly.
2 Likes
It is the whole element of expertise that causes everything. Once you assign status to the person it reflects on how they are read and how far people will go to try and understand them. It has been made very clear that the âoddballâ outlook is not welcome.
History has proven that it is the lateral thinkers that ultimately change ideas, not the conventional ones. Why should this be any different for Evolution? (for instance!)
Getting people out of their comfort zone is a specialty of mine⌠but it appears not to work here.
Richard
The ones that change science are backed up by data and reality, not analogies that do not correspond to reality.
2 Likes
Who decides what is real? Who decides what is relevant? The expert? Or the reality?
if you do not understand the analogy how can you claim it unreal? If you do not even try to make the connection (because you do not respect the author) you will never see the reality Seeing is not necessarily the only test. But because the analogy is not seen it is deemed useless.
If you do not work in analogies you may not respect them either in terms of relevance or use. (And use is one thing that is mostly denied here)
An argument will only succeed if it is deemed valid. If you deny the validity of the proposer any other validation is negated or unnecessary
Do you understand what I mean by comfort zone?
That is your comfort zone here.
Richard.