People are entitled to make mistakes, provided they are not overly detrimental to others. What is offensive is not having a mistaken opinion (particularly when this is a freshly formed mistaken impression rather than an entrenched bias), but attempting to spread it far and wide.
Existing safeguards against this include our concept of expertise. More people will listen to someone who has advanced understanding of an area of knowledge, versus a novice. Usually an expert in a subject really can provide better guidance to form valid opinions.
The trouble arises when you have an expert in an area that is not rationally mappable to reality, e.g. the Bible or religious experience. A preacher can claim expertise on the issue of origins because of biblical knowledge and claims of personal religious experience, without needing to prove that he knows enough biology or basic science to criticize the theory of evolution.
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.
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.
People are entitled to make mistakes, provided they are not overly detrimental to others. What is offensive is not having a mistaken opinion (particularly when this is a freshly formed mistaken impression rather than an entrenched bias), but attempting to spread it far and wide.
Existing safeguards against this include our concept of expertise. More people will listen to someone who has advanced understanding of an area of knowledge, versus a novice. Usually an expert in a subject really can provide better guidance to form valid opinions.
The trouble arises when you have an expert in an area that is not rationally mappable to reality, e.g. the Bible or religious experience. A preacher can claim expertise on the issue of origins because of biblical knowledge and claims of personal religious experience, without needing to prove that he knows enough biology or basic science to criticize the theory of evolution.
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.
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.