Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it experts or "experts"?
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 1 of 39 (260056)
11-15-2005 9:02 PM


This topic occurred to me a week ago, when Randman put the term EXPERTS in quote marks to suggest that the experts were to be questioned. Or at least not to be taken at face value.
Now I do not know Randman's specific field of study or expertise, but on reading through the thread the current topic was not one of them.
Now that is just a by-and-by, the reason for my suggesting this as a topic is to ask why are experts questioned to the extent they are. This is not to question genuine academic scepiticism amongst fellow experts, but to ask why do people with no genuine knowledge in the field question their conclusions?
My field of knowledge (albeit 10 years old now) is economics and business practice, and I can have arguements/discussions with people who have studied to Phd level, and I will respect their opinions in the same way that they do mine (here's hoping!). But if someone who's economic knowledge is based on the price of a tin of beans starts to mock and deride, well you can understand why I would disregard their opinion.
The question I am asking is this, what justification do you have for questioning/ignoring the opinion of people with a far greater knowledge of a subject than you do? And why?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 10:19 PM bobbins has replied
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 11-16-2005 8:07 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 6 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 8:50 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 10 by JustinC, posted 11-16-2005 9:40 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 11-16-2005 10:03 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 11-18-2005 3:59 AM bobbins has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 39 (260092)
11-15-2005 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
11-15-2005 9:02 PM


The question I am asking is this, what justification do you have for questioning/ignoring the opinion of people with a far greater knowledge of a subject than you do? And why?
Because incompetence is incapable of seeing that it is incompetent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM bobbins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 11:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 3 of 39 (260098)
11-15-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
11-15-2005 10:19 PM


Incompetence is not really an issue
I may be missing the irony or humour, but I cannot believe that incompetence alone is the reason. What I was trying to question was the wilfulness of ignoring of expert opinion.
Again sorry if I am missing your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 10:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 12:58 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 9:39 PM bobbins has not replied
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2005 3:47 AM bobbins has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 39 (260107)
11-16-2005 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bobbins
11-15-2005 11:19 PM


Re: Incompetence is not really an issue
bobbins, you reference my remarks, and I assume you refer to my comments on stock brokers. My experience has been I can pick stocks a lot better than brokers. Sometimes I think I should make that a living, but right now am invested into my own business and children.
One area of economics doctrine I question though, since you say that is your field, is what we were all taught and what appears right on paper, namely that high deficit spending by the government would increase demand for capital to fund that deficit and result in higher interest rates.
It appears that this is not the case, perhaps because monetary policy by the Fed is so strong, but whatever the case, actual historical numbers have shown unusually low interest rates at the times of higher deficit spending.
Why do you think that is? I ask because you bill yourself as an expert to a degree in this field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 11:19 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 11-16-2005 8:57 AM randman has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 39 (260164)
11-16-2005 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
11-15-2005 9:02 PM


the case of Ernst Mayr and BMcFall--
Ok,
I can explain/justify why I ignore or question the view and opinion of Ernst Mayr.
In the mid 70s as I began to read biology in most of my free moments ( I was born in 1964)I ranged widely over the entire shelf of relevant books in the Hunterdon Country Public Library, NJ. I would often take my MOPED to collect salamanders and then stop off to do some reading after tramping around outside. So I was reading a lot of biology for a teenager. Well, at some point I read something by Mayr. I do not recall anymore what it was.I kind of remember I was either reading about how the kideny works or Mayr had written something about kidneys. But I do recall it was Dr. E. Mayr. At this point I realized that if I had had to agree with Mayr I would have had to disagree with myself about what I understood so many other authors understood. This I could not do, because most of the things I was reading were simply factual. The heart is to connect to the artery etc. What I took away from this first encounter with reading this "expert" was, that if I had a hand and a foot, and if any two biologists were writing about hands and feet in general, then I must not presume that I have some other hands and feet than I acutally have. In other words the I did not imagine the hands and feet of people next to me if it was possible for me to think of my own. I respected Mayr as an author and person and 'expert' but I could not agree that all biological conotations that clearly denote the same object actually do. Experts are expert at/on different things. At this point I had to be doubly critical of biological texts, both as to content and context. That day was a sad day for my reading-biology-program because all of sudden reading biology got a lot harder. But hay, I was only behind an 8th grade education so who was I to complain.
I continued to read more biology...I found other authors like Mayr who seemed to be using language as well facts to structure their presentations. I tried to stay away from that as long as possible, but slowly I started to get a sense of the individual "agendas" of writers, all the while I kept to the same standard of "objectivity" that my kidney is your kidney and vice versa. I was reading a Harvard Philosopher Nozik one summer and thinking about comparing the educational environment of what little of Harvard I had seen and Mayr's wiritings as he was about to be at Cornell. In resolving some point of Nozik's in my mind (which was in philosophy NOT BIOLOGY) it all came clear to me that this innocent "kidney" could be resolved without maintainingg the literate distance I had sustained more or less the best biologist in the world!! I could not believe it. I had found a way to ask Mayr a genuine question that removed my own reticence I had established in myself.
Mayr came to Cornell. I sat through his lecture. I understood it. When it was time for questions and answers, I asked it. It turns out Mayr had developed an even more reticent attitude than I ever had. Not only did he NEVER even tangentially address my question he stated he UNDERSTOOD what I had said and CATEOGRIZED what I asked ON THE SPOT, like he would know that behind my description of math in biology in the question he KNEW it was a KIDNEY and not a CIRCLE, exactly the likes I was referring to! There is NO WAY he could know that. Besides, I was not talking about kidneys anymore. Later more than one Cornell Biologists apologized for Mayr's behavior telling me he treats everyone that way. Well, now I knew whether it was kidneys or just the shape of letters in biology books not even the "experts" could be trusted.
This is an extreme example, but I could provide others without the drama retained.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 08:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM bobbins has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 39 (260174)
11-16-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
11-15-2005 9:02 PM


