Deferring Beliefs to an Intellectual Authority: Rational?

First, I have appreciated the good comments on this topic, which I expected to be a simple thought that would float out there unchallenged.

Let's try things this way:

Say that you are a one of a thousand scientists. You realize that you are not the most brilliant, at least not the most brilliant concerning some specific topic. Yet you are not necessarily the least intelligent. Now, if you were pretty sure that you knew who, among the other scientists, was the very most informed and intelligent, wouldn't you hold a more educated, and probably more accurate view on the topic, IF you deferred your view and accepted UNCONDITIONALLY the view of whoever you thought was most informed and intelligent. Sorta like saying, "you know, I've studied some things here, but my official view is whatever Steven Hawking says."

Now there are a few assumptions here and probabilities that I assume will wash out.

First, it is assumed that the human intellect is capable of grasping something of what is happening in the world in general. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter what view you had.

Second, I assume that one view can be, in a sense, more accurate. That implies absolute truth, even if we cannot necessarily ever know if we have achieved it or know for certain that we have a more accurate position than another.

Third, I assume that the probability we are wrong about the other scientist being more intelligent/informed, multiplied by the possible loss in the level of information/intelligence is LESS than the probability we are right about the authority being right multiplied by the gain in the level of information/intelligence. If this is not correct for a particular situation, then it would not be the case that it would be rational to defer beliefs. However, it would not mean that other situations could not meet sufficient requirements.

Further, if this argument is correct, then it seems that you would be rational in unconditionally deferring your beliefs to ANYONE MORE INFORMED/INTELLIGENT that yourself.

Thoughts? (besides that I'm crazy)

More Thoughts on Intellectual Authorities

Let's take a specific example:

Let's say that I found out that basketball coach Pat Riley, who has won several NBA titles and is (I think) also even a NBA hall of fame player as well, believes that "pick and roll" plays used in NBA games are not effective. Now, I don't personally have a clue about how effective "pick and roll" plays are when all the factors (do they cause offensive fouls?, injure players?, are there better plays?, etc.) are taken into consideration.

Then let's say that I have been studying earthworms for two weeks at the University of Minnesota Duluth. After doing tests for two weeks, it looks to me like in might be the case that the longer earthworms survive better in cold conditions.

Now I go to a rad UMD party after the hockey team sweeps the UM Gophers on the weekend. While there, some person says, "Hey Luke! What do you know?"

And I think, hmm...should I tell them that I know "pick and roll" plays aren't effective in NBA games OR should I tell them that longer earthworms survive longer in cold conditions?

-----

It seems like I should, rationally, be more certain that "pick and roll" plays aren't effective in NBA games, but that as people, we don't give full weight to things we know based on authority figures. So it seems more likely that we would say that longer earthworms survive better in cold conditions. (But it is possible that at a party like that, we'd be drunk, which would be a consideration)

A Thought About Intellectual Authorities

If I think that someone is smarter than I am, and has studied questions about a particular topic more thoroughly than I have, wouldn't it be more rational to accept whatever decision he/she has come to than to make a decision based on my own studies of the topic?

My answer: we'd rather be wrong than be stupid.

I can't stand Fear Factor and I NEVER turn it on. That being said, SOMEHOW I have still seen people eating eyeballs, spaghetti with pig's blood, etc. MANY TIMES. In fact, the show was being watched at a bar I was at a few months ago (The Anchor in Superior, WI--great place) on several TV's (including a big screen directly across from me), and I had to eat my delicious cheeseburger while someone was eating cow feces or whatever on the screen.

Apart from my personal experience, I think that if we want to ask what should be allowed on TV, it's best to start with two questions:

1) Should NOTHING be allowed on TV?
2) Should EVERYTHING be allowed on TV?

Question #1 seems pretty easy to answer simply by coming up with a couple of examples of what DEFINATELY should be allowed:

a) emergency warnings
b) weather station

Now, I wouldn't say that you couldn't come up with an argument against these (we shouldn't warn about emergencies because of overpopulation and...), but simply that they seem to be fairly reasonable.

#2: Should EVERYTHING be allowed on TV? In my mind, there are some good examples of what shouldn't be allowed:

a) rape of children
b) murdering children

Pretty reasonable, I think.

It seems, therefore, reasonable to think that we should allow some things to be broadcast and that we shouldn't allow other things. We probably don't disagree on this issue.

Now, the big question is, how should we decide what should and should not be allowed?

Most people who think it should be allowed on TV would probably point out at this time that the examples of acts we clearly should not allow that I gave above were both illegal. That's true. However, COPS shows illegal acts from time to time. I don't think they show murder, but they show burglary and whatnot. It seems to me, though, that showing an illegal act such as burglary is fine, so long as the show doesn't participate/aid/abet/support the act. And it still seems reasonable to think that we shouldn't show the rape or murder of children EVEN IF the show did not participate/aid/abet/support the act. If you want to hold the hard line on this point, then you'd have to claim that COPS should be banned.

