3 ms·

Implying that most experts have agendas that supersede the truth is outrageous and frankly dangerous. Saying we should just give up on using data to make predic

by psyklic 10y ago

Implying that most experts have agendas that supersede the truth is outrageous and frankly dangerous. Saying we should just give up on using data to make predictions is ludicrous -- even if it hasn't worked before in some situations. We should hopefully be in agreement that using data to make decisions is preferred to winging it. We should also hopefully be in agreement that we should trust people who devote their life to studying an issue over someone new who merely has gut feelings about it -- and hence is even more biased in many additional ways. The thrust of your argument is valid -- summarizing data inherently leaves things out. However, the solution to this is not to give up and throw statistics out the window. And the solution is definitely not to unfairly discredit people who devote their lives to these issues. Rather, if you see statistics, wonder how they were generated and why some data was included and others thrown out. By being open and candid about the decisions made, the statistics are meaningful. Just giving numbers without providing details of how they were achieved is not valid statistical work. From my experience, most scientists (and myself in my work) care about the truth over everything else. I use statistics to better understand my data. My objective is always to choose the most sensible path in analyzing it that allows me to most accurately answer the questions I pose.

engi_nerd 10y ago
> Implying that most experts have agendas that supersede the truth is outrageous and frankly dangerous. I think that "experts with agendas that supersede the truth" claim is true if you consider the pool of pundits that regularly appear in mainstream media. Unfortunately they are not representative of scientists like yourself.
- psyklic 10y ago
  This attitude of not trusting experts and not trusting statistics unfortunately permeates from the political arena into science. The belief that all statistics are not to be trusted is a clear danger to our society. Not trusting climate scientists. Not even trusting simple statistics on vaccinations. As another poster noted, the only alternative is ignorance.
  - vanattab 10y ago
    Exactly. So what we need to do is reduce the misuse and cherry picking in the statistics that make it to the main stream media (both sides) so that public confidence in science does not degrade further.
  - engi_nerd 10y ago
    I agree with you.
- conistonwater 10y ago
  Even then the claim is not true, because then you would be wrong to call them "experts". The fault then lies not with the experts, but with the media you choose to watch.
  - engi_nerd 10y ago
    It would be wrong by our standards to call them "experts", but that won't stop the media from using the term. Personally I avoid news as much as possible, but it's almost impossible to avoid it totally (break rooms, visits to friends homes, etc mean that I still see a bit of mainstream news media).
  - gwenzek 10y ago
    Well most people don't do a complete study before choosing a media. They usually just turn on TV. I think that major media companies should be more responsible of what they say. Or how do it correlate to the life of people (like for the GDP).
Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
"most experts have agendas that supersede the truth" I spend a lot of time with education statistics, and this is absolutely commonplace. Most of it is spin; folks choose the metrics that support the point they want to make.
calpaterson 10y ago
> We should also hopefully be in agreement that we should trust people who devote their life to studying an issue over someone new who merely has gut feelings about it -- and hence is even more biased in many additional ways. Unfortunately this is sometimes untrue. For example: Long Term Capital Management was run by some of the most expert academic financiers perhaps ever gathered together and it blew up. Lord Kelvin thought X-Rays were a hoax. It is the blanket assumption that specialists in a field should be trusted that is mistake. Specialism has an important place but epistemology is a difficult subject and it is a matter for everyone.
- psyklic 10y ago
  It's all about who to trust. Science sometimes gets it wrong for a while, as do some scientists. However, I would trust expert academic financiers over someone who by luck happened to have a good year with his or her stock picks.
  - coolgeek 10y ago
    Also, experts - as a class - are vastly more likely to change their minds based on new evidence than are ideologues. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
mjfl 10y ago
> We should also hopefully be in agreement that we should trust people who devote their life to studying an issue over someone new who merely has gut feelings about it -- and hence is even more biased in many additional ways. I have to admit that I don't trust social scientists with anything they say about social science. There have been too many replication failures. I don't think you are entitled to people's deference just because you spend your life doing something, there has to be something more "material" than that. If I spent my life trying to get a girlfriend would you go to me for dating advice? Physics is one thing - you can easily demonstrate the atomic model is correct by building a nuclear fission generator. Computer Science is pretty objective, math.. But almost any other field my reaction is - "okay, well show me, use it". I'm not in the wrong there, you're in the wrong for not effectively proving it to me. Our default should be skepticism.
Chris2048 10y ago
> Implying that most experts have agendas that supersede the truth is outrageous and frankly dangerous Are you talking about actual experts, or claimed experts? The issue here is the high number of the latter indistinguishable from the former. > Saying we should just give up on using data to make predictions is ludicrous Who is "we". Statistics can still be performed, but it's unrestricted "authority" must be examined - it's too easy to do "bad" or "not" statistics, and claim it to be valid without restriction. It's also easy and common to use misleading statistics too, so simply outlawing bad statistics isn't enough - there need to be clear guidelines on non-ambiguity, much like exists for legal documents. > I use statistics to better understand my data You don't benefit from statistics half as much as those that use it to gain political power.

