13 ms·

I completely agree with Feynman and the blog post. However, I want to point out that today this sentiment is also used incorrectly, to bash the experts, or thei

by js8 6y ago

I completely agree with Feynman and the blog post. However, I want to point out that today this sentiment is also used incorrectly, to bash the experts, or their discussion. For example, some people dismiss things like evolution, global warming or mask wearing, under the guise of "we just want to have a debate" or "we just ask questions". But they don't understand even the basics of the existing theory, and don't want to understand it. I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are humble and you have done your homework. That is not to discourage anybody from asking questions, as Feynman said, just understand the experts are at a different place and probably asked these questions at some point as well. And that's why there is value in expert consensus. Becoming expert is hard and nobody can be expert in everything. So the expert consensus is a good first heuristic for a layman.

loopz 6y ago
Maybe because formal education didn't provide the science to ask questions scientifically? Bad education leaves generations vulnerable and exploitable.
- watwut 6y ago
  I think that bigger issue is the inability to admit gaps in own knowledge and admit that they matter. There is also part where people dont understand how science works. It is not just about making hypothesis and experiment, that is science fair simplistic thing that is not science. People dont understand ambiguity, that you need many studies till consensus forms, that studies sometimes contradict each other and figuring out why is part of work. There is also aspect that the science fair level of experiments is usually not actually good science. That is asking "scientific questions" that lead to bad results, because people asking them dont understand context. I mean, we have even PhD in one thing assuming that since they know that one thing, they now better then people studying completely different area. Because they asked simple question and did not bothered to check existing litterature.
  - loopz 6y ago
    In order to run, one first need to crawl. People are asked to have faith in authority, even when said source flip-flops. This is according to the article, non-scientific. Instead people need better explanations about how we know what we think we know, and associated uncertainties. People and leaders need to embrace ambiguity, as you say. If school or personal experiments can be used correctly, it is a superior learning tool, and more scientific than learning any facts by rote. This is by no means natural, and need to be taught and modeled from good role models.
    - watwut 6y ago
      No one can become expert on everything. At some level, you simply need to have trust, because you just wont be able to independently learn and verify everything.
      - Loughla 6y ago
        And here we have the root of the problem. I can look up how to change my car's alternator on youtube, yet I am not an expert at cars. I can look up how to take cuttings and pot geraniums on youtube, yet I am not an expert in horticulture. I can look up how vaccines are harmful and masks interfere with my breathing on youtube, yet I am not an expert in infectious diseases. People believe the three things I have listed are equal, and that their research on youtube/facebook/twitter/the web in general is just as valid as an expert opinion. We have been taught that we CAN learn anything online, and that we CAN be an expert on everything, or at least we can feel like an expert on everything.
invalidOrTaken 6y ago
>I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are humble and you have done your homework. Would the symmetrical statement, that you can only meaningfully agree with an expert if you are humble and have done your homework, be true? I don't generally get the sense that "skeptics" of whatever color are less informed than the orthodox. To take myself as an example---I don't really know how vaccines work. I know the broad strokes---the immune system reacts to the dead pathogens and is better-prepared when I actually get infected---but that's just, like something someone told me, I'd have no idea how to verify that specific mechanism of T-cells and B-cells, oh my. If I were to argue with an anti-vaxxer, I would be "right," and they would be "wrong," but it wouldn't be because I was pro-science, but because I was pro-expert.
- js8 6y ago
  > Would the symmetrical statement, that you can only meaningfully believe an expert if you are humble and have done your homework, be true? Yes and no. Yes, because as you point out, you need to be able to verify if you are to really trust someone. No, because the society is largely built on trust anyway, and as long as you can trust other people to verify the claims then you don't need to verify everything yourself. (That probably explains why so many libertarians have certain anti-scientific beliefs, if you don't have trust in the society at large, there is no way you can verify all the research.) > I don't generally get the sense that "skeptics" of whatever color are less informed than the orthodox. I get the sense of that a lot in the global warming debate. If the deniers understood the basics of the theory of global warming, for example, that it predicts (and we observe) stratospheric cooling and polar amplification, they could never claim that it could be the sun. With vaccines I think it is similar. I don't know much but I would bet there are classical experiments and observations that establish how the immune system works, and these pretty much lead you to the current theory. Which brings us to a point - if someone argues too much against a scientific theory, but are unable to create a decent competing alternative, it is probably a sign they either haven't done their homework, or they don't understand that scientific theories are supposed to be only the best available explanations, not anything more.
