Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

[paarsurrey]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

When making any argument, wouldn't you agree that the best source of information in defense of that argument probably comes from professionals in the respective field that you're arguing about?
I mean, you wouldn't ask an English professor to teach you Physics, would you? You would most likely ask a Physics professor to teach you Physics, right? And an English professor to teach you English.

Let's simplify it even more... You wouldn't ask a Hindu guru to teach you about Islam, right? You'd ask am Imam, or at least someone with vast experience and knowledge of Islam to teach you about Islam.

So you'd follow these rules in other aspects of your life. But you seem to have a problem with doing that when it comes to scientific studies because.... Why?

What other option is there? If you don't think we should rely on the findings of professionals, then who do you think we should rely on for information?

 

[Senseless]

Don't believe anyone about anything. Question everything and never, ever just eat up what someone serves you. I don't think anyone can know anything for certain, or understand reality fully or adequately.

That's just me though. Don't listen to me either, I'm an idiot.

 

[Laika]

you don't have to, but you should be prepared to explain and defend those views in depth. it is part of the learning process to question what you are taught and by asking questions, you can make connections and better improve your understanding. I have issues with the big bang ["something out of nothing" seems i) religious and ii) illogical] but I am not in a position to seriously challange any member of the scientific community on it. it isn't about whether you "like" an idea, but whether you can plausibly offer another idea that you could demonstrate is true. overall, mistakes are part of the growth of human knowledge but it takes more knowledge to actually demonstrate an idea is flawed, inadequate or false. So most people are not qualified to challange people's expertise on "their" subject. it's the difference between having an opinion over whether you like an idea, or having the knowledge and expertise to refute it.

 

[Koldo]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them?
They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

It is not whether you believe in them that matters, but rather why you don't.

 

[viole]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

Suppose you are not a doctor.

When you are sick and go to a doctor. Do you trust what she tells you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Don't believe anyone about anything. Question everything and never, ever just eat up what someone serves you. I don't think anyone can know anything for certain, or understand reality fully or adequately.

That's just me though. Don't listen to me either, I'm an idiot.

I agree with you here. I am even sceptical of the Skeptics if I find some anomaly in there expression.
Regards

 

[Erebus]

It would be foolish to completely trust something purely on the basis that an expert said it was true. Even experts are human and thus prone to bias or honest mistakes.

That said, it's also foolish to completely discount what an expert says purely on the basis that you know better. You are also human and thus prone to bias or honest mistakes.

 

[Revoltingest]

With experts, one should question them to the extent one can.
Some are easier than others, eg, economists v physicists.

 

[Sees]

I don't think it is a question of believing in them but valuing their opinion. Just don't confuse the narratives for objective information - always try to get as much plain, unflavored data as possible and evaluate for your self.

 

[icehorse]

Hey paarsurrey,

How about if we ALL need to supply the same level of evidence? Of course, you'd have to understand that we atheists don't think scripture counts as evidence.

 

[roger1440]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

Isaac Newton

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isaacnewto135885.html#b9oudJiJl3r7pcPX.99

 

[Orbit]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

See "the scientific method". They do that. It's the best method we have for arriving at answers.

 

[Parsimony]

Their trustworthiness should be a function of the evidence they can present. Same with anyone, really.

 

[FearGod]

Suppose you are not a doctor.

When you are sick and go to a doctor. Do you trust what she tells you?

Ciao

- viole

Do you trust a Muslim scholar if he told you that i see that Islam is the right path to heaven ?

 

[paarsurrey]

you don't have to, but you should be prepared to explain and defend those views in depth. it is part of the learning process to question what you are taught and by asking questions, you can make connections and better improve your understanding. I have issues with the big bang ["something out of nothing" seems i) religious and ii) illogical] but I am not in a position to seriously challange any member of the scientific community on it. it isn't about whether you "like" an idea, but whether you can plausibly offer another idea that you could demonstrate is true. overall, mistakes are part of the growth of human knowledge but it takes more knowledge to actually demonstrate an idea is flawed, inadequate or false. So most people are not qualified to challange people's expertise on "their" subject. it's the difference between having an opinion over whether you like an idea, or having the knowledge and expertise to refute it.

There is no teacher here, everybody is student of life here not of any specific person.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

Do you trust a Muslim scholar if he told you that i see that Islam is the right path to heaven ?

If she has evidence. But what evidence could she possibly provide?

 

[paarsurrey]

you don't have to, but you should be prepared to explain and defend those views in depth. it is part of the learning process to question what you are taught and by asking questions, you can make connections and better improve your understanding. I have issues with the big bang ["something out of nothing" seems i) religious and ii) illogical] but I am not in a position to seriously challange any member of the scientific community on it. it isn't about whether you "like" an idea, but whether you can plausibly offer another idea that you could demonstrate is true. overall, mistakes are part of the growth of human knowledge but it takes more knowledge to actually demonstrate an idea is flawed, inadequate or false. So most people are not qualified to challange people's expertise on "their" subject. it's the difference between having an opinion over whether you like an idea, or having the knowledge and expertise to refute it.

No need to believe in Big Bang, one can have as soft belief in such things. If one is not a field; why should one challenge it? It is not a question of bread and butter that one who is not in a field should believe it hardly.
In no case life of an ordinary person depends on believing such things or not believing them or one should necessarily challenge them and prove them wrong. If the idea is false, somebody in the same field would refute it.
Regards

 

[SomeRandom]

You can believe whatever you want. But generally speaking if you do not back up that belief in a debate about academics, you will be called out for it. Simple as that.
Are there quacks in the fields of expertise? Of course, but laymen aren't experts in everything. So they go to experts in different fields to get information so they can process it for themselves. I don't go the pharmacy to ask the professionals about building an extension. I ask professional builders or someone with experience in building. It's really the same with science. I know jack **** about the sciences, so to get the best information, I typically go to the experts. Because they have more experience and training than I do. It would be pure hubris not to at least consult them.

 

[Sunstone]

...why should an ordinary man believe in them?

First, there is no compulsion to believe the opinions of academics, scientists, and scholars. That is, no one can tell you that you "must" believe, say, Joseph Campbell's notions about religion, or Stephen Gould's notions about evolution. Nor even that you must believe the consensus of academics, scientists, and scholars on any given subject for which there is indeed a consensus. The decision on whether to believe them or not is entirely up to you.

Just thought you should know that.

On the other hand, the reasons you've given in the OP for not believing them are largely false and/or misleading:

They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.

Yup. Pretty much false and/or misleading.

Just thought you should know that, too.