If you're will me this far, I think we have to ask, why is it that rape/murder of children is worse (as a broadcast) than burglary? Let me suggest that it is because the visible imagery of the rape/murder of children is psychologically upsetting to SOME people. I don't think it would have to upset EVERYONE for it to be reasonable to think that we should not broadcast a proposed show. I also don't think it would merely have to be psychologically upsetting to ONE PERSON in order to ban something or other.

Thus far, I think I'm being pretty reasonable, don't you?

OK, now for the escape from the argument. I don't have a clue as to the best way to decide HOW MANY or WHAT PERCENTAGE of people who feel psychologically unsettled by a show is enough to warrant the pulling of a proposed show. Do you?

Perhaps, the most fitting practical way of dealing with the question in this, our capitalist society, is to say that we should let the lawsuit settlements vs. profits of the show decide the issue. Of course, that is sorta cheating on my part, by pushing the actual debate of the big question onto the lawyers. But, again, I don't have an answer. Here's why I don't:

I think the terms "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" and "should" and "shouldn't" and all the rest like them point to illusions. By that, I mean that I don't think that anything really is "right" or "wrong" in a way that people have come to believe they are. I'm not going to go into this much further because debates on this topic, almost without fail, end up as linguistic debates in which the substance of the debate is lost.

However, the reason I bring up my fundamental beliefs about the illusory nature of ethics is because I want to explain why I think that we have to make practical decisions on matters such as what we allow on TV.

If nothing is right or wrong, and we believe that to be true (that is, if we believe it to be more likely than not), then that very view cannot make up any part of our motivation in acting. By that, I mean that if it isn't right or wrong to murder, then we have to look to our SECONDARY beliefs concerning murder in order to decide whether or not to do it. Basically, we have to throw aside our primary beliefs concerning right and wrong (those which we believe are most likely), and move to acting in a way that best satisfies the totality of other possible ethical views multiplied by the likelihood that we believe them to be true. For me, since such an equation is not easily computable on paper, the best option available is to ask, what is reasonable? And that is what I have done.

Finally, do I think it is reasonable to show Fear Factor on TV? Yes, but only with warnings beforehand, and I don't think they should be allowed to show the commercials. For example, if someone has made it a point to watch Seinfeld at 6:00, then I don't think they should have to have a remote handy DURING the show to flip away from something that is as psychologically upsetting to MANY as Fear Factor.

Crack of pass to stick,
shot hits net and buzzer sounds,
my feet leave the ground.

Zamboni sweeps ice
and I watch the water freeze.
Intermission trance.

Capturing a Moment Only Takes...a Moment

I like photographs. I hate taking photographs. That makes sense, doesn't it? After all, don't most of us enjoy remembering things we did and people we knew and what everything looked like? But that's always after the fact. Sure I like remembering those times, but in order to have a complete photo album, we'd have to run around taking those pictures all the time. And isn't there always something artificial about setting those poses up? (the question sounds so obvious that's its not worth stating) Anytime anyone sets up one of those photos, I think for a second, or maybe a half a second, about how this will be "proof of living" later. We stop living to ensure that we'll know we lived. Ideally, I think we'd like to have some invisible fairy flying around us taking pictures all the time (most of the time, that is) so that we don't have to "step out" of our lives to get the photos.

Of course, Photoshop changes everything.

That's why for the last 3 weeks solid, I've been editing pictures and creating some really exciting moments for myself. I figure if I can make three or four hundred really great pictures of myself at all stages of my life doing all sorts of exciting, important, crazy things, then I won't need to ever deal with photos again. I won't ever have to stop living for the required time needed to capture the moment.

So far, I have some good ones:

1) Me, steering a yacht while harpooning a guy who is trying to harpoon a whale.

2) Me, throwing an enemy soldier out of a tank while my compatriots hold signs proclaiming the end of the dictatorship.

3) Me, finishing a Lolapalooza and getting the award for it while Haley's Comet flies by in the window behind my head.

If you have any ideas for other pictures, drop me an email. Soon I'll be done. Then it's on to my life!!!

From the outside, one might not understand--one might not think it makes any sense. We yearn for something that is possible. Something that is attainable through dedication and hard work and courage. So why is it that we simple waste away the days on computer games and fast food? We just can't bring ourselves to actually do it. Why?

Maybe for two reasons:

First, though we yearn for this something we desire simple comforts even more. All we ask is for a little rest and relaxation--a pill to knock us out.

Second, we're actually scared of achieving our goals--what then?