- comex 6y ago
  I'd say that believing experts is more an act of philosophy than an act of science. In an area where you're not an expert, you can't meaningfully agree with the experts – but you can meaningfully understand the limits of your own knowledge, take notice of the track record of science in general, and conclude that, in the absence of more specific knowledge, believing the experts is a good Bayesian prior. And the same applies in the other direction. In the absence of knowledge, you can't meaningfully disagree with the experts, but occasionally there are enough warning signs that you can meaningfully choose to be skeptical. (For example, a lack of rigor in the field.)
xscott 6y ago
> But they don't understand even the basics of the existing theory, and don't want to understand it. How much homeopathy do you need to learn before you can dare to question it's validity?
- js8 6y ago
  Actually, homeopathy was a pretty decent theory when it appeared, in 1820s. What questioned its validity was two centuries of progress in physics, chemistry and biology. So its validity was challenged a long time ago. All you need to know to question it today is that homeopathic principles haven't changed in the last 200 years.
  - xscott 6y ago
    Oh please, you're just throwing up chaff because I contradicted your point. Pick some other whacko theory (crystal power, personal auras, whatever). You don't need to be an expert in bullshit to question whether something is bullshit. You're just pretty sure that you get to be the arbiter of what's bullshit and what's irrefutable without a pedigree. Not all fields of science are on as good of a footing as physics and chemistry, and there is almost certainly something you currently believe which will be shown to be false in the future. This is exactly the problem mentioned in the article: > “I defer to the experts” (said with pride).
    - js8 6y ago
      I am not really sure where you disagree with me, I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so the whackier the theory, the easier it is to disprove.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > was two centuries of progress in physics, chemistry and biology Well, also _medicine_. The application of the scientific method to medicine more or less killed off homeopathy as something that could be taken seriously. It wasn't a scientific theory.
- 6y ago
arvinsim 6y ago
> And that's why there is value in expert consensus. Becoming expert is hard and nobody can be expert in everything. So the expert consensus is a good first heuristic for a layman. Corporate Lobbying has also eroded that trust.
- js8 6y ago
  I agree, but there is a simple recipe to counter that. Simply stop talking about the free speech being only an issue with respect to the government. People who work for corporations need to be able to publicly criticize the corporations they work for as well.
raxxorrax 6y ago
In one direction this is true. But there is also another one: There is no scientific theory that humans are useful, on the contrary, they are probably very detrimental to other forms of life and countless studies underline this fact. But every time it is suggested to get rid of humans, the responses are quite mixed. I think the essence of the statement is to highlight the limits of science. Where science can have negative effects can be frequently shown in economic theories in my opinion. They are reductive ad absurdum and I think it highlights sciences tendency to be approximative at best. And global warming might be a scientific fact, the response is undeniably political. We had experts to COVID-19 and they are furious about how they were depicted in media as authoritative voices, since scientists value the relativity of their statements. Mask are one example. If someone declares that he just takes the risks of not wearing any, science has no answer to that. If you think it unethical to endanger others who do wear a mask, science has no answer here either. This was the point here: to be aware of the limitations of science and not succumb to idolatry of scientists or experts. It may still be wise to listen to them from time to time. Didn't happen on anything related to informational technology and politics in my opinion.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
