iriejohn wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:25 pm
Tell us Matteo, what was your Masters and/or what are your credentials that make you feel entitled to be so patronising?
I'll try to simply further. I don't care about credentials. That's it.
But I am sorry you feel patronized. My intent is not to evoke emotion, but rather make you think about something complex in a step-by-step manner. If you don't want to do that, then don't do that. Should "not thinking critically" be your choice, you have lots of company in the human race.
A few years back, I came across this saying (attributed to many, in different forms):
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
Should you stoop to attacking the person (ad hominem), it shows an inability to attack the argument. Should you want to engage in a conversation about an idea, just remember - I have stated many times that I attack the argument not the person. Should you fail to present evidence contrary to an argument, and thus resort to attacking the person...... well most people can see through that attack on the presenter of the argument as a sign that the argument is strong and cannot be attacked (at least not by that person resorting to ad hominem). A person with little credibility CAN make a credible argument. A person with lots of credibility CAN make a poor argument. To not argue against someone, who has better credentials than me, would allow poor arguments to flourish. To not allow someone with less credentials to challenge me, would be allowing my own poor arguments go unchallenged. In the end, a challenge either reinforces an argument, or shows that it is not as strong as the one presenting it thinks. Credentials are incapable of that.
Here are some examples to think about:
1. A parrot is taught to say "the sky is blue". I would agree with that statement, even though a parrot had said it. And I would not attack the parrot's statement because it came from a parrot.
2. If a second parrot is trained to say "the sky is green", I would not agree with that statement, but would not also blame that statement being false on it coming from a bird. The reason why the statement is false is obvious and provable. I would not just say "stupid parrot".
3. Many times in my life, I have been right when a more educated and more credentialed person was wrong.
4. Many times in my life, I have been wrong when a less educated and less credentialed person was right.
Credentials are a great way of sorting out who should take responsibility for a decision that needs to be made quickly. This is analogous to tautologies comment about having a heart attack and just going with the nearest heart surgeon to save you.
However, even highly credentialed doctors can be better, worse, or completely incompetent. In a situation where there time for a discussion, the argument stands on it's own, and the credentials of the presenter are best left off the table. Should I present my credentials, I would be going against what I have said is self evident in this matter.