It only makes sense to have experts on topics that are clearly objectively and experimentally verifiable. Otherwise there is no way to identify truth and we abu

It only makes sense to have experts on topics that are clearly objectively and experimentally verifiable. Otherwise there is no way to identify truth and we abuse statistics to go in circles - this would be okay except it has the consequences of tarnishing the view of all science as wishy washy in public opinion. Note that in time, topics can move to become objective subjects. Experts have a tricky road. The advice a good one gives is nuanced and filled with caveats. But people don't like that. They want definites. So there are some "experts" who sound like experts and they are dangerous. Especially when it comes to anything which involves taking action based on prediction. An expert's opinion is unreliable for forecasting, especially when compared to crowds or novices, basic algorithms and animals with simpler brains - e.g. little or no better than random. Human biases are too hard to get over, not to mention information limits and complexity of the process generating the probable events impossible to get a head around. --------- Here is what one expert, Richard Feynman, has to say on the matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPunpjeFaiQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPunpjeFaiQ