I know all sorts of experts in areas big and small, like we all do. I trust many of them and have learned something from almost all of them. I've learned so much from some of them I've become an expert myself. Is there supposed to be some shame in admitting that someone has superior knowledge of a subject than you do all of the sudden? Doing so doesn't mean you're dumb, it means you're probably pretty smart.

EPA Climate Policy Expert Sentenced To 32 Months For Fraud

http://www.weather.com/news/science/envi......20131219

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53853438

Cool

NYCTwister wrote:

Well if your post was an example of the moral thinking of this current society, then I'd have to agree with you. Who do you think Jesus would have saved?

Jesus would have saved em both, cause, ya know, he could.

I'm an atheist sir.
My post was about the article, and what I thought the author was trying to say; about the reasons people thought they had the right to expect their opinion to matter, as much as an expert on a particular subject
As I said, I've thought a lot about the reasons why the earth isn't a paradise when, in my opinion, it should be.
I've come to the conclusion that ALL ORGANIZED religions are the major cause of our problems.
I could write a long post on this but the Café frowns on religious discussion. Quite forcefully in fact.
Think about this though. For the vast majority of history, people have believed in one form of organized religion or another. The result of those beliefs is all around us.
Why do you think that is?

I suspect you're right. What do you think He would have told you to do?

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your frank discussion of your opinions, NYCTwister. My objection to your post about expertise was that you somehow equate expertise in a limited field to the worthiness of being saved above another human being. I think your argument goes off the rails there.

Now I was not attacking your disbelief in religion; I only brought up Jesus as a possible moral compass that we might agree with in some abstract way, a symbol of the old school morality that you seemed to long for. But that's cool if his words don't resonate with you. I'm an agnostic myself.

What I was addressing however, was the ultra-utilitarian view that a person's worth is determined by the kind of degree s/he has or the profession s/he is in, or yes, the expertise obtained. I would say the view that some people are more worthy of life itself than others (as outlined in your thought experiment) has probably caused more destruction than any other belief in the history of humankind including the belief in a God or gods.

But I do think all this is pretty much afield from the original OP.

My post was to show the general lack of consideration given to the work needed to achieve expertise.
This in turn has allowed the perception to creep in that everyone's opinion is as valid, simply because they have one. To me this stems from the general feeling that all are equal.

People always seem to default to "who are you to tell me my opinion isn't as good as the other persons facts".
They seem insulted to even have to consider the question.
At least in my experience.

It is an assumption to say that my meaning was that a persons worth is based on the degree they have.
My meaning was that a persons worth should be based on the amount of effort they put into their life. This is what I thought the author of the article was alluding to.

Think me unfeeling if you want, but to me a bum who sits down and relies on the pity of others, is not as valuable as a person who devotes his life to healing. One consumes more than he produces, the other produces more than he consumes, regardless of his personal economics. He helps people live better lives whether, directly or indirectly. Or at least he tries to.
Of course you couldn't attack my religious beliefs since I hadn't stated what they were.

It is also exactly religions viewpoint that some people are more worthy of life than others.
What, in your opinion is all the killing in gods name been about? Granted most of the leaders used their followers beliefs to manipulate them into committing these atrocities, but it was the followers "beliefs" that had to allow them to obey the orders.

As far as jesus is concerned, the point is moot, and the experiment cannot apply.

If he were the one to choose, being supposedly all powerful then of course he could save them both. He wouldn't break a sweat.

If he were standing next to me I'd expect him to do the same. I would not want anyone to die. I would simply choose seeing that I had to.

If, and recognize that we have left the realm of rational thought far behind by this point, he were standing besides me and, for whatever reason could only counsel me, then what he said wouldn't matter to me. I would still use my own mind and make the same judgment call. Every single time.

The fact that I may find out later that I'd made the wrong choice, wouldn't cause me to regret my decision. I would simply learn that my judgment had been wrong, would learn what I could, and move on. Hopefully what I'd learn would cause me to make better decisions in the future.

Let me put the experiment to you. Given the criteria, who would you save, and why?

So if the two people hanging from the cliff were Van Gogh and Dr. Gachet, you would save Van Gogh's doctor?

