Coronavirus news

[Brian Stoffregen]

This morning I shared this post on Facebook. It seems to have been written by Stevie Berryman, whom I do not know.

One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last three years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as anyone else.

“Hear all sides, and judge for yourself!” No! I do not condone the death of Expertise, and neither should you.

Thanks be to God for this wisdom.  Never again will I encourage my students "to think for themselves."  Unreflective obedience is much more responsible.

I would think … no, I'm sure … that "thinking for themselves" people know pretty clearly when they are not experts in a subject. I do not try to do repairs on my car. I've made too many mistakes over the years when I thought I knew what I was doing. I know that I'm not an expert. When our TV showed signs of age, I found a YouTube video that diagnosed the problem, what I needed to order, and all the steps it took to replace the failing part. I thought to myself: "I could probably do that, but I don't want to." We bought a new TV. One of the delivery guys was quite happy to take the old TV. Similarly, when I received a new sound bar for Christmas and I couldn't get it to work on that TV, which didn't have the recommended plug, rather than think I'm an expert and could figure it out; I bought a new TV that had the proper plug for the sound bar. We donated the old TV.


It seems to me that you have expressed some frustrations in this forum (and probably at me) when people claim to know more about philosophy than they really do. Most of us have not had the training you have. We haven't read as many books as you have.


However, on the other side, in a college sociology course, the instructor would tell the class what the experts were testing; and the students undoubtedly knew the outcome using their common sense.


As I think about it, "experts," draw from a greater wealth of knowledge when making their statements than others. My nephew's Ph.D. dissertation's title is: "Genetic Analysis of Chromosome Replication Timing: An Autosomal Locus that Controls Chromosome-Wide Replication Timing and Mono-Allelic Expression." I don't know the meaning of many of those words. I have no idea what he is writing about. I asked his father-in-law, a biology teacher, if he understood the dissertation, he said, "Some of it." My nephew has knowledge about chromosomes that I will never have. He has more than his wife and father-in-law have, who both have masters in biology; but not the depth of the particular knowledge my nephew has, but don't ask him to mess with the engine on your car.


Our son works with a number of Ph.Ds in chemistry and biology; but, as he said, they know almost nothing about computer programing, which is his field of expertise. They often make his job more difficult; as they mess up the robots that he has programmed.


Those with less background and information may come to correct conclusions, too; but we probably shouldn't put as much trust in those without the training and extensive knowledge as we do those who do; like those very intelligent scientists who find ways to mess up the computer driven robots; so they call the expert to come and fix them.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I am certainly not against listening to those considered 'experts' in their field.  And as a rule I'm inclined to listen and follow their advice.  But I also do not think that I am unequipped to think critically for myself and I resist following any advice without actually reasoning it through.

Similar to what I posted earlier, "thinking critically for oneself," includes knowing what I don't know; and when I need to seek the advice of those who do know.


There have been times in discussions on Facebook, where what was quoted against the "expert" advice from the CDC, came from a radio talk show host. He might be quoting other doctors, but often they do not have the background or training in infectious diseases as the CDC experts.

And when one disagrees with an 'established expert' it does not automatically mean that those I am listening to are "discredited."  You use the example of pastors as "seminary trained theologians" and how we would be equally distrustful of "untrained people" coming to conclusions that differ.  Dr. C.F.W. Walther, first president of our St. Louis Seminary once said in a sermon:
Christ says in his sermon on the mount, where not only disciples, but also a great multitude were present, "Beware of false prophets … Ye shall know them by their fruits." This admonition by the Son of God shows us plainly how entirely false the principle is that the preachers should teach and the hearers only listen, that the shepherds should lead and the sheep only follow, that the clergy should resolve and the congregation only acquiesce. No, when Christ calls upon his hearers to beware of false prophets and to know the true and the false by their fruits, Christ thereby seats all hearers upon the seat of judgment, placed the balance scale of truth in their hands, and bids them confidently execute judgment on their teachers.

So, in keeping with Walther's advice, I sincerely hope those in the pew are listening closely and in a discerning fashion and will call me to account - the "expert" - if I deviate from the clear word of scripture.

Scientists are well trained and educated people.  We would not take their advice lightly.  But we all know that well-meaning scientists can disagree, men and women with equal credentials and expertise in the same field.  So faced with such a difference we would do well to weigh the advice and make an informed decision in favor of one or the other.  How many times have we been told with doctors to "get a second opinion"?  One competent doctor tells us that we have cancer and there is no cure.  Yet another tells us there is a therapy and medicines that can yet be tried.  It happens.

I think that intelligent and informed citizens have a duty to "get a second opinion" and weigh the evidence provided.

And Luther believed that by putting German-language Bibles into the hands of the people, the Holy Spirit would guide them into the Truth. He was wrong. It just led to multiple theologies and multiple denominations all believing that they were led into the truth by the Spirit.


There is something to be said by the ancient tradition that at least three bishops had to certify that a new bishop had orthodox beliefs; and that bishops had to certify that every new pastor had orthodox beliefs. The "experts" made the determination. It was not letting every candidate think for themselves. There are limits to what we can think and remain within the Christian and Lutheran boundaries.

