When Genuises Are Certain

[David Sklansky]

I want to precisely define my position on this matter.

First of all my definition of genuis is about the normal one except I don't rate spatial relations, musical ability, or the like as a big part of the assessment. I'm talking about analytical ability. The ability to EASILY get a Phd in subjects like physics, logic, economics, or maybe even law. Not just pure math ability.

My next contention is that such a genuis is a monster favorite to be right when he disagrees with a merely intelligent person in the genuis's chosen field. I doubt that is debatable.

My more debatable contention is that the genuis is a rather big favorite over a moderately intelligent person even when he disagrees about fields outside his expertise, and even if the questions have not yet been decided. AS LONG AS:

1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

2. The genuis is almost certain about his conclusions (which almost certainly means he DID study the subject)

3. The genuis is not one of those idiot savant, can't tie, his shoe types.

4. The subject has a degree of logical thinking involved with it and doesn't require a lot of artistic type talent.

If those four criteria are met, then if you were able to bet on who was right between a random genuis, and a random, kind of smart, person, I say you could certainly lay a big price on the genuis. Exactly how big depends on the subject. But religion definitely is one of them.

[David Sklansky]

Here are three counterarguments. But for various reasons, not strong ones.

1. There might be a psychological bias. Thus if there were somehow good reasons to castrate all genuises and genuises disagreed with the reasoning, we might be less apt to trust them. (Religious people like to cling to this rationalization.)

2. Just because they are a favorite to be right doesn't mean they have to be right. (The problem with that point is that if many genuises all believe the same thing the price gets pretty high.)

3. As long as some genuises believe differently from the rest, lesser minds are free to take both sides. (Actually I would say they should just watch the debate. And if the overwhelming majority of the genuises believe one thing, I'll still lay a big price on them.)

[David Sklansky]

By the way this thread was spawned by references to Bertrand Russell. I feel persoanally insulted when people like Not Ready have the audacity to believe they have the right to think their differing opinions with him should be taken equally seriously about ANY subject that Russell studied and was certain about.

[KeysrSoze]

Whats a "genuis"? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[sexdrugsmoney]

I like how the first two replies are from the OP and are exactly 15 minutes apart.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key factor in this question. I am acquainted with several theology professors in Catholic seminaries who would meet the criteria you gave as many of them were late vocations to the priesthood and had advanced degrees in many of those subjects listed although not physics. However it is obvious that the most intelligent theologians in any religion have often studied each other's competing doctrines and maintain differing views on what is the true religion.

The real problem in studying religion hard is that the major religions were all founded in the distant past and often not really all that much original material exists from that time to be studied, even if one does devote the effort to study them in the original languages. So at best, a probability can only be given based on the evidence that is extant, which really might not be enough upon which to make a sound judgement when a religion's scriptures and oral tradition are not taken on their face to be true, and neither is the personal experiences of believers credited as such can't be proven.

I also believe psychological bias does indeed play a significant part in the opposition of emminent people in certain fields to religion, not just because they might have a pre-existing bias against religion per se, but because so many theoreticians have been seen in the history of science to be wedded to long held views in their own fields when significant new evidence to the contrary emerges but not yet to the degree of 100% certainty through empirical results.

[Darryl_P]

Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

I see what you're getting at, but I think you're wrong. What do the most intelligent experts in the world agree on when it comes to the biggest questions of life, the universe, and the supernatural? From what I've seen they only agree on things which have been empirically proven beyond reasonable doubt. Which doesn't say much.

"I don't rate spatial relations...as a big part of the assessment"

Did you flunk that part of your test? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DougShrapnel]

The only question is why haven't you named this line of reason after yourself? Sklanskytocracy. Democracy is a serioius waste of time for the majority of people, when more likely correct soulutions would be found just by polling the genuises.

[calmasahinducow]

You underrate psychological bias but I still agree with your argument.

edit: Are you drunk?