by psyklic 10y ago

engi_nerd 10y ago

> Implying that most experts have agendas that supersede the truth is outrageous and frankly dangerous. I think that "experts with agendas that supersede the truth" claim is true if you consider the pool of pundits that regularly appear in mainstream media. Unfortunately they are not representative of scientists like yourself.

psyklic 10y ago
This attitude of not trusting experts and not trusting statistics unfortunately permeates from the political arena into science. The belief that all statistics are not to be trusted is a clear danger to our society. Not trusting climate scientists. Not even trusting simple statistics on vaccinations. As another poster noted, the only alternative is ignorance.
- vanattab 10y ago
  Exactly. So what we need to do is reduce the misuse and cherry picking in the statistics that make it to the main stream media (both sides) so that public confidence in science does not degrade further.
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  I agree with you.
conistonwater 10y ago
Even then the claim is not true, because then you would be wrong to call them "experts". The fault then lies not with the experts, but with the media you choose to watch.
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  It would be wrong by our standards to call them "experts", but that won't stop the media from using the term. Personally I avoid news as much as possible, but it's almost impossible to avoid it totally (break rooms, visits to friends homes, etc mean that I still see a bit of mainstream news media).
- gwenzek 10y ago
  Well most people don't do a complete study before choosing a media. They usually just turn on TV. I think that major media companies should be more responsible of what they say. Or how do it correlate to the life of people (like for the GDP).

Jill_the_Pill 10y ago

"most experts have agendas that supersede the truth" I spend a lot of time with education statistics, and this is absolutely commonplace. Most of it is spin; folks choose the metrics that support the point they want to make.

calpaterson 10y ago

> We should also hopefully be in agreement that we should trust people who devote their life to studying an issue over someone new who merely has gut feelings about it -- and hence is even more biased in many additional ways. Unfortunately this is sometimes untrue. For example: Long Term Capital Management was run by some of the most expert academic financiers perhaps ever gathered together and it blew up. Lord Kelvin thought X-Rays were a hoax. It is the blanket assumption that specialists in a field should be trusted that is mistake. Specialism has an important place but epistemology is a difficult subject and it is a matter for everyone.

psyklic 10y ago
It's all about who to trust. Science sometimes gets it wrong for a while, as do some scientists. However, I would trust expert academic financiers over someone who by luck happened to have a good year with his or her stock picks.
- coolgeek 10y ago
  Also, experts - as a class - are vastly more likely to change their minds based on new evidence than are ideologues. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

mjfl 10y ago

> We should also hopefully be in agreement that we should trust people who devote their life to studying an issue over someone new who merely has gut feelings about it -- and hence is even more biased in many additional ways. I have to admit that I don't trust social scientists with anything they say about social science. There have been too many replication failures. I don't think you are entitled to people's deference just because you spend your life doing something, there has to be something more "material" than that. If I spent my life trying to get a girlfriend would you go to me for dating advice? Physics is one thing - you can easily demonstrate the atomic model is correct by building a nuclear fission generator. Computer Science is pretty objective, math.. But almost any other field my reaction is - "okay, well show me, use it". I'm not in the wrong there, you're in the wrong for not effectively proving it to me. Our default should be skepticism.

Chris2048 10y ago

> Implying that most experts have agendas that supersede the truth is outrageous and frankly dangerous Are you talking about actual experts, or claimed experts? The issue here is the high number of the latter indistinguishable from the former. > Saying we should just give up on using data to make predictions is ludicrous Who is "we". Statistics can still be performed, but it's unrestricted "authority" must be examined - it's too easy to do "bad" or "not" statistics, and claim it to be valid without restriction. It's also easy and common to use misleading statistics too, so simply outlawing bad statistics isn't enough - there need to be clear guidelines on non-ambiguity, much like exists for legal documents. > I use statistics to better understand my data You don't benefit from statistics half as much as those that use it to gain political power.