I think Goodacre’s argument may be summarized as “once you agree with what I propose, you will find that you agree with me.” Or, perhaps “you will find that you agree with me, once you stop disagreeing with me and just admit that I am right.”

Y

Robert said
I think perhaps you’re paraphrasing Bren’s argument, not Goodacre’s argument, yes?

  

Yes, I was distracted by the use of quotation, but I cannot fix it now that you have posted after me.

If you think that physics is a field of absolute consensus, you must not know many physicists. Yes, some aspects of physics are subject to highly controlled tests that can be repeated by a wide variety of people and institutions, which is pretty much the best kind of confidence that one can get in any idea; and there is likely no equivalent in Biblical studies or most fields within the humanities.

In the case of the specific question being raised, we will probably never have a definitive answer; we only have the evidence we have, a set of ideas about that evidence that interpret and apply it in an attempt to reach an operative answer that might need to be refined or changed given new evidence or the emergence of better arguments in favor of other interpretations. In this admittedly imperfect situation, we can only do the best we can do.

Within our own abilities, we can look at the arguments available (or even generate our own new ones) and make our own judgements, but most of the time, and for most of us, we will necessarily need to rely, to some extent, on people who have dedicated the time and expertise to forming and evaluating those answers. It is why we can have some reliance on dictionaries and encyclopedias. If there is a generally established answer to such a question, to argue something else, particularly as that other argument radically differs from the generally accepted answer, a better case must be provided. So, make that case. It is not enough to say that we do not know for certain, so everyone has to accept all ideas as of equal value.

My larger point is that too many people are quick to reject the idea of authority merely because those who are established in the field are unwilling to consider a new position, which can happen. On the other hand, there is often a good reason that the established ideas are well entrenched, and what may seem like a new idea can just be one more bad idea, or even one already rejected on its own merits.

To me, expertise is not a badge awarded so that people can provide a summary judgement as an answer and it must be accepted. Instead, expertise is the knowledge, understanding and skill that allows that person to construct and present not just a summary judgement, but the argument and evidence (such as it may be) that back it up, and survive scrutiny.