The real definition of "expert" isn't "knows stuff you don't" but "reliably does stuff you can't." So when an expert makes accurate predictions about climate change, they're not believable because they're in a political category called "expert". They're believable because they've done what they've claimed they could do. And your opinion is less relevant than their opinion, because you literally don't know enough about the details to even start doing what they've done. If you look into the pseudoscience of denialism, you'll find that not only are the same "experts" rolled out to challenge climate change, tobacco dangers, and so on - but it's incredibly rare to find one with a credible paper trail of accurate and useful predictions about the topic they're holding forth on. But populists aren't interested in the science, they're interested in pandering to public narcissism. No one has a problem believing dentists know more about teeth than they do, or that mechanics know about cars. But populists like to use sideswipes - like claiming climate science is all about funding - which are personal smears and not about the facts. And they add a strain of anti-intellectual pandering by suggesting these domeheads are looking down at regular honest Americans, and how dare they be so insulting? This is like honey to narcissists, and the debate stops being about reality and becomes about feelings and identity - which is exactly what the denier farms want. The mechanics are thinly varnished bullying, similar to some of the drivers of misogyny and homophobia - "How dare you be different, and how dare you even have an opinion? Shut up and stay in your place. See - all these good folk here agree."
- antepodius 6y ago
  Does this apply to blue-tribe denialists, too?
- thu2111 6y ago
  Can you actually cite someone who is both a climate change skeptic and believes tobacco isn't harmful? Or is that a strawman you invented? Your definition of "denialism" is botched. Of course skeptics don't provide their own theories. They are pointing out bad science. It is not a requirement to present an alternative paper to point out that a paper is flawed. Many skeptics are people who believe the state of the art is inadequate to understand or simulate whatever some 'expert' is claiming they can simulate, so obviously those people aren't going to present some alternative 'expertise'. That would be in defiance of their own beliefs.
denzil_correa 6y ago
“I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.” — Charlie Munger
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Related to this, Rule 1 of Daniel Dennett's four rules for critical commentary: > You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
blotter_paper 6y ago
It's funny you use mask wearing as an example -- when the CDC told us that masks would not protect us[0] there was no theory to back it up and no homework to do, it was just a realpolitik lie. Be cautious of experts wearing the skin of science. [0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/01/coronavirus-surgeon-general-stop-buying-face-masks/4922614002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/01/corona...
- TomMarius 6y ago
  It's true though, the mask does not protect you from coronavirus, only a FFP3 respirator will. It prevents you from touching your face and coughing/breathing at others, which is the most common medium. They obviously shouldn't have discouraged the public from wearing masks, but it was not a lie - preventing spread of disease and contraction of disease are very different things. I wouldn't want my doctor to only wear a mask.
  - lambdaba 6y ago
    It baffles me you're being downvoted for this.
  - seesawtron 6y ago
    I think in times of crisis (and in general to some extent), it is difficult and non-advantageous to aim SOLELY to be technically correct because not everyone is willing to pay attention to details. I agree that everything you have mentioned is technically correct but people need and look for simple guidelines and thumb rules from expert. There has been a huge debate about the goal of statistical tests. Is their purpose to (i) find the truth (the effect you noticed in your experiment and the hypothesis you propose to explain it being true or not), or (ii) help an experimenter in making a decision what future experiments should they do to get closer to the truth. I see this same debate re-occurring pandemic times. And I would argue that we must aim for the latter because in the end people want to know: Should I wear a mask or not? The former truth can be sought out in non-pandemic times with well-defined studies that are not under time pressure to churn out a publication. WHO expertise failed to cut through this superficial chaos of "scientific expertise" to help people make that decision early on.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
One of the duties of an expert is explaining things to the public. Yes, the public is not perfect. It's argumentative, uneducated, intolerant and has all other unpleasant traits one can think about. Sorry, dear experts, we don't have another public to offer you. You will probably have to deal with what you have and explain that the earth is not flat over and over again. This is normal. Please don't be snobbish and please descend from the skies to the level of laypeople.
RoutinePlayer 6y ago
So true. Thanks for echoing what many of us immediately thought about. Personally, this recent anti-expert fad is neatly capture by this 2016 cartoon => https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20630 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20630
gadders 6y ago
I don't think you agreeing with the article at all. You seem to be specifically saying that experts must be treated like high priests and only approached in a special way.
mcnamaratw 6y ago
Nobody reveres St. Richard more than I do. But to be clear: Believing the experts are ignorant is a necessary condition for science. It is not a sufficient condition for science!

