Trust the "Experts"

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 191
#121
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,658
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First, you can certainly verify or disprove the mechanics expertise by his explanation if you have enough expertise yourself to understand it or to understand that he is not using terms correctly.
Irrelevant. If you're an expert yourself then you have no need to trust the experts

Second, causing the car to run does not prove he is an expert. Some problems solve themselves, an overheated coolant system, engine oil that was too cold until it was brought into the shop, a computer that was reset when he blindly unplugged the battery.
Irrelevant. It was just a hypothetical example, you're missing the whole point.

Moreover if "results" are defined as "fixing something" 
I stated very clearly that expertise is demonstrated by a proven track record of results.

Antibiotics are "the power of god"?
Ugh. No.

You gave an example of someone claiming they are a prophet of God as their explanation for their positive results. The topic is about whether it is rational to "trust the experts", in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.
#122
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,658
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
DO....WE....HAVE.... TIME....TO....SEE....THINGS...... FOR.....OUR....SELVES?

Very basic yes or no question. 
It's an ill formed and terribly worded question which is why I asked for clarity. Shouting the exact same question louder doesn't provide it.
#123
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
So you just rely on what people say as evidence alone. Relying on more than one person saying something doesn't make it more true or evident at all .
Topic's author
#124
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
First, you can certainly verify or disprove the mechanics expertise by his explanation if you have enough expertise yourself to understand it or to understand that he is not using terms correctly.
Irrelevant. If you're an expert yourself then you have no need to trust the experts
Expertise is a spectrum.


Second, causing the car to run does not prove he is an expert. Some problems solve themselves, an overheated coolant system, engine oil that was too cold until it was brought into the shop, a computer that was reset when he blindly unplugged the battery.
Irrelevant. It was just a hypothetical example, you're missing the whole point.
Well if you were trying to make a general point shouldn't you be able to find a specific example that makes it?


Moreover if "results" are defined as "fixing something" 
I stated very clearly that expertise is demonstrated by a proven track record of results.
I'll state very clearly that such does not prove expertise it proves effectiveness of some behavior. True expertise results in effectiveness, but effectiveness does not prove true expertise.

Hippocrates helped a lot of people (one can presume) but he was wrong about humors. Was he a medical expert?

Don't strawman this. I know that in our every day life we need to trust the expertise of others, there is too much for one man to know it all; but this is the order of authority:

1.) Reason, there is no substitute, there is no replacement, there is nothing better
2.) Effectiveness (a track record of results)
3.) The esteem of already trusted entities
4.) The esteem of the untrusted general population

2-4 are proxies for (1). In every case whatever power you have to evaluate (1) overrides 2-4. There are indicators of non-expertise and #1 on that list is a refusal to give reasons when asked. All true experts have reasons. Anyone who is effective without reasons is like a mechanic who just got lucky or Hippocrates and his humors. They are not experts and their theories and proclamations are not trustworthy.


You gave an example of someone claiming they are a prophet of God as their explanation for their positive results.
Yes


The topic is about whether it is rational to "trust the experts"
No, it's about the fact that there is no mechanism to establish expertise with certainty but to become, to some extent, an expert. That establishing expertise is itself a rational process, the best argument, and therefore in debate and in science (which is a subset of rational epistemology) there is absolutely no place for trust.

Repeat the experiment, don't trust the claim. This isn't an arbitrary rule, it's implied by reason. Science only became distinct from religious philosophy and theology when it eliminated trust from the equation and thereby became a fully rational process.


in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.
Of course he is. You simply defined a prophet as "not an expert". A cultural bias that most of humanity did not share up until about five minutes ago.

Yet that was chosen intentionally, how can you tell the difference between a false prophet and an expert when both can produce "good results" consistently?
#125
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,329
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yet that was chosen intentionally, how can you tell the difference between a false prophet and an expert when both can produce "good results" consistently?
Duhh, " good results consistently " does not equal a " false prophet ".

That also goes for any prophet not just the given false prophet ---aka false narrative set--- 3rd grader, 8th grader., college grads etc.

I see no logical pathway of thought  occurring here with ADL.

3rd graders are experts at whatever they commonly do as 3rd graders --ex recess--.

8th graders are experts of whatever they commonly do as 8th graders --ex learning puberty basics---.

College grads are experts of whatever they commonly do as college grads --ex celebration of getting through college---.

False narrative set of people are experts of what they commonly do as false narrative set   --ex creating unnecessary and unfounded chaos, confusion,anxieties etc in others---. 


