4 ms·

It's a lot worse than the title claims: almost NO experts ANYWHERE in government are good at their jobs. And it isn't limited to governments of course. The boo

It's a lot worse than the title claims: almost NO experts ANYWHERE in government are good at their jobs. And it isn't limited to governments of course. The book "Wrong: Why Experts* Keep Failing Us" by David H. Freedman shows that government, academic and private industry are quite lacking in "expertise". The current pandemic cock-ups with the CDC, "epidemiology experts", reporters, commentators, analysts and political appointees all now make sense. Freedman doesn't have a solution, instead leaving us with "11 Simple Never-Fail Rules For Not Being Misled by Experts". but the situation laid out does suggest that we (taxpayers) should slash funding for most governmental, academic and private agencies b/c they fail to come through and literally lack expertise. "No lesson seems to be so deeply inoculated by the experience of life as that you never should trust experts." - Lord Salisbury

ciarannolan 6y ago
>[...] almost NO experts ANYWHERE in government are good at their jobs. Doctors at the NIH, scientists at the Department of Energy, biologists at USAMRIID, etc etc etc. All bad at their jobs? What kind of absurd reductionist take is this?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  A “small-government” libertarian argument predicated on the assumption that the private sector - with its profit-motive - yields better overall results. Ayn Randian bollocks to be sure.
- giardini 6y ago
  ciarannolan says "Doctors at the NIH, scientists at the Department of Energy, biologists at USAMRIID, etc etc etc. All bad at their jobs?" Yes. See the book "Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us" by David H. Freedman. Meanwhile... "No lesson seems to be so deeply inoculated by the experience of life as that you never should trust experts." - Lord Salisbury
- giardini 6y ago
  Let's start with CDC: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/cdc-coronavirus-containment-redfield https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/cdc-coronavi...
- giardini 6y ago
  Then take a look at "I Quit" at: https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-quit-be062295f638 https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-quit-be062295f638
jkhdigital 6y ago
The lesson should be trust science, and trust an expert only when he or she is speaking directly from knowledge of the relevant science. Unfortunately, not all areas of human endeavor are amenable to the scientific method. Economics is an edge case; there seems to be at least as much quackery as solid science among economists. Forensics could be much more scientific but is held back by poor incentives. Spycraft or “intelligence” is almost like forensics writ large, and I suspect it will always be dominated by intuition and emotion, even when using mass surveillance techniques.

ciarannolan 6y ago

>[...] almost NO experts ANYWHERE in government are good at their jobs. Doctors at the NIH, scientists at the Department of Energy, biologists at USAMRIID, etc etc etc. All bad at their jobs? What kind of absurd reductionist take is this?

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
A “small-government” libertarian argument predicated on the assumption that the private sector - with its profit-motive - yields better overall results. Ayn Randian bollocks to be sure.
giardini 6y ago
ciarannolan says "Doctors at the NIH, scientists at the Department of Energy, biologists at USAMRIID, etc etc etc. All bad at their jobs?" Yes. See the book "Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us" by David H. Freedman. Meanwhile... "No lesson seems to be so deeply inoculated by the experience of life as that you never should trust experts." - Lord Salisbury
giardini 6y ago
Let's start with CDC: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/cdc-coronavirus-containment-redfield https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/cdc-coronavi...
giardini 6y ago
Then take a look at "I Quit" at: https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-quit-be062295f638 https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-quit-be062295f638

jkhdigital 6y ago

The lesson should be trust science, and trust an expert only when he or she is speaking directly from knowledge of the relevant science. Unfortunately, not all areas of human endeavor are amenable to the scientific method. Economics is an edge case; there seems to be at least as much quackery as solid science among economists. Forensics could be much more scientific but is held back by poor incentives. Spycraft or “intelligence” is almost like forensics writ large, and I suspect it will always be dominated by intuition and emotion, even when using mass surveillance techniques.