by js8 6y ago

loopz 6y ago

Maybe because formal education didn't provide the science to ask questions scientifically? Bad education leaves generations vulnerable and exploitable.

watwut 6y ago
I think that bigger issue is the inability to admit gaps in own knowledge and admit that they matter. There is also part where people dont understand how science works. It is not just about making hypothesis and experiment, that is science fair simplistic thing that is not science. People dont understand ambiguity, that you need many studies till consensus forms, that studies sometimes contradict each other and figuring out why is part of work. There is also aspect that the science fair level of experiments is usually not actually good science. That is asking "scientific questions" that lead to bad results, because people asking them dont understand context. I mean, we have even PhD in one thing assuming that since they know that one thing, they now better then people studying completely different area. Because they asked simple question and did not bothered to check existing litterature.
- loopz 6y ago
  In order to run, one first need to crawl. People are asked to have faith in authority, even when said source flip-flops. This is according to the article, non-scientific. Instead people need better explanations about how we know what we think we know, and associated uncertainties. People and leaders need to embrace ambiguity, as you say. If school or personal experiments can be used correctly, it is a superior learning tool, and more scientific than learning any facts by rote. This is by no means natural, and need to be taught and modeled from good role models.
  - watwut 6y ago
    No one can become expert on everything. At some level, you simply need to have trust, because you just wont be able to independently learn and verify everything.
    - Loughla 6y ago
      And here we have the root of the problem. I can look up how to change my car's alternator on youtube, yet I am not an expert at cars. I can look up how to take cuttings and pot geraniums on youtube, yet I am not an expert in horticulture. I can look up how vaccines are harmful and masks interfere with my breathing on youtube, yet I am not an expert in infectious diseases. People believe the three things I have listed are equal, and that their research on youtube/facebook/twitter/the web in general is just as valid as an expert opinion. We have been taught that we CAN learn anything online, and that we CAN be an expert on everything, or at least we can feel like an expert on everything.

invalidOrTaken 6y ago

>I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are humble and you have done your homework. Would the symmetrical statement, that you can only meaningfully agree with an expert if you are humble and have done your homework, be true? I don't generally get the sense that "skeptics" of whatever color are less informed than the orthodox. To take myself as an example---I don't really know how vaccines work. I know the broad strokes---the immune system reacts to the dead pathogens and is better-prepared when I actually get infected---but that's just, like something someone told me, I'd have no idea how to verify that specific mechanism of T-cells and B-cells, oh my. If I were to argue with an anti-vaxxer, I would be "right," and they would be "wrong," but it wouldn't be because I was pro-science, but because I was pro-expert.

js8 6y ago
> Would the symmetrical statement, that you can only meaningfully believe an expert if you are humble and have done your homework, be true? Yes and no. Yes, because as you point out, you need to be able to verify if you are to really trust someone. No, because the society is largely built on trust anyway, and as long as you can trust other people to verify the claims then you don't need to verify everything yourself. (That probably explains why so many libertarians have certain anti-scientific beliefs, if you don't have trust in the society at large, there is no way you can verify all the research.) > I don't generally get the sense that "skeptics" of whatever color are less informed than the orthodox. I get the sense of that a lot in the global warming debate. If the deniers understood the basics of the theory of global warming, for example, that it predicts (and we observe) stratospheric cooling and polar amplification, they could never claim that it could be the sun. With vaccines I think it is similar. I don't know much but I would bet there are classical experiments and observations that establish how the immune system works, and these pretty much lead you to the current theory. Which brings us to a point - if someone argues too much against a scientific theory, but are unable to create a decent competing alternative, it is probably a sign they either haven't done their homework, or they don't understand that scientific theories are supposed to be only the best available explanations, not anything more.
comex 6y ago
I'd say that believing experts is more an act of philosophy than an act of science. In an area where you're not an expert, you can't meaningfully agree with the experts – but you can meaningfully understand the limits of your own knowledge, take notice of the track record of science in general, and conclude that, in the absence of more specific knowledge, believing the experts is a good Bayesian prior. And the same applies in the other direction. In the absence of knowledge, you can't meaningfully disagree with the experts, but occasionally there are enough warning signs that you can meaningfully choose to be skeptical. (For example, a lack of rigor in the field.)