#126
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,658
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well if you were trying to make a general point shouldn't you be able to find a specific example that makes it?
I did, you just didn't listen to it because you held my analogy to the standard where it must prove the entire argument I am making here instead of the subset of the argument I was responding to.

You claimed that results are irrelevant without argument. The point of my analogy is to show that you have it backwards, argument is irrelevant without results. So there's an example to make that one point, which it does. Anyone can make a convincing argument, it's not till they prove themselves by demonstrating that they have it right that we can begin to evaluate them as an expert.

I know that in our every day life we need to trust the expertise of others, there is too much for one man to know it all
Then what are we talking about?

Repeat the experiment, don't trust the claim.
You just said the opposite

establishing expertise is itself a rational process, the best argument, and therefore in debate and in science (which is a subset of rational epistemology) there is absolutely no place for trust.
When the phrase "trust the experts" is uttered, no one is talking about science and/or debate. Of course if I'm conducting a scientific experiment I don't get to say "my results are X because that's what other experts told me to report". The phrase refers to decision making, and people making such decisions don't often have the time or even the literacy to put on a lab coat and figure it out themselves.

in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.
Of course he is. You simply defined a prophet as "not an expert".
No, you did. You claimed that his status as a prophet from God was his explanation for being able to heal people. That's notably different from "I am able to heal people because I understand how all of this works and if you learned what I have learned you can do it too".
#127
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don’t need to be an expert to identify an expert. And expert is someone who has dedicated their life to studying a topic, and they are so well versed in that subject that they are more likely to be right about it than other people.

There’s not a set criteria for being an expert, but generally it’s the people at the very top of their field. Ask anybody who studies that, and if they would consider that person an expert, chances are that they know what they are talking about.

Obviously that doesn’t mean these people are always right, or that you shouldn’t look at the data yourself. It just means that this person is more likely to be right than you are, so you should probably take their opinion into account, and if all of the experts agree on something, they there’s an even lower chance they are wrong.
#128
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
No, of course not. I’ve spent this whole conversation trying to say that trusting the experts isn’t about blindly trusting people.

Obviously, look at the numbers yourself, and an experts opinion never proves anything. If there’s no solid proof or evidence, the next best thing is an experts opinion.
#129
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
Yeah just realize what you're saying and the next best thing is finding the evidence. Whether you see it or not, you rely on so called experts . You are most comfortable.
#130
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
Ask me the question I asked you please.
#131
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
I'd add one little caveat to that too. If you don't have the time to do all the research, it's usually okay to trust the experts without finding evidence yourself, usually because these experts make their claims based on evidence. They have done much more research than you will ever come across, or be able to do, so as long as this person is really an expert, and you look at other opinions in the field, you're usually going to be fine by trusting them.

Obviously, experts don't actually constitute evidence, so whenever I cite one in a debate I make sure to provide statistics too, and to actually explain the study they did, just so it's not a war of link finding.
#132
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
There is no evidence but of what you can see for yourself. It's not what somebody has said or what you heard .

People think things are true because somebody has said so even with titles slapped on them. I asked someone on here how is it known that what you know is true.

The person stated "common knowledge" and "established fact". Which is code for "I heard it" and "read it".
Topic's author
#133
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You claimed that results are irrelevant without argument. The point of my analogy is to show that you have it backwards, argument is irrelevant without results.
Your example did not prove that. You may not care about the explanation if the car isn't fixed, but that does not mean the explanation doesn't prove expertise.


So there's an example to make that one point, which it does. Anyone can make a convincing argument, it's not till they prove themselves by demonstrating that they have it right that we can begin to evaluate them as an expert.
The convincing argument is demonstration.

The car working is just another argument. The implicit premise is "The only way this vehicle will work again is if an expert repairs it."


I know that in our every day life we need to trust the expertise of others, there is too much for one man to know it all
Then what are we talking about?
The responsibilities of the individual in social epistemology. The fact that "trust the experts" is never a valid argument because there is no situation where you should be trying to convince other people of a conclusion you don't understand the argument for.

I have often said "let god speak for himself", similarly I say "let the experts speak for themselves". Those who can't comprehend the argument should privately invest their trust based on the fuzzy and imperfect proxies for expertise and leave it at that.

We know the kind of abuse and madness that can arise when people play telephone or convince themselves they're instruments of god. It's all risk and no reward.


Repeat the experiment, don't trust the claim.
You just said the opposite
I did not. If you think there is a contradiction you misunderstand. Probably confusing contexts.


establishing expertise is itself a rational process, the best argument, and therefore in debate and in science (which is a subset of rational epistemology) there is absolutely no place for trust.
When the phrase "trust the experts" is uttered, no one is talking about science and/or debate.
Which is the problem.


