[trap closes]

Don't do that. I think the rest of your post is fine, but this is not a debate-for-debate's-sake kind of place (and even if it were, that's not a winning move).

[trap closes]

Please change your posting style or leave lesswrong. Not only is disingenuous rhetoric not welcome, your use thereof doesn't even seem particularly competent.

ie. What the heck? You think that the relevance of authority isn't obvious to everyone here and is a notion sufficiently clever to merit 'traps'? You think that forcing someone to repeat what is already clear and already something they plainly endorse even qualifies as entrapment? (It's like an undercover Vice cop having already been paid for a forthcoming sexual favor demanding "Say it again! Then I'll really have you!")

Did you not notice that even if you proved Eliezer's judgement were a blatant logical fallacy it still wouldn't invalidate the point in the comment you are directing your 'trap' games at? The comment even explained that explicitly.

The guy without any physics qualifications is concluding that the guy with the physics PhD is incompetent in physics? You see the problem? EY's apparently authoritarian behaviour is supposed to be justified by the fact that he has plenty of evidence of Shminux's incompetence. But shminux is also doubting his competence and is much better qualified to do so.

If I ever have cause to send Shminux a letter I will be sure to play proper deference to his status by including "Dr." as the title. Alas, Shminux's arguments have screened off his authority, and then some.

There are no rational grounds for EY-can-judge-shminux-but-shminux-can't-judge-EY. It's just a recyclying of EY-is-special-because-he-says-so-and-this-is-his-forum.

"No rational grounds" means a different thing than "the particular evidence I mention points in the other direction". That difference matters rather a lot.

"Rational grounds" includes all Bayesian evidence... such things as costly affiliation signals (PhDs) and also other forms of evidence---including everything the PhD in question has said. Ignoring the other evidence would be crazy and lead to poor conclusions.