To further argue against the use of authority of 'experts' as a tool to close down debate or suggest that credentials should automatically be regarded as the last word on something I present Martha C. Nussbaum.

[Link]

Martha Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, with appointments in the Law School and the Philosophy Department.

Here is Martha's latest article on how humanity must find new ways to act toward animals in a world dominated everywhere by human power and activity.

To quote an analysis of the article:

[Link]

'Nussbaum suggests that we need to think seriously about curbing predation in nature. It disturbs her that animals eat other animals: this is not how things ought to be. We must be careful in what we try to do to correct this morally bad state of affairs, since through lack of knowledge, we may worsen things; but this is no excuse to let matters slide.

To be clear, she is not just proposing that we should make sure that lions can’t get into the deer cage at the zoo; she is talking about the possibility of getting animals in the wild to cease to kill and eat each other. Her idea illustrates and extends a besetting sin of contemporary moral and political philosophy, its idle utopianism. The ordinary circumstances of the human condition are rejected, and philosophers devise fantastic schemes to remake the social and political world to their own liking.'

Again, just quoting authority is a fallacy. Instead of letters after someone's name what matters are the results that come from their work.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jan 2023 8.13pm)

So are you claiming she is THE authority? Have you heard of inter subjectivity

You mean children came under of the influence of Mapletree? God help us.

Hmmmm

Stop trying to wiggle out of the point.

No, but I've heard of Inner Space and it wasn't one of Dennis Quaid's better performances.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jan 2023 12.38am)