Seriously superficial judgement there, NYCTwister, don't you think? Reflective, I'd say, of our societal problems. Pot, kettle, if you will. How do you know who those guys are- could be a couple of actors, with great rock climbing skills, conducting a social experiment. Play within a play, here, see? I'd call 911, I think, close both eyes, hold out both hands and heave the first one to grab back onto safe land, and let the Scary Librarian haul the other one. You really go around asking people this question outside of the Magic Café?



How are you different, then? If that's the case, you've sprung up your own religion, looks like, though I'd say yours is already out there.



Perhaps. But who's to say?

Where'd you get that idea?

[quote]On 2014-01-25 14:06, magicalaurie wrote:
Seriously superficial judgement there, NYCTwister, don't you think? Reflective, I'd say, of our societal problems. Pot, kettle, if you will. How do you know who those guys are- could be a couple of actors, with great rock climbing skills, conducting a social experiment. Play within a play, here, see? I'd call 911, I think, close both eyes, hold out both hands and heave the first one to grab back onto safe land, and let the Scary Librarian haul the other one. You really go around asking people this question outside of the Magic Café?

What are you talking about?
Did you even read the question?
What play within a play? What fool would place himself on the brink of certain death for a "social experiment"? Hmmm?
It is a HYPOTHETICAL question, and yes, I do ask it as a way of judging the value system of the person I'm speaking to if our conversations get that far.
I like to know as much about the people I may deal with. Potential friends and such.
It just seems like the reasonable thing to do, but thank you for the sarcastic innuendo.

Religious people DO judge others by their faith and consider others to be less than them.
They do it relentlessly and without, to my mind, the necessary shame.
Christians say that they know how others should live, and tell them they need to be saved. If you really stretch your brain you might consider that not feeling superior.
Right now, people are being killed by the followers of another religion, PRECISELY because they do not believe the same way.
So how can you say that those followers do not consider themselves superior?

As for how I'm different, well I see what I see and I judge it. What I see is a world full of unnecessary irrationality and say so.
I also see what I see, which is rampant, unapologetic stupidity and seek the cause, and this has led me to my conclusions.
Am I not entitled to think and, having done so, speak and act upon those thoughts?
Why? Because I'm in the minority?
Well thanks, that's very tolerant and understanding.
I do have to live on this earth. Do I not have the right to be allowed to express my opinion?
The simple fact is that the vast majority of people have, and still continue to, believe in something that cannot be proven.
They dance and squirm around any need to provide such proof, but they never provide it.
These people have made the majority of societies decisions, throughout our history, and look at the results.

Also, how am I starting my own religion?
A typical attempt which is always left hanging out there, as if just saying it makes it true, hoping it goes uncontested.
Sorry, but here I am.
Atheists do not tell others how to live. We simply ask that people use logic and reason to base their decisions on.
How terrible of us. Asking people that perhaps they should use their brain to judge our SHARED reality and act accordingly.
If a person believes, personally, in this religion or that, I do not care. They are free to believe what they wish.
It is ORGANIZED religion that atheists have a problem with and , to us rightfully so, since we have to live here too, and deal with the resulting mess on a daily basis.

You also quoted, out of context, "we've left the realm of rational thought".
Perhaps if you'd left it in context, you wouldn't have made that old attempt.

As for the last thing you said about the dominant species, and who's to say? Well I am, as I clearly stated.
Which species can perceive and shape reality better than humans?
Humans possess no great strength, compared to other species, and are born and stay helpless, at least compared to other species.
If you pit man against many animals, man vs. bear, man vs. lion, without any weapons, and man loses. Badly.
It is ONLY our rational mind that has allowed us to become what we are. To build better and better shelters and invent countless things.

You were right about one thing, and that is there is some "superficial judgment" going on here.
However I am not the one guilty of it.

Since this might be my last post here, since I've come to understand the arbitrary criteria for being banned, let me say I couldn't care less.
Human beings, as a whole believe that, for some reason, we can never go the way of other extinct species.
We can, and we are heading that way.
The only difference is that we will be the only species that had the dubious distinction of having done it to ourselves.
If anyone says to me that it won't happen because somehow, someway, someone will do SOMETHING, then at least I will know that I wasn't one of the of the naive.

One more thing.

This forum could really use an edit feature. ;0

[quote]On 2014-01-25 17:58, NYCTwister wrote:


Can't argue with that.

