3 ms·

At a way to fully illustrate the OP's point.

• tabtab 8y ago
  The title is misleading then. Ultimately complex topics probably require trust regardless, unless one can spend a lot of time on them. I once debated about whether one can clearly determine the Earth is not flat without relying on experts. I found alternative models for just about every home-spun experiment. Maybe with really good weather and carefully crafted survey tools one could rule out the alternative models, but again that's a lot of time (at least for the middle-ages; which is where we set our thought experiment. No Amazon.com back then).
  • thethirdone 8y ago
    > I found alternative models for just about every home-spun experiment. I have put thought into how to prove a round earth and all the models of a flat earth I have seen cannot stand up to basic observations of the sun, moon and stars (over the course of one year from a single location). I would be very interested to in an alternative model that can account for astronomical phenomena that are easily perceived with the unaided eye.
    • tabtab 8y ago
      I think one is biased by knowing the answer ahead of time. Pick one of your favorite "home proofs" and we can play around with that one.
  • eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    > without relying on experts This does not fly with most complex disciplines where it takes decades to become proficient. But relying VS not-relying on experts is a false dichotomy. You can choose experts to trust, as rationally as possible.
    • tabtab 8y ago
      I'll reword it this way: the more you know, the less you have to rely on experts, or at least the degree decreases. But the practical angle of this is that one will still have to heavily rely on experts until they reach a non-trivial point in their education/study of the topic. It's not realistic that the average person master every controversial topic in order to vote fully informed.