Changes

m
Edit conflict, put it wrong place
Line 125: Line 125:     
:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal.  In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything.  Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's?  Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"?  Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge?  If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge.  A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy.  That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy.  It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on.  Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule.  Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is?  If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 
:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal.  In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything.  Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's?  Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"?  Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge?  If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge.  A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy.  That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy.  It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on.  Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule.  Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is?  If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
::::::::::::::::::All of your "experts" are simply sites citing the exact same source, Thayer's Greek-English lexicon.  To suggest that questioning that ''single'' definition is rejecting all authority is absurd.  Healthy skepticism is necessary to any intellectual project such as this.  Relying on a single authority as definitive is absurd.  The biblical concept of "rich" is far different than the present.  Denying that is patently ridiculous, and ignores millenia of economic and social change. That is why this project is necessary.  Like Luther's 500 years ago, it is an attempt to ground our knowledge in the original ''meaning'' of God's word. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
    
:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such."  Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals.  The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one.  In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.   
 
:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such."  Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals.  The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one.  In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.   
Line 130: Line 132:  
:::::::::::::::: Most "experts" say there is [[global warming]].  Most experts say that government should raise taxes.  Most experts say that government should increase spending.  In fact, you can go down the entire list of liberal viewpoints and find that most "experts" support them.  Give up your ability to think for yourself, just a little, and you will probably never get it back.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 
:::::::::::::::: Most "experts" say there is [[global warming]].  Most experts say that government should raise taxes.  Most experts say that government should increase spending.  In fact, you can go down the entire list of liberal viewpoints and find that most "experts" support them.  Give up your ability to think for yourself, just a little, and you will probably never get it back.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
   −
::::::::::::::::::All of your "experts" are simply sites citing the exact same source, Thayer's Greek-English lexicon.  To suggest that questioning that ''single'' definition is rejecting all authority is absurd.  Healthy skepticism is necessary to any intellectual project such as this.  Relying on a single authority as definitive is absurd.  The biblical concept of "rich" is far different than the present.  Denying that is patently ridiculous, and ignores millenia of economic and social change. That is why this project is necessary.  Like Luther's 500 years ago, it is an attempt to ground our knowledge in the original ''meaning'' of God's word. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
+
 
     
1,035

edits