quote:
The question I am asking is this, what justification do you have for questioning/ignoring the opinion of people with a far greater knowledge of a subject than you do? And why?
It's a very American thing to believe that you know better than someone with expertise, because we are taught that our opinions matter, and it is irrelevant that we don't know anything about a subject.
We think that our opinions, though completely uninformed, should be taken just as seriously as someone who has studied a subject his or her whole life. We mistrust experts, because so many people who claim to be experts really aren't, too.
For goodness sake, we have currently in office a second-term President who was a mediocre student, a rather useless drunken fratboy for the first 20 years of his adult life, and who was described by a journalist years ago as being "one of the least introspective people he had ever encountered".
What do you expect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:05 AM nator has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 7 of 39 (260178)
11-16-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
11-16-2005 12:58 AM


Re: Incompetence is not really an issue
Interestingly, there is a growing body of research that suggests not only that how brokers pick stocks is actually no better than picking at random but that the perceived differences between good and bad brokers are in fact simply a result of clustering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 12:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 2:04 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 23 by Annafan, posted 11-17-2005 7:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 39 (260182)
11-16-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
11-16-2005 8:50 AM


quote:
It's a very American thing to believe that you know better than someone with expertise, because we are taught that our opinions matter, and it is irrelevant that we don't know anything about a subject.
I have a story to relate that is a perfect illustration of this.
I was working behind the cheese counter years ago, and we had a little sample setup out in front that had a sample of two cheeses that had the same name, but one was the traditional, real version of the cheese that we sold, and the other was a non-traditional, watered-down (and kind of nasty-tasting) version of the cheese that I found at a local grocery store. They tasted wildly different, and were even made from different types of milk, so it was a good illustration of how going by the name of some cheeses didn't mean you were getting the real thing.
I was waiting on a man who didn't read the signs by those samples and asked to buy some of the "other" cheese. I explained to him that the cheese wasn't actually a good example of this particular type of cheese and that we didn't sell it.
He replied, "But I eat a lot of cheese, and I think that's good."
He believes he is an expert on cheese because he eats it. AND, he's saying this to someone who is working behind one of the best cheese counters in the entire country.
Following that logic, I am an expert on cars because I drive them, or an expert on clothing because I wear them.
He thinks that his limited, completely non-in-depth experience of cheese as a consumer is equivalent to my 8 hours a day, extensive product training, and constant training to be a professional taster is irrelevant. In fact, I'm sure it never crossed his mind that he didn't know more than me, or any of us working there.
It is an additional tendency to equate or elevate one's own experience, preferences, or opinion to be equal or superior to anyone else's (even an expert's), that is also quite American.
We assume that everybody cares what we think, and that what we think actually matters, regardless of our expertise, or lack thereof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 8:50 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 11-16-2005 9:36 AM nator has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 39 (260192)
11-16-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
11-16-2005 9:05 AM


I don't think your story illustrates your point. I think it illustrates that different people have different tastes. Just because cheese B is considered better by cheese experts doesn't mean I'm going to like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:05 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:49 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 10 of 39 (260193)
11-16-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
11-15-2005 9:02 PM


"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
-Richard Feynman
I think questioning experts is a great thing for anybody to do. Without it, science would make no progress.
An expert shouldn't be trusted because he or she is an expert. They should be trusted based on the soundness of their arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:51 AM JustinC has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 39 (260195)
11-16-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
11-16-2005 9:36 AM