Of course if I'm conducting a scientific experiment I don't get to say "my results are X because that's what other experts told me to report".
Good


The phrase refers to decision making, and people making such decisions don't often have the time or even the literacy to put on a lab coat and figure it out themselves.
It is in all cases used as shorthand for "Trust the experts I trust" or "trust my experts.

Also, everyone should be trained in logic so that they are at least armed to spot most of the fake experts. Negative filtration is much easier than positive establishment.

Also, it is not unattainable that the large majority of people are given a general education in science. A good deal is already in most curricula if people actually remembered what they were taught. Most scientific illiteracy I have encountered is pre-highschool, i.e. if they went to highschool and passed a test on biology or physics they forgot it all.


in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.
Of course he is. You simply defined a prophet as "not an expert".
No, you did. You claimed that his status as a prophet from God was his explanation for being able to heal people.
Yes


That's notably different from "I am able to heal people because I understand how all of this works and if you learned what I have learned you can do it too".
What's the practical difference if the secular "expert" refuses to give reasons (teach)?
Topic's author
#134
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
And expert is someone who has dedicated their life to studying a topic, and they are so well versed in that subject that they are more likely to be right about it than other people.
Under that definition a fortune teller is an expert at predicting the future.

#135
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,456
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"trust, but verify"

-Reagan during the cold war.
#136
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,658
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your example did not prove that. You may not care about the explanation if the car isn't fixed, but that does not mean the explanation doesn't prove expertise.
The entire point and purpose of expertise is accomplish a particular goal. If you cannot accomplish that goal then you are not an expert.

The convincing argument is demonstration.
No, it's not. It's a demonstration of the fact that you are an effective communicator. Unless your purported expertise is communication itself that particular skill is by itself, useless.

Again, a mechanic who cannot fix your car is worthless. No sane rational person would rather take their car to someone solely because they can make a convincing case.

Argument is crucial to the success of a business because no one will spend money with you if they are not convinced you know what you're doing, that is irrelevant to the question of whether you actually know what you're doing. The latter is what expertise is, the former is not.

The fact that "trust the experts" is never a valid argument because there is no situation where you should be trying to convince other people of a conclusion you don't understand the argument for.
We do this all the time, and in fact no large organization can function without it. There is a reason we break organizations up into different departments handling different fields. HR used to mostly be handled by business managers until companies realized that it was beneficial to have people who specialize in those fields alone.

Anyone who has ever worked high up in an organization knows that no one can know everything and that trying to understand every element of every consideration of a big decision is paralyzing. Having the buy off of different people and/or departments is the process by which any effective manager operates. Trust is not avoidable.

We do the exact same thing in everyday life. We don't put on a lab coat everytime we go to the doctor, we don't roll up our sleeves everytime we go to a mechanic. We listen and if what they have to say sounds good to us we proceed. That's called trust, and we wouldn't do it if the individuals we are putting our trust in have never demonstrated through results that they will accomplish what they say they will.

When the phrase "trust the experts" is uttered, no one is talking about science and/or debate.
Which is the problem.
It's only a problem if your interest is strawmanning other people

That's notably different from "I am able to heal people because I understand how all of this works and if you learned what I have learned you can do it too".
What's the practical difference if the secular "expert" refuses to give reasons (teach)?
The practical differences is irrelevant to this topic. Expertise, by definition, requires that one's ability to achieve results is based on knowledge and is repeatable by others. A person who is able to achieve results because they were sent by God is definitionally a different thing, and therefore definitionally a different topic.
#137
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Okay fine, you can only be an expert at real subjects. You can nit pick my definition all you want, but your not even getting to the heart of it.

#138
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
The clear thing that you’re missing is that these experts don’t just say things, they are relaying actual evidence and information that they have found, which the also publish for the public to critique. They’re not just saying things, they are making educated guesses based on evidence, or showing how something is real with evidence.
Topic's author
#139
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
Okay fine, you can only be an expert at real subjects. You can nit pick my definition all you want, but your not even getting to the heart of it.
What if the fortune teller claims to be an expert in quantum physics and that she is using tachyon that travel backward in time to predict the future?

#140
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well is she? or does she just claim to be. Because lots of actual experts in quantum physics told me that time travel might be possible, and they published their work, and it was well received by the scientific community, then I'd probably be inclined to believe them.
#141
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,456
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The "Grievance Studies Affair," also dubbed "Sokal Squared"

In 2017 and 2018, three scholars—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—submitted 20 intentionally absurd and fabricated papers to various academic journals within fields they termed "grievance studies," such as gender studies, race studies, and critical theory. Their goal was to expose what they perceived as a lack of rigor and ideological bias in these disciplines.

