Talk:Expert consensus
CanerOnoglu started a discussion on SocialContract about the relation between recognizing an expert and the absense of absolute truth. He started the discussion on the page SocialContract itself. I, User:Alle van Meeteren, moved the discussion to this place in July 2006. I think it is better to divide between articles and discussions. But, discussions must be related to the objects of the discussions. I think the best way to do that is to make a page for the object of the discussion, and make links to that page. But, I am not an expert, but who is?
If you believe in that the truth is relative to the point of view, than what is the use of "the expert consensus"? For instance is there an expert consensus on "how to raise a child" or "how to build a house"? I believe if we really believe in democracy we better stop thinking on building structures where people will better live. People may live better only when we let them to create their own structures without any autocratic interference.
CanerOnoglu, some matters, such as building a house, have a strong, easily verifiable aspect... like how well constructed the infra and super structure are. Poorly built houses fall down easily, after all. And when they fall, people might get hurt. At the point people get hurt, the greater community becomes involved, as anything past minor injuries generally requires your greater community helping you until such time as you are self sufficent again. For this reason, the greater community feels entitled, for its own good, to be able to regulate how you build a house if you are going to be a member of it (the community).
This reasoning applies to why the larger communities you are a part of feel they are authorities (that they know better then you) on "How you should raise your child". Odds are that one day, if your child survives your care, it will become a member of the greater community, and that greater community wants that future member to believe as it wants, and to do what it thinks needs doing. It's purely self interest of the memes of the communities. But the price remains the same... if you are a member of the SocialUnit (community) then you must follow its social rule (see: SocialDuty).
Remember, it's never about you. It's always about the larger SocialUnit and your cost to buy in and maintain membership in that SocialUnit.
---StarPilot
Note, CanerOnoglu, that the purpose of our social contract is that we do not tell each other how to live except necessary to protect our freedoms. Should we collaborate on building a bridge, we want an objective assesment on whether the bridge will fall or not. Expert opinion may be wrong, but applying objective criteria the truth can be determined. The holistic approach requires that all points of view are are considered, not just the most popular.
It is very true that in many cases no objective decision is possible. In these cases the rights of the individual should never be restricted. To insure that "bad science" is not used to restrict individual freedom, perhaps we need to include specific scientific method requiements and limits on the application of "statistical significance" to help insure science is not perverted in our collective action.
The first principle of the social contract is "Protecting the rights of individuals to live TheGoodLife and perform their SocialDuty their own way." This is not ambiguous. The purpose of our collective action is to protect us, not control us, and this should be guaranteed by contract, not by the whims of common law.
Local communities may impose behavioural and building standards. Communities, by 2/3 majority, have rights as well as individuals. All we can do in our social contract is to maximally decentralize these controls to minimize the tyranny of the majority. I do not agree that anyone must "fit in" with any social unit, but they should respect in practice their right to live as they wish in exchange for their ability to live in their own way.