xscott 6y ago

> But they don't understand even the basics of the existing theory, and don't want to understand it. How much homeopathy do you need to learn before you can dare to question it's validity?

js8 6y ago
Actually, homeopathy was a pretty decent theory when it appeared, in 1820s. What questioned its validity was two centuries of progress in physics, chemistry and biology. So its validity was challenged a long time ago. All you need to know to question it today is that homeopathic principles haven't changed in the last 200 years.
- xscott 6y ago
  Oh please, you're just throwing up chaff because I contradicted your point. Pick some other whacko theory (crystal power, personal auras, whatever). You don't need to be an expert in bullshit to question whether something is bullshit. You're just pretty sure that you get to be the arbiter of what's bullshit and what's irrefutable without a pedigree. Not all fields of science are on as good of a footing as physics and chemistry, and there is almost certainly something you currently believe which will be shown to be false in the future. This is exactly the problem mentioned in the article: > “I defer to the experts” (said with pride).
  - js8 6y ago
    I am not really sure where you disagree with me, I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so the whackier the theory, the easier it is to disprove.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > was two centuries of progress in physics, chemistry and biology Well, also _medicine_. The application of the scientific method to medicine more or less killed off homeopathy as something that could be taken seriously. It wasn't a scientific theory.
6y ago

arvinsim 6y ago

> And that's why there is value in expert consensus. Becoming expert is hard and nobody can be expert in everything. So the expert consensus is a good first heuristic for a layman. Corporate Lobbying has also eroded that trust.

js8 6y ago
I agree, but there is a simple recipe to counter that. Simply stop talking about the free speech being only an issue with respect to the government. People who work for corporations need to be able to publicly criticize the corporations they work for as well.

raxxorrax 6y ago

In one direction this is true. But there is also another one: There is no scientific theory that humans are useful, on the contrary, they are probably very detrimental to other forms of life and countless studies underline this fact. But every time it is suggested to get rid of humans, the responses are quite mixed. I think the essence of the statement is to highlight the limits of science. Where science can have negative effects can be frequently shown in economic theories in my opinion. They are reductive ad absurdum and I think it highlights sciences tendency to be approximative at best. And global warming might be a scientific fact, the response is undeniably political. We had experts to COVID-19 and they are furious about how they were depicted in media as authoritative voices, since scientists value the relativity of their statements. Mask are one example. If someone declares that he just takes the risks of not wearing any, science has no answer to that. If you think it unethical to endanger others who do wear a mask, science has no answer here either. This was the point here: to be aware of the limitations of science and not succumb to idolatry of scientists or experts. It may still be wise to listen to them from time to time. Didn't happen on anything related to informational technology and politics in my opinion.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

