So perhaps we need a norm that criticizes use of authority in one area
to make claims in an unrelated area. A preacher’s opinion carries little weight in
biology, just as biologists do not typically do much to define religious rhetoric.
But that would also mean that nobody but an authority in the religion could criticize the religion.
It’s possible to be an authority on religion without being an authority in the religion, in much someone can be an authority on computers without being one.
But that would also mean that nobody but an authority in the religion could criticize the religion.
These rules always have to be symmetrical.
It’s possible to be an authority on religion without being an authority in the religion, in much someone can be an authority on computers without being one.
See Expert At Versus Expert On by Robin Hanson.