In offering this book to the public the writer uses no sophistry as an excuse for its existence. The hypocritical cant of reformed (?) gamblers, or whining, mealy-mouthed pretensions of piety, are not foisted as a justification for imparting the knowledge it contains. To all lovers of card games it should prove interesting, and as a basis of card entertainment it is practically inexhaustible. It may caution the unwary who are innocent of guile, and it may inspire the crafty by enlightenment on artifice. It may demonstrate to the tyro that he cannot beat a man at his own game, and it may enable the skilled in deception to take a post-graduate course in the highest and most artistic branches of his vocation. But it will not make the innocent vicious, or transform the pastime player into a professional; or make the fool wise, or curtail the annual crop of suckers; but whatever the result may be, if it sells it will accomplish the primary motive of the author, as he needs the money.

-The Expert at the Card Table

I didn't write that, arthur. And there IS an edit feature, NYC. Look closer.



If I'm being honest, and I am, I can see why they might not get that far.

The penalty for being wrong is ...

Going back to the OP...

I've been running into this for years too, but my perception is a little different than that in the article -- it's more in tune with those of you who mentioned a lack of trust. And this is where it gets interesting.

Back in New York State I used to work for a major scenic fabrication company, doing projects for theme parks, opera companies, and such all over the world. During the six years I was there I noticed a change in attitude, which leaned towards not wanting to admit that someone else knew more than they did. This particular company was world-class fantastic at doing some types of work, but were no good at doing others, and they were no good simply because they just didn't know how to do those types of work. Unfortunately, those "others" were becoming a good source of business, so they didn't want to turn them down. So, instead of learning how to do those types of work (which involved trusting people outside their little circle), they insisted on making it up as they went. It was a disaster. I started calling it "arrogant ignorance," and it was the major reason I left the company.

More recently, here in CA, I was working with a company where management made mistakes but didn't want to admit they made them, so they proceeded to defend their mistakes at the cost of some serious revenue. It was like they were afraid to admit they had made a mistake. They even hired an outside consultant, who told them exactly what they needed to do, and they proceeded to ignore the recommendations to avoid upsetting those who were obviously wrong for their position.

In the same company, I found repeated instances of junior management going along with what their superiors told them to do, even though, from the looks on their faces, they knew it was incorrect.

What I'm seeing here, over a fifteen-year period, is two things: 1) Being afraid of admitting that someone else knows more than you, and, 2) Being afraid to admit you made a mistake. The operative phrase in both cases is "being afraid."

As someone told me many years ago, mistakes are for learning from, but you can't learn from a mistake unless you fess up and accept it.

Donna works in medicine, and she is continually amazed at the number of doctors who order every possible test in the book on a patient, even though most of the tests are unnecessary. To her, it's either a way for the doctor to cover his tush, or just being lazy, or both. In her experience (and she's been doing exactly the same thing for over thirty years), a lot of younger doctors don't have any common sense: they just go by the numbers.

So, IMHO, thinking that you're on a par with experts goes back to something else I wrote about here a few weeks ago. When the tools for doing a job become so readily available that anyone can have access to them, people start to think that they can do the job too without any training. I mentioned several fields where I saw this happen, including desktop publishing and graphic design. I run into it in my field--theatrical set design--all the time: with tools like SketchUp, Blender, and a few free CAD programs, anyone can design a set. Hey, there's nothing to it. Just put this here and that there. So why bother with a guy who spent seven years trainig for the job and expects to get paid? And we're seeing the same thing in magic: anyone can buy a few tricks, get some free biz cards printed, and go pro overnight. Hey, there's nothing to it; most of these tricks work themselves. No practice needed.

So, here we go again: being afraid to admit that someone else knows more than you (hey, I can go to Wikipedia and find a diagnosis for colon cancer too--I don't need a doctor to tell me that), or that you made a mistake (I didn't make a mistake--the other guy did; he's reponsible, not me).

Why is this happening? I can guess (I have my own personal opinion), but I don't know. I just see it happening more and more all the time.

As for the conversations, it often doesn't go that far. Works for me. Saves me a lot of time.

"they insisted on making it up as they went. It was a disaster."

and the price of being wrong was...