4 ms·

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 o

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.