2 ms·

Are you an expert? If so I defer Don't. An expert is the person most likely to be able to provide good support for their claims.

Zuider 6y ago
I agree. The stance "I defer to the experts" is potentially very damaging to the growth of knowledge, and can quickly lead to what philosopher of science, Imre Lakatos, called a 'degenerative paradigm,' where increasingly elevated credentials represent increasingly less actual skill and knowledge. While credentials perform a necessary function, they are a placeholder, an IOU, and not themselves final grounds to accept a claim. They ought not to be treated as a primary source, and a claim based on a bare assertion of expertise should be accepted provisionally and only on the understanding that support can, in fact, be provided if the matter is pressed. In short, your definition is a pretty good one.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  I can see the argument for it, but I think that, especially at present, more harm is being done by a belief that expert opinion should be subject to obsessive outside scrutiny (by whom?) than this fairly academic concern about damaging the growth of knowledge. For all that people like to point out the conservativeness of past experts rejecting ideas ultimately proven correct, few like to engage with the fact that almost all of those ideas were ultimately championed from within the establishment, not by radical outsiders.
  - Zuider 6y ago
    It is not a matter of a political who:whom, but of an impersonal, objective 'what' i.e. the process of rationality. Arguments should be able to stand on their own merit irrespective of whether their origin is 'outsiders', or the credentials of the originator. Again, it is very damaging to the institution of knowledge to say: "I accept your thesis on the basis of your credentials alone, and will investigate no further, either to increase my understanding, or to test its veracity."
  - solipsism 6y ago
    I didn't say don't listen to experts. I didn't say don't respect expert opinions, only radical outsiders. Here you have someone presenting evidence! But saying "if you're an expert, I defer". You can expect an expert to make their case and allow it to stand on its own. Beware experts who invoke their own authority as an argument.

Zuider 6y ago

I agree. The stance "I defer to the experts" is potentially very damaging to the growth of knowledge, and can quickly lead to what philosopher of science, Imre Lakatos, called a 'degenerative paradigm,' where increasingly elevated credentials represent increasingly less actual skill and knowledge. While credentials perform a necessary function, they are a placeholder, an IOU, and not themselves final grounds to accept a claim. They ought not to be treated as a primary source, and a claim based on a bare assertion of expertise should be accepted provisionally and only on the understanding that support can, in fact, be provided if the matter is pressed. In short, your definition is a pretty good one.

wyattpeak 6y ago
I can see the argument for it, but I think that, especially at present, more harm is being done by a belief that expert opinion should be subject to obsessive outside scrutiny (by whom?) than this fairly academic concern about damaging the growth of knowledge. For all that people like to point out the conservativeness of past experts rejecting ideas ultimately proven correct, few like to engage with the fact that almost all of those ideas were ultimately championed from within the establishment, not by radical outsiders.
- Zuider 6y ago
  It is not a matter of a political who:whom, but of an impersonal, objective 'what' i.e. the process of rationality. Arguments should be able to stand on their own merit irrespective of whether their origin is 'outsiders', or the credentials of the originator. Again, it is very damaging to the institution of knowledge to say: "I accept your thesis on the basis of your credentials alone, and will investigate no further, either to increase my understanding, or to test its veracity."
- solipsism 6y ago
  I didn't say don't listen to experts. I didn't say don't respect expert opinions, only radical outsiders. Here you have someone presenting evidence! But saying "if you're an expert, I defer". You can expect an expert to make their case and allow it to stand on its own. Beware experts who invoke their own authority as an argument.