Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcBee
Amen. And the bigger problem is, even after deciding upon what the facts are, there can still be different ways to assemble the same set of facts. Eventually we should (or have to) depend upon the earned credibility of the "expert" community, meaning people who spend their whole lives focusing on a specific issue. That's why in the science world, "peer review" is such a big deal for establishing credibility of any claim. In Bible scholarship, for example, if 85% of lifelong scholars agree on a certain point of history, archeology, or textual origin, I'll tend to believe the 85%. Some people go with the other 15% because it suits their previous theology better. Fine with me--there are few "facts" that aren't themselves negotiable, but only when given better evidence.
|
I think we also have to consider the effect that systems have on people. Peer review can be worthless. For example, if you have a drug that needs to get certain marks to be passed into the public domain, if the drug company hires and pays the people who test the drug, amazing things can happen. This is a biased peer review. I am skeptical of anything and everything and I suppose you are too, looking at your sig line. After having been in a system where "peer review" is nothing more than the good old boys club.....that good old boys club exists everywhere in every segment. Truth can be very hard to find. All we can go by is our own truth, as small and untrustworthy even that may be. Fortunately, my salvation does not depend on my knowledge.
Threaded Mode
