Q&A: Disagreement Among Peers When the Peers Are Absent
Disagreement Among Peers When the Peers Are Absent
Question
I read the Rabbi’s column about disagreement among peers some time ago, and I think it offers a satisfactory answer.
However, as best I remember, the Rabbi deals there only with our ability to believe in our own position when we are in a disagreement with someone who is comparable to us in ability.
But how can a person decide and sort out his worldview in cases where he is inferior in knowledge compared to the other person, or if he has to choose between two different peers who are arguing?
When I say “inferior,” I mean in two senses (which are not necessarily dependent on one another):
1. In intelligence / analytical ability / ability to draw conclusions (I assume the Rabbi understands what I mean; the terminology is less important)
2. In knowledge — ultimately, reasonable decisions are based on knowledge and experience in the field under discussion. A person cannot acquire extensive knowledge in every field, or even in some of them, to a degree that would enable him to confront experts in the field. (For example, questions such as: Does God exist? What is the way to achieve happiness? What diet is recommended for health? Would the death penalty for terrorists reduce the number of attacks? Is the biblical origin of the Jewish people nothing more than a collection of Canaanite tribes? All of these are questions that may have significant implications for a person’s daily functioning, and yet he could devote his entire life to an in-depth study of one such question and still not exhaust the field.)
I would be glad if the Rabbi would explain how, in his view, we can trust our own judgment when we choose to take a side in such disputes.
Answer
First of all, when a person is inferior in knowledge and skill, he really should cast greater doubt on his conclusions. And still, he should—or at least can—form a position of his own. This can be done by gaining an impression of the skill of those arguing, and also by using his own judgment. But there is still doubt, and I do not see a way to reduce or eliminate it. Don’t form positions on matters you are not knowledgeable about.
On the really interesting questions, expertise does not carry much weight, although skill does carry weight. Questions like the existence of God are matters to be decided by faith, not by knowledge or skill. Questions of capitalism and socialism give great weight to values and only small weight to facts and expertise. In questions of ancient history there is weight to facts, but there is also a great deal of speculation and agendas there. Even on questions that intersect with science, such as free choice, expertise does not carry much weight (see my book Science of Freedom). On questions of a healthy diet, you have no choice but to rely on experts. Go with the agreed common denominator, and in my opinion one should usually ignore theories that run against the accepted consensus in the field, even if they sound logical to you (unless you have reason to assume that the majority view is biased for some reason).
I should add one more thing. What I explained in that column is also true in a situation where you are the inferior one. For example, if you assume that the other person is biased or did not seriously weigh the counterarguments, you can still form a position against him.