Steve, With the modifications it would appear that we are essentially in agreement. I would like to add something though; one thing that makes an expert witness more credible is when they are able to make simplified but acurate explanations of how they arrive at certain conclusions. For example if an archeloogist claims that a room that has been dug up near the Dead Sea was used for writing scriptures, then I would like to hear why he or she has come to this conslusion. I would also like to hear arguments against this conclusion presented by other experts who hold different views. If no experts hold other views then I would still like to hear other opinions and explanations. Occaisionally the odd opinion comes from an expert in the making.
On Nov 13, 4:58 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael and All, > > So long as we define appeal to authority as you have, i.e., "to take > someone's word because they are deemed an expert in the area, without > verifying a claim yourself," I agree with this, but with one caveat: > It will not always be possible to verify something independently if we > don't have the primary data in hand, or if we don't' have the > educational prerequisites in a particular field. By your definition > and example it sounds to me like you mean "no appeal to a single > authority," without credible and corroborating evidence from other > unbiased "authorities." If that's what you mean, then I can agree with > it. > > Remembering that our paradigm for judging between worldviews is the > courtroom and the cumulative case of beyond a reasonable doubt, we > should also keep in mind that courtrooms often bring in expert > witnesses. The character, motivations, qualifications, biases, and > arguments of those expert witnesses must also be evaluated as to their > credibility. So, in the end, I agree that the two statements which I > thought were contradictory are not so if we clarify the definitions of > them as follows: (1) "no appeal to a single authority" and (2) > "independent confirmation from other credible authorities, who, > themselves present valid, verifiable evidence." In other words, we > would not allow an appeal to a single authority and we would want to > see independent confirmation from other credible authorities based on > their valid, verifiable evidence. > > I think we're essentially in agreement on this basis. What do you > think? > > Steve > > On Nov 13, 4:56 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Steve and All, > > > On page 6 you have foot note #2 at the bottom that reads: > > > 2 Just my own observation here for further discussion: it seems to me, > > that "independent confirmation of the > > > statement from other groups (#15) and "no appeal to authority > > figure" (#19) are logically contradictory. I propose > > > that we eliminate these two elements from the category of > > correspondence. By the same token, it seems to me > > > that "stands up to critique from multiple independent groups" (#17) is > > an appeal to authority and should therefore > > > also be eliminated. > > > I do not agree with you that independent verification and appeal to > > authority, as typically meant, are contradictory. I think that appeal > > to authority means to take someone's word because they are deemed an > > expert in the area, without verifying a claim yourself. On the other > > hand, I will give an example of independent verification that in my > > mind increases the chances of a statement being true. Imagine two > > people who are in a dark restaurant and each one can barely read the > > menu. One reads the price of a certain entree and without telling the > > other asks them what they read. If they come to the same in answer in > > this case, the first person is more likely to be right then if the > > second person has a different answer (though in this case the first > > person could still be right). Do you agree and does this explain my > > point satisfactorily? > > > On Nov 13, 4:53 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Discussion on the Development of Criteria by which to Evaluate > > > the Plausability Worldviews > > > November 10, 2008 > > > Introduction > > > This document serves as a summary (sort of like minutes to the > > > meeting) of the discussion held > > > last Monday night. The indivuals whose emails are listed below were > > > present at the meeting: > > > * Jason ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Liz (I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm remembering her name correctly) > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Michael ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Debbie ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Steve W. ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Brad ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Noah ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > * Trace ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trace brought notes from Steve who > > > was in England) > > > * Steve E. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Steve Ethridge began by: > > > 1. Reviewing that, at the previous meeting, Chris had asked him to > > > present his idea of > > > having the group discuss and try to agree on a set of criteria by > > > which the plausibility of > > > various worldviews could be evaluated, recognizing that few > > > conclusions reach the level > > > of 100% certainty or certitude, but that we should be able to evaulate > > > them using a > > > cumulative case, in the same way that a courtroom makes decisions; > > > i.e., "beyond a > > > reasonable doubt." > > > 2. Confirming that this was still something that the group wanted to > > > do, to which all were > > > in agreement. > > > Overview of the Process > > > Having gained agreement to procede, Steve then proposed a process for > > > the discussion to > > > follow, to which the group agreed. This process consisted of the > > > following steps: > > > 1. Brainstorm criteria. Brainstorming meant to just think about and > > > suggest various > > > criteria, at first, without (as much as possible) evaulating or > > > criticizing the criteria > > > themselves; evaluation was to be a later step in the process. It was > > > acknowledged that > > > during the brainstorming process, it would be necessary to define > > > briefly what was > > > meant by a criterion, but that the next stage would need to define > > > them more clearly. > > > 2 > > > 2. Define what is meant by each of the criteria in more complete, > > > clear terms. This stage > > > would involve more critical evaluation of the criteria. > > > 3. Critically evaluate the defined criteria to reach consensus on > > > which to keep. > > > 4. Then, once the group reached a consensus on the criteria and their > > > definitions, we > > > would pick a worldview and subit it to the criteria, followed by the > > > next world view, and > > > so on, until all or most of the major ones have been evaluated. (Trace > > > wisely suggested > > > that we pick a "neutral" one as our first test case, to which the > > > group agreed). > > > Steve suggested that this process may take several weeks at each of > > > these stages and that the > > > whole process may take months. Everyone seemed to agree that as long > > > as the discussion was > > > fruitful we would continue. > > > Having gained agreement from the group on this process, Steve then > > > presented a few, minimal, > > > assumptions that such a discussion implies, to see if the group could > > > agree to hold to these > > > assumptions. These assumptions were, in no particular order: > > > 1. That there is such a thing as truth. The group acknowledged that > > > there are various types > > > or approaches to truth and agreed not to get bogged down in those > > > details at this point, > > > but rather to simply agree that, yes, there is "such a thing as > > > truth." > > > 2. That we are all honest, ethical, reasonable people and that the > > > ethics of belief or > > > adherence to a worldview obligate us to search for criteria > > > (standards) by which to > > > judge worldviews; i.e., standards that can be used to discern the > > > truth of a worldview. > > > 3. That we should not rule out, a‐priori, the possibility that there > > > could be more than one > > > valid worldview. Although we may end up concluding that there is only > > > one valid > > > worldview, our process is to give a "fair hearing" to all of them > > > (again, as in a > > > courtroom). This requires us to evaluate the belief‐worthiness of the > > > various > > > worldviews as objectively as possible, meaning that we each have to > > > temporarily > > > suspend our own presuppositional bias toward our own personally held > > > worldview for > > > purposes of this discussion. Not that we're giving up our acceptance > > > of that world view > > > in our own minds but rather that we, as much as possible, acknowledge > > > our own biases > > > and try to hold them in suspension. > > > Having gained agreement on these basic assumptions, we then began the > > > brainstorming > > > process. What follows is a listing of criteria that were suggested by > > > the group during the > > > brainstormin session. > > > Brainstormed Criteria > > > These are verbatim comments that I wrote down in my notes as each one > > > was mentioned. > > > These are numbered below in the order that they came up in the > > > disucssion. These numbers > > > 3 > > > are referred to later in this document for reference. As you read > > > these you may recognize that > > > some of the criteria, themselves, have worldview implications or > > > presuppositions, but > > > remember that the evaulation of these comes later. You will also > > > notice that there may be > > > some redundancy or overlap among some of the suggested criteria. > > > 1. The Bible is truth. > > > 2. Emperical > > > 3. Correspondance/fit/correlation with our experience/the real world > > > 4. Explanatory - worldview seems to be capable of explaining all > > > experience or, > > > where it isn't, the world view admits that some other worldview covers > > > another > > > area. > > > 5. It can't violate something that takes our own experience to grasp. > > > 6. Logic - an argument offered as evidence must be sound. Conclusion > > > must follow > > > unavoidably from premises which must be true. > > > 7. Falsifiable - possible to think of evidence to prove false > > > 8. Comprehensiveness ‐‐ the scope and range of the theory in terms of > > > how allencompassing > > > it is. Evidence must be exhaustible and all available must be > > > considered. > > > 9. Have honesty - evidence evaluated without self deception > > > 10. Replicability - If evidence could be logically explained as > > > coincidental it should be > > > repeatable to same result. > > > 11. Sufficiency - (1) burden of proof rests on the claimant; (2) > > > extraordinary claims > > > requires extraordinary evidence; (2) hearsay evidence is always > > > inadequate. > > > 12. To have honestly looked at other peoples' view points.- Hide quoted > > > text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
