Is it experts or "experts"?

Hadn't heard the clustering comment before...I do think research, etc,...counts for a lot and that doing the research makes a big difference, but by the time the experts have done it everyone knows about it.But intuition and plain ole luck count for a lot too.

Hi, Ben. I agree--I didn't intend to suggest that the skepticism of experts ameliorates ignorance; rather, in the face of both phenomena--popular skepticism of experts and widespread ignorance of how to evaluate expert opinion--I would prefer to see the ignorance ameliorated rather than the skepticism reduced.I generally agree with the rest of your post. Yes, and it is this valid impulse, I think, that leads people to bracket out expert opinion per se, and instead evaluate the various opinions based on "utility"--or impact--in light of their own interests. With the concept of utility, we approach the concept of cost, the equations of gains and losses: in public policy, the challenge is to find a way to negotiate both the Scylla and Charybdis of polarized opinion, and the shoals of divergent costs and benefits, while maintaining a civil polity.I've enjoyed your attempts to do this, here and elsewhere. It reminds me of Rogerian rhetoric, a method I encountered in an early expository writing course. In an attempt to remove discourse from an "arena" of reason, to move from the battlefield to the table, Rogerian rhetoric first requires each party to paraphrase the other's position to that other party's satisfaction, before any discussion of merit or evidence begins. This has the value of creating a common set of terms before misunderstandings occur. The process then moves to finding common ground, then differences, then searching for a synthesis of action/policy acceptable to both sides. I have used the technique in tense meetings that threaten to get out of hand; reducing the structure of confict implicit in classic debate can be quite productive.And yes, your post generally sounds like moral relativism to me, brother--which I prefer to the more common moral atavisms

People who are incapable of discerning the nuances of an expert opinion are likely to think that their uninformed opinion is just as valid.Think of it like this ... "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"Is the opinion of someone who:(1) knows what a good job is in this particular application
(2) recognizes when a good job has been done in this particular application
(3) has a complete knowledge of all that goes into doing a good job in this particular applicationor (4) none of the above, in spite of having the best reason for having the best expert opinions available and incorporated into the planning for this particular application?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

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?

---

Without a doubt. If one can't understand an argument they should not make any judgements about its soundness.I'm just saying that a distrust for experts isn't necessarily a bad thing, though one doesn't have the right to dismiss arguments because of their distrust.

On the arguments? Sure.But often experts are used to circumvent argument; the expert is presented and delivers his/her conclusion, and his/her resume is substituted for that argument."Why did I come to the conclusion that I did? Because I'm the expert. Trust me." The problem here is that anybody can deliver conclusions in an authoritative way; and plenty of people who couldn't pour piss from a boot with directions on the heel have a CV as long as my arm.I think a healthy distrust of experts is a good thing. Of course some folks take it too far, and reject the conclusions of an expert simply because they're held to be an expert. I think it's appropriate to strike a balance between enthusiasm for education and expertise and skepticism in regards to unsupported claims.

There is a way to make at least a guess about the soundness:Try to find as many other "experts" opinions both in agreement and in disagreement. Looking at the reasons they give, even if your understanding is shakey, and how they come at the problem allows some guess as to the soundness.Even the vast majority of experts are not always guarenteed to be right (H. pylori being a good example) but if you are having to lay bets they are right more often than not.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. When I read about quantum physics I realize I don't have the education to really understand what the experts are saying to the degree that the experts do. In those cases, I form my opinion about which school of thought is correct in a particular disagreement, and if I was placing bets I'd probably go with the view that the majority of experts hold.But, if one doesn't understand the arguments I don't think they have a right to defend one position over another based on how many experts favor this or that position. That seems too close, if not exactly, to the infamous "argument from authority" which I think should never be introduced in a debate.

A couple of years ago, a magazine in Belgium did an experiment. They let some stock brokers, random people and... a couple of bonobos pick stocks. They followed things up, and after a couple of months the conclusion was that the bonobos had performed best! That was pretty funny I have to admit, lol.

I would go so far as to say more often than not experts are used to stifle disagreement. The most prominent public use of experts--in litigation and politics--is adversarial, and the popular perception is that anyone can find an expert-for-hire.If you have the bucks, the good professor has the facts...this pay-to-say is corrosive to trust and respect.

The most popular use of experts is medical. People go to doctors because they know more about sickness and injury than the common joe\jane.When oil companies want to find oil, they go to experts in the field of geology, and when people are in trouble with the law (or have a dispute with other people) they turn to lawyers.Reasonable people accept that there are experts in these various fields that actually do know more than they do about the specifics in question.Smart people also know that getting a second opinion can be as valuable as getting the first one, and when the first two do not agree go for a third.BUTThis is different from the people that reject the opinions of various fields of experts out of hand as some kind of smoke and mirrors. This kind of wholesale rejection can come from no other source than being totally incompetent to understand the field.Whether it is due to ignorance, stupidity, insanity, maliciousness or delusion, is not that important to the fact that if one doesn't have the tools to evaluate the validity of the experts opinion, know where one's knowledge is incomplete nor able to see that the expert does have the {information\knowledge\education} in the matter, then one just cannot see the validity of the experts opinion.We are not talking about blindly accepting the opinion of the {authority\expert}, but the wholesale rejection of a whole field of {educated\trained\experienced\tested} experts.The {argument from authority} is a logical fallacy because the implication is that the authority must be right, and this is false. What is true is that the authority is likely to be right, but the {afa} has no way to determine if that is true in the specific case where the argument is employed.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Is this really true?

i've always said that between us and the bonobos, they're the smarter of the two.

---

אָרַח

Hey Omni,Read your post, appreciated it... and then wrote nothing. Thought I should at least follow up and say "thanks."Thanks.Rogerian rhetoric reminds me of my high-school physics teacher, who said that in order to really choose between two positions, you first have to be able to believe in one. Then believe in the other. Once you're able to believe in each, choose. Seems to me there's a lot of merit in that.Take it easy.Ben

bobbins writes:

quote:

---

I cannot believe that incompetence alone is the reason. What I was trying to question was the wilfulness of ignoring of expert opinion.

---

Well, two reasons. One is, indeed, incompetence. It has been studied and measured that people who are incompetent are incapable of measuring their level of incompetence and consistently overestimate their ability. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology had an article on it, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments: On the flip side, people who are competent consistently underestimate their ability. People who know a great deal about a subject are more likely to understand that the subject is greater than any one person can fully comprehend and thus will hedge their analyses.Willful dismissal of expert opinion is, no doubt, related to this inability to recognize one's own incompetence: Because you don't realize just how out of touch you are, you are incapable of considering the possibility that you are not in a position to effectively respond. You overestimate your ability and thus find no reason to hesitate when contradicting somebody with greater experience and more extensive background.Another, more powerful effect, however, probably comes from cognitive dissonance. If you have a fundamental outlook of how the world is supposed to behave, encountering information that contradicts it is "traumatic." Thus, the information is denied in favor of the core belief.Combine these two together and you have a powerful block to information: If it contradicts your deeply help opinions of the world and you are incompetent to analyse the information, we should not be surprised that you dismiss it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I always wonder why people question theology and theologians so much. If one cannot even grasp the concept of salvation and has never experienced such an event, how can they disregard the Bible and the message contained therein? Its almost as if the experts on the subject (even if only 10% qualify as such) are dismissed as relativists within a sub cultural phenomenon! Or maybe the legislation of morality by wannabe American political "christians" has dampened peoples optimism!