I didn't write clearly, I realize.
He was, actually trying to tell me that the cheese he liked WAS actually a good example of that particular cheese, and used as his justification his own preference, rather than any kind of knowledge of what that cheese is meant to be like.
Sorry for the lack of clarity, than thanks for bringing it up so I could explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 11-16-2005 9:36 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 11-16-2005 10:18 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 39 (260196)
11-16-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by JustinC
11-16-2005 9:40 AM


quote:
I think questioning experts is a great thing for anybody to do. Without it, science would make no progress.
An expert shouldn't be trusted because he or she is an expert. They should be trusted based on the soundness of their arguments.
But if one is skeptical of an expert's conclusions, shouldn't one reserve judgements upon the validity of the arguments if one doesn't have the expertise to evaluate the arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JustinC, posted 11-16-2005 9:40 AM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JustinC, posted 11-16-2005 11:15 PM nator has not replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2005 12:44 AM nator has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 13 of 39 (260197)
11-16-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
11-15-2005 9:02 PM


bobbins writes:
But if someone who's economic knowledge is based on the price of a tin of beans starts to mock and deride, well you can understand why I would disregard their opinion.
The question I am asking is this, what justification do you have for questioning/ignoring the opinion of people with a far greater knowledge of a subject than you do? And why?
Bad manners are ignorant in and of themselves, it being no better when the well-educated mock and deride than when the unwashed do.
Experts often do not agree. Which expert should be believed?
If one must acquire enough knowledge and skill to determine who is the sound authority, one faces a monumental task: one cannot become expert in all fields, yet still must consider matters of conflicting expert opinion; no one wishes to yield autonomy of thought, yet all must depend on others with greater knowledge and experience.
Often the choice made of whether to believe an expert turns on begging the consequences; i.e., the Anti-Expert discriminates based on perceived best interest.(1)
I would prefer to retain the expert-skeptic streak and ameliorate the ignorance rather than increase deference to authority. Who wants to live in an intellectual boot camp where experts pull rank and order our beliefs?
Experts who want more respect from the ignorant may have to teach more and better ways to evaluate experts. Primary and secondary education is so busy with crowd control issues that passing along a penchant for skillful questioning of authority is anathema, and a general resentment of authority is cultivated.
(1)
Omnivorous' Three Laws of Homotics
a. Homo sapiens act in what they perceive as their own best interests.
b. Homo sapiens are not efficient perceivers of their own best interests.
c. Me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 11-16-2005 1:52 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 12-06-2005 10:42 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 14 of 39 (260202)
11-16-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nator
11-16-2005 9:49 AM


Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:49 AM nator has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 15 of 39 (260250)
11-16-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Omnivorous
11-16-2005 10:03 AM


Omni,
Nice post. I think you make good points, but there is one point at which I disagree:
I would prefer to retain the expert-skeptic streak and ameliorate the ignorance rather than increase deference to authority. Who wants to live in an intellectual boot camp where experts pull rank and order our beliefs?
I don't really think that the expert-skeptic streak "ameliorates ignorance" at all--I think we tend to attempt to latch on to what serves our goals first, and different people have differing degrees of ability and willingness to examine the value / validity of the facts and viewpoints they've latched onto.
I'd suggest that our current views on "knowledge" and "expert", as it regards to areas where there are multiple "experts" who have differing views, are broken. "Knowledge" can't always be judged absolutely in terms of right / wrong or more supported / less supported. Usually what happens is that each theory has observations that support it, and observations that are problematic for it.
I think a more useful way (and I discussed this briefly with RAZD in another thread) is to break things up by usefulness. Theories are more or less useful in accomplishing a goal, and that should be the criterion upon which they are judged.
It means that, just like morals, we can't have an absolute "better" or "worse" judgement of two theories; we can only measure how well they accomplish goals to which they are applied. Is ToE "right" or "wrong"? I'm saying that question isn't an interesting one; the interesting one is, "what does the ToE allow us to do?" Is creation "theory" "right" or "wrong"? I don't think it's a useful question; even if one instantiation of creation theory is fundamentally broken, I don't see a principled reason to believe that every creation theory is fundamentally broken. And that's the reason we get "moving target" syndrome. The real meat is in asking, "what does creation theory allow us to do?"
How does this relate to your post? In a situation where we can't judge absolutely "right" or "wrong", where we don't want to defer to have to use appeals to authority to choose "right" or "wrong", and where we can't trust ourselves (as a group) to correctly judge "right" or "wrong", it seems to me best to discard the judgement of "right" and "wrong", and to simply move forward with "utility."
If this sounds a lot like moral relativism... then I'd have to agree with you
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 11-16-2005 10:03 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 11-16-2005 4:24 PM Ben! has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024