Originally Posted by
donfrancisco
I have a general point to make that may, and I emphasize MAY, reduce the incidence of acrimony that often arises during the course of various threads.
I’m someone who reveres rationality, the scientific mindset and intellectual independence. But it is not inconsistent with rationality, the scientific mindset or one’s intellectual independence to exhibit deference for someone’s expertise where appropriate. Because we live in a division of labor society, where there are deep levels of specialization even among professionals of the same profession, it is cognitively necessary to give due weight to what those that have devoted their lives to acquiring mastery of their field have to say. We do this with our medical specialists, with our automotive mechanics and with many of our scientists.
I see that Rip is often criticized for being dogmatic and dismissive. That has not been my experience. And perhaps that is because, despite the fact that I have supplemented my career as a philosopher by working as a strength trainer (within the HIT/Super Slow paradigm) and martial arts coach for over twenty years, I’ve always approached Rip and the other SSCs with the mindset that I have something to learn from their collectively vast experience with strength coaching using primarily barbell movements.
As a result of his vast experience and his superior ability to communicate the fruits of that experience I believe that Rip has earned a certain degree of deference. And as someone who has taught courses in logic, I don’t think expressing said deferrence is an example of the argument from authority fallacy. It is a rational recognition of the fact that we can’t know everything and that giving due weight to someone’s expertise is often a fruitful way to initiate our improved understanding of matters outside the purview of our own area of expertise.