What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Metis]

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?
[/quote]

I see whre you are going with this Randy and it is not a viable comparison.

Dr. Brightlight cannot make a claim that cannot be verified via replication. Dr.Brightlight if he wishes to be recognized as a legitimate reliable academic must submit all his findings to peer review of those who have the resources we may lack to test theories and should they be found wanting he and his work will be ejected from the establishment.

There is no peer review in Catholicism; it's "believe me because I tell you to". There's no other theologians to ask, there's no reading the books for oneself. Not a viable comparison.