Rational deference to those more likely to be right

[chezlaw]

There's been much use by DS of an argument, that looks a bit like an appeal to authority, which I've always agreed with. Its been much criticised, especially recently suggesting DS would have to become a christian if a sane alive-today Newton was a christian.

Nothing in the Newton argument could directly alter my religous view and yet I think I agree with DS's argument. Is this a serious problem or just a misunderstanding of DS's argument by me or others?


Consider this example. Suppose someone post a poker problem and I thinks it's an obvious fold for reason R.

Some newbie posts thats its an easy raise for reason R' that makes no sense to me. I can rationally justify ignoring R' as being delivered by a newbie, there is a very strong possibility it makes no sense.

To my suprise DS responds to the post (assume they posted it in SciMathPhil by mistake) and says that newbie has it right and R' is correct.

Rationally, should I believe R' is correct?

[There is the (small) possibility that DS is mistaken and the possibility that we have interpreted the question different - neither of these matter so I'm ignoring them]

I don't think that DS's argument is that I should believe R', rather he is saying I should stop believing R.

Hopefully I will be able to learn and understand why R' is correct but If I can't understand it then I have to accept it's beyond my understanding.

Returning to religon, If I believed christianity was irrational and then sane Newton comes along saying it is, but I can't understand his explanation. Then I have to answer the question 'Is Christianity rational?' with a humble 'Beyond me but Newton thinks so'

Maybe this thread can help clarify DS's argument and whether or not its correct.


chez

[David Sklansky]

If Newton was a Christian now, the presumption is made that he would be able to logically refute any argument against his stance that I could think of (to the satisfaction of professional logicians). Also I presume that he wouldn't become a Christian unless he was sure he could do that.

If in fact he did not require this degree of certainty or even if he did, but was not one of the smartest men who ever lived, then him being Christian would have almost no impact on my beliefs.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If Newton was a Christian now, the presumption is made that he would be able to logically refute any argument against his stance that I could think of.

[/ QUOTE ]
That what I mean by trying to understand. Either you would understand him and believe C (or he would recognise his mistake and believe ~C). However you believe C because you understand it, not because Newton does.

At some point you might recognise that the discussion had gone beyond your logical analysis ability at which point you reach the 'beyond me but that's what Newton says stage'

Maybe you think you would never be out of you depth but that may be because it's never happened rather than because it couldn't. Extrapolate downwards towards us lessor mortals and it may seem more reasonable.


[ QUOTE ]
(to the satisfaction of professional logicians)

[/ QUOTE ]
I can read that two ways - does it mean that what I've said above isn't consistant with what you are saying?

chez

[chezlaw]

A simple way to clear up my confusion about what you are claiming.

Consider a belief B. Two groups feels strongly about B, the Gs and the Is. The G's have more expertise and are more intelligent than the Is.

Gs believe B
Is believe ~B

It is rational to believe the Gs are more likely to be right about B than the Is (I think we agree about that)

What about:

'It is rational to believe the Gs are more likely to be right about B than the Is'
therefore
'it is rational to believe B'.

I think this is wrong. If it is what you are claiming then fortunately as I think you're wrong I don't have to agree with you. (anyway it may just be a disagreement about the meaning of rational and/or belief).


chez

Good post and I would characterize the situation similarly. If a "smarter" person makes a case, but my *reason* (not emotion or other psychological factors) cannot come to the same conclusions logically, then I would have to conclude that his thinking was either beyond me, in error (may be unlikely, but not impossible), or poorly communicated (either due to his delivery or my reception).