Out of the 20 papers submitted:
  • 4 were published
  • 3 were accepted but not yet published
  • 6 were rejected
  • 7 were still under review at the time the hoax was revealed
One notable example was a paper titled "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon," which was published in the journal Gender, Place & Culture. This paper purported to study the sexual behaviors of dogs in dog parks and drew parallels to human rape culture.

The revelation of this project sparked widespread debate about academic standards, peer review processes, and the influence of ideological perspectives in certain fields of study. Critics argued that the hoax highlighted vulnerabilities in academic publishing, while others contended that the methods used were unethical and undermined genuine scholarship.

This affair is reminiscent of the original "Sokal Hoax" in 1996, where physicist Alan Sokal submitted a nonsensical paper to the journal Social Text to critique the intellectual rigor of postmodernist critiques of science.

The "science community" published 4 obviously junk expert papers as actual expertise.

This is why "consensus science" today is absolute bullshit.
Topic's author
#142
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
Well is she?
You tell me, you claim to have a mechanism to tell. How do we establish that she has "dedicated their life to studying a real topic"

#143
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,462
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How does she create the tachyon?  Tachyons have never been found in experiments as real particles traveling through the vacuum, but it is predicted theoretically that tachyon-like objects exist as faster-than-light 'quasiparticles.
#144
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I've said it before and I'll say it again

A. She published her evidence and the numbers match up with what she is saying

B. A majority of other researchers in her field agree with her and say she is qualified to speak on that topic

If this is your average street fortune teller, then she doesn't fulfill constraint A. If she's an actual quantum physicist at the top of her field, and she meets these two requirements, then I put a lot of stake in her opinion.
Topic's author
#145
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
I've said it before and I'll say it again

A. She published her evidence and the numbers match up with what she is saying
If you can verify her logic (including math) that makes you something of an expert.

We're evaluating your claim that you don't need to have expertise to identify an expert.


B. A majority of other researchers in her field agree with her and say she is qualified to speak on that topic
So you can't tell if she's a researcher(expert), but you have statistical data about a whole group of experts? How?

#146
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 1,233
3
2
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you can't tell if she's a researcher(expert), but you have statistical data about a whole group of experts? How?
When did I ever say I didn’t know if she was a researcher?

For example, let’s say I see a news article making by a claim and backing it up with testimony from a supposed expert. To verify that, I look at the original study done by this person, because news sources usually leave out some of the important stuff.

I also google around their name, and see if any other people in the field have contradictory opinions to them. If their numbers make sense, other experts agree with them, and their study is done well, then I put lots of stake in their opinion.
Topic's author
#147
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
For example, let’s say I see a news article making by a claim and backing it up with testimony from a supposed expert. To verify that, I look at the original study done by this person, because news sources usually leave out some of the important stuff.
and you can understand this study? Then you have some expertise.

I also google around their name, and see if any other people in the field have contradictory opinions to them.
"other people in the field" how do you identify them?

Suppose a paper pushing poser claim to be an expert despite not understanding the subject and just collecting checks through tenure or absurd government granting schemes. Do you just assume anyone associated with a university is "in the field", an "expert"?
Topic's author
#148
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,373
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Your example did not prove that. You may not care about the explanation if the car isn't fixed, but that does not mean the explanation doesn't prove expertise.
The entire point and purpose of expertise is accomplish a particular goal. If you cannot accomplish that goal then you are not an expert.
What if you don't pay them?

Are all mechanics you refuse to pay no longer experts?


What goal did Anthony Fauci accomplish?

If it was to prevent people from being infected or reduce the death count of a pandemic with effective measures it looks like absolute failure.


The convincing argument is demonstration.
No, it's not. It's a demonstration of the fact that you are an effective communicator.
I shouldn't be surprised that you don't really believe in rational epistemology, you've lost many debates to me. It is easily explained if you think logic can be brushed off as "effective communication".


Expertise, by definition, requires that one's ability to achieve results is based on knowledge and is repeatable by others.
So then when the knowledge is not shared, it is not repeatable by others. So an "expert" who won't share is indistinguishable from a non-expert.

QED
#149
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,456
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So then when the knowledge is not shared, it is not repeatable by others. So an "expert" who won't share is indistinguishable from a non-expert.
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.

-some obscure American
#150
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,242
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
Presenting evidence is one thing. Just hearing somebody speak on it is another. Also you don't have to wait for somebody referred to as "expert" to have evidence presented to you .