[peter_speckhard]

Accumulated folk wisdom has a better track record than experts do. It isn’t infallible, but it comes closer than the history of experts. The issue is that looking back we only ever focus on the experts who got it right, and reclassify everyone else to “so-called” expert status.

[Charles Austin]

“Accumulated folk wisdom”?
This is what you want to trust?

[Weedon]

Celeborn to Boromir: “Do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.”

[peter_speckhard]

“Accumulated folk wisdom”?
This is what you want to trust?

Yes. Not all of the time, but more often than you think.

Remember, they were called cancer sticks colloquially before the AMA had an opinion. Raise a child the way you were raised and you’ll do all right with mother wit. Try to raise a kid according to the experts and you’ll go nuts. Experts do studies to verify the obvious, like that dads are important, meals together are better than everyone grabbing food and eating whenever. Screen time should be limited. These are all things one could learn sooner and better listening to one’s grandparents than waiting for the latest expert findings, which will probably flip flop ten times before the kid leaves home.

Does anyone know what the latest expert ruling is on whether babies should be on this side or that side or on their back? The experts think men can breastfeed. Nobody with common sense does. The experts are wrong.

[Michael Slusser]

The experts think men can breastfeed. Nobody with common sense does. The experts are wrong.

Please, this is too good to ignore: give us your source for that claim!

Peace,
Michael

[peter_speckhard]

The experts think men can breastfeed. Nobody with common sense does. The experts are wrong.

Please, this is too good to ignore: give us your source for that claim!

Peace,
Michael

Just google “can men breastfeed.” The first page is all answers in the affirmative. Most deal with technicalities, but major medical schools are changing the term breastfeeding to chest feeding in a bow to the trans movement, which insists it is transphobic to say that only women breastfeed. It is all nonsense according to common sense.

Find me a medical expert willing to declare in a peer reviewed journal that only women can breastfeed and I’ll show you a medical expert soon to be looking for a new job and relegated to “alt” publications. Yet your instinct was true and correct— the idea that men can breastfeed is so absurd that you assumed there was no way the experts think it, and if they do, better to go by common sense.

[peter_speckhard]

Here is an example of why "experts" can't always be trusted; they put their stamp of expertise on fields far beyond their own. In this case, the standard non-response is to claim the source is campusreform, a conservative website, so even their quotes of experts must be suspect.

https://campusreform.org/?id=16833

The issue here is whether breastfeeding is preferable to bottle feeding. After much dithering, the science came around to agree with common sense that yes, obviously breastfeeding, where possible, is the more natural and holistically healthier way to feed an infant. But these medical experts are concerned about how people will react to that statement. What if people hear it and in their minds it reinforces traditional gender roles, that somehow women "naturally" have a more nurturing role in childrearing than men? Can't have that. So they change the terminology not for any scientific reason but to advance a social agenda against traditional gender roles, which has nothing to do with their area of expertise. But soon, enemies of the traditional roles will be able to cite "the experts" in their arguments against the idea that breastfeeding is something women do and it is generally better for the baby. "The experts disagree!" That is by design. Experts are just as agenda driven as anyone else.   

[Dan Fienen]

Let's not forget the a year ago the experts consulted by the NYT said that it was all but impossible that a vaccine would be ready before the end of 2021. Trump was fantasizing and out right lying saying that we could have a vaccine ready by the end of 2020.

[Michael Slusser]

The experts think men can breastfeed. Nobody with common sense does. The experts are wrong.

Please, this is too good to ignore: give us your source for that claim!

Just google “can men breastfeed.”

OK, you want me to Google, instead of telling me the experts upon whom you rely. I suppose that's where you go to find expert information on any subject.   

Peace,
Michael

[peter_speckhard]

The experts think men can breastfeed. Nobody with common sense does. The experts are wrong.

Please, this is too good to ignore: give us your source for that claim!

Just google “can men breastfeed.”

OK, you want me to Google, instead of telling me the experts upon whom you rely. I suppose thats where you go yo find expert information on any subject.   

Peace,
Michael

Did you google it? It takes a tenth of a second. You can then pick and choose which results are from sources you trust. Harvard Medical School should be considered experts, and they’re among the groups that are advancing the idea of chest feeding replacing breastfeeding on theory that it is isn’t only women who breastfeed.

I already told you my source— common sense. What source would you declare to be trusted experts. You thought it preposterous when I said the experts think men can beast feed babies, and yet a cursory search would contradict your assumption about experts.

[Charles Austin]

Peter, you have been heading down your road for some time. No surprises there. But I’m concerned that you may have kidnapped Pastor Weedon, who now offers advice from a fictional elf.

[Chuck]

Peter, you have been heading down your road for some time. No surprises there. But I’m concerned that you may have kidnapped Pastor Weedon, who now offers advice from a fictional elf.

Actually, he was a fictional man. Boromir of Rohan.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

I already told you my source— common sense. What source would you declare to be trusted experts. You thought it preposterous when I said the experts think men can beast feed babies, and yet a cursory search would contradict your assumption about experts.

I don't know about those experts, but I'd say that Monty Python's Life of Brian was way ahead of its time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs