5 ms·

Everything you wrote would make sense if we had a good alternative to statistics and expertise. The only alternative is ignorance. > there is an increasing bo

Everything you wrote would make sense if we had a good alternative to statistics and expertise. The only alternative is ignorance. > there is an increasing body of evidence that experts Is this "body of evidence" non-statistical?

lliamander 10y ago
> The only alternative is ignorance. Sometimes ignorance isn't even an option: it's mandatory. The only choice we are left with is whether to admit to ourselves that we are ignorant. The choice isn't between governing peoples lives using statistics vs. governing peoples lives based on gut-instinct (or whatever). It's between using weak statistics as a pretext for governing peoples lives vs. just admitting there's a lot we don't know and choosing to give people space to figure out things for themselves. Jim Manzi, who literally built his business off of effective use of statistics, spent 10 years figuring out where to put the snickers bar at the checkout stand[0] and he admitted it was a really hard problem. Yet it's a joke compared to some issues that experts claim they can solve. I have to depend upon statistical reasoning, both directly and indirectly, for work. I understand and appreciate the validity of the methods of statistics. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust any statistics that are used to back a policy proposal. [0]http://www.weeklystandard.com/jim-manzi-talks-science-knowledge-and-freedom/article/666107 http://www.weeklystandard.com/jim-manzi-talks-science-knowle...
zigzigzag 10y ago
There are plenty of alternatives to statistics and expertise, as the sibling comment points out, letting people get on with things themselves (i.e. the default action of do nothing) is essentially a delegation to the wisdom of the crowds. Gut feeling and intuition are also alternatives people frequently rely on, and aren't necessarily nonsense: the brain is very good at synthesising conclusions at the level of the subconscious that surface consciously as hunches or gut feelings. The "body of evidence" that self-proclaimed experts are frequently wrong is rarely presented statistically, but it could be so. However this would be circular, it'd be an expert using statistics to claim that experts using statistics can't be trusted. That's a time when 'common sense' knowledge is sufficient: if you've seen endless stories in the press about how experts predit X, and none about experts predicting not X, then when X doesn't happen you can safely lower your trust in experts without needing an Excel spreadsheet to prove it to yourself.
- coolgeek 10y ago
  > Gut feeling and intuition are also alternatives people frequently rely on, and aren't necessarily nonsense: the brain is very good at synthesising conclusions at the level of the subconscious that surface consciously as hunches or gut feelings And thus we get anti-vaxxers and climate change denial.

lliamander 10y ago

> The only alternative is ignorance. Sometimes ignorance isn't even an option: it's mandatory. The only choice we are left with is whether to admit to ourselves that we are ignorant. The choice isn't between governing peoples lives using statistics vs. governing peoples lives based on gut-instinct (or whatever). It's between using weak statistics as a pretext for governing peoples lives vs. just admitting there's a lot we don't know and choosing to give people space to figure out things for themselves. Jim Manzi, who literally built his business off of effective use of statistics, spent 10 years figuring out where to put the snickers bar at the checkout stand[0] and he admitted it was a really hard problem. Yet it's a joke compared to some issues that experts claim they can solve. I have to depend upon statistical reasoning, both directly and indirectly, for work. I understand and appreciate the validity of the methods of statistics. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust any statistics that are used to back a policy proposal. [0]http://www.weeklystandard.com/jim-manzi-talks-science-knowledge-and-freedom/article/666107 http://www.weeklystandard.com/jim-manzi-talks-science-knowle...

zigzigzag 10y ago

There are plenty of alternatives to statistics and expertise, as the sibling comment points out, letting people get on with things themselves (i.e. the default action of do nothing) is essentially a delegation to the wisdom of the crowds. Gut feeling and intuition are also alternatives people frequently rely on, and aren't necessarily nonsense: the brain is very good at synthesising conclusions at the level of the subconscious that surface consciously as hunches or gut feelings. The "body of evidence" that self-proclaimed experts are frequently wrong is rarely presented statistically, but it could be so. However this would be circular, it'd be an expert using statistics to claim that experts using statistics can't be trusted. That's a time when 'common sense' knowledge is sufficient: if you've seen endless stories in the press about how experts predit X, and none about experts predicting not X, then when X doesn't happen you can safely lower your trust in experts without needing an Excel spreadsheet to prove it to yourself.

coolgeek 10y ago
> Gut feeling and intuition are also alternatives people frequently rely on, and aren't necessarily nonsense: the brain is very good at synthesising conclusions at the level of the subconscious that surface consciously as hunches or gut feelings And thus we get anti-vaxxers and climate change denial.