The real definition of "expert" isn't "knows stuff you don't" but "reliably does stuff you can't." So when an expert makes accurate predictions about climate change, they're not believable because they're in a political category called "expert". They're believable because they've done what they've claimed they could do. And your opinion is less relevant than their opinion, because you literally don't know enough about the details to even start doing what they've done. If you look into the pseudoscience of denialism, you'll find that not only are the same "experts" rolled out to challenge climate change, tobacco dangers, and so on - but it's incredibly rare to find one with a credible paper trail of accurate and useful predictions about the topic they're holding forth on. But populists aren't interested in the science, they're interested in pandering to public narcissism. No one has a problem believing dentists know more about teeth than they do, or that mechanics know about cars. But populists like to use sideswipes - like claiming climate science is all about funding - which are personal smears and not about the facts. And they add a strain of anti-intellectual pandering by suggesting these domeheads are looking down at regular honest Americans, and how dare they be so insulting? This is like honey to narcissists, and the debate stops being about reality and becomes about feelings and identity - which is exactly what the denier farms want. The mechanics are thinly varnished bullying, similar to some of the drivers of misogyny and homophobia - "How dare you be different, and how dare you even have an opinion? Shut up and stay in your place. See - all these good folk here agree."

antepodius 6y ago
Does this apply to blue-tribe denialists, too?
thu2111 6y ago
Can you actually cite someone who is both a climate change skeptic and believes tobacco isn't harmful? Or is that a strawman you invented? Your definition of "denialism" is botched. Of course skeptics don't provide their own theories. They are pointing out bad science. It is not a requirement to present an alternative paper to point out that a paper is flawed. Many skeptics are people who believe the state of the art is inadequate to understand or simulate whatever some 'expert' is claiming they can simulate, so obviously those people aren't going to present some alternative 'expertise'. That would be in defiance of their own beliefs.

denzil_correa 6y ago

“I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.” — Charlie Munger

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Related to this, Rule 1 of Daniel Dennett's four rules for critical commentary: > You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

blotter_paper 6y ago

It's funny you use mask wearing as an example -- when the CDC told us that masks would not protect us[0] there was no theory to back it up and no homework to do, it was just a realpolitik lie. Be cautious of experts wearing the skin of science. [0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/01/coronavirus-surgeon-general-stop-buying-face-masks/4922614002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/01/corona...

TomMarius 6y ago
It's true though, the mask does not protect you from coronavirus, only a FFP3 respirator will. It prevents you from touching your face and coughing/breathing at others, which is the most common medium. They obviously shouldn't have discouraged the public from wearing masks, but it was not a lie - preventing spread of disease and contraction of disease are very different things. I wouldn't want my doctor to only wear a mask.
- lambdaba 6y ago
  It baffles me you're being downvoted for this.
- seesawtron 6y ago
  I think in times of crisis (and in general to some extent), it is difficult and non-advantageous to aim SOLELY to be technically correct because not everyone is willing to pay attention to details. I agree that everything you have mentioned is technically correct but people need and look for simple guidelines and thumb rules from expert. There has been a huge debate about the goal of statistical tests. Is their purpose to (i) find the truth (the effect you noticed in your experiment and the hypothesis you propose to explain it being true or not), or (ii) help an experimenter in making a decision what future experiments should they do to get closer to the truth. I see this same debate re-occurring pandemic times. And I would argue that we must aim for the latter because in the end people want to know: Should I wear a mask or not? The former truth can be sought out in non-pandemic times with well-defined studies that are not under time pressure to churn out a publication. WHO expertise failed to cut through this superficial chaos of "scientific expertise" to help people make that decision early on.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

One of the duties of an expert is explaining things to the public. Yes, the public is not perfect. It's argumentative, uneducated, intolerant and has all other unpleasant traits one can think about. Sorry, dear experts, we don't have another public to offer you. You will probably have to deal with what you have and explain that the earth is not flat over and over again. This is normal. Please don't be snobbish and please descend from the skies to the level of laypeople.

RoutinePlayer 6y ago

So true. Thanks for echoing what many of us immediately thought about. Personally, this recent anti-expert fad is neatly capture by this 2016 cartoon => https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20630 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20630

gadders 6y ago

I don't think you agreeing with the article at all. You seem to be specifically saying that experts must be treated like high priests and only approached in a special way.

mcnamaratw 6y ago

Nobody reveres St. Richard more than I do. But to be clear: Believing the experts are ignorant is a necessary condition for science. It is not a sufficient condition for science!