Add new comment

"Evidence" for P can refer to considerations known that are such as to provide epistemic support some hypothesis P.  On this view, if some claim i true, but not yet known to be true, it is not yet evidence.  Call this sense 1.
"evidence" for P can also refer to considerations that if known would provide epistemic support for some hypothesis.  On this view, any claim that is true and would support some other claim is evidence for that other claim even if it is not know to be true.  Call this sense 2.
 
At times Doc seems to be talking in a sense 2 way.  This is, by my lights, not the normal way of talking about evidence.  
 
I'll leave the "elitism" diatribe (mostly) to the side.  Suffice it to say that I'm happy to highly privilege the opinions of specialists when it comes to issues in the field in which they specialize.  I'm going to highly privilege the advice of my doctor over the advice of some non specialist.  As for whether people "get" to talk, I don't know, I don't think anyone is actively attempting to stop them.  I do wish that there was a lot less talking on the internet by people who don't really know what they are talking about.  I didn't like the "everyone's opinions have equal merit" crap when it was being spouted by relativist leftist english professors in the 90s and I don't like it any more now that it's being spouted by the anti-elitist right.