4 ms·

What makes these people experts? It looks like some of this is that they are professors, or they cite each other, which is rather circular. Are there testable

What makes these people experts? It looks like some of this is that they are professors, or they cite each other, which is rather circular. Are there testable predictions, or some utility to those who aren't political scientists?

mistermann 5y ago
I would think it would be a relative scale, whoever are the top x% (by some measure) would by The Experts, by definition. As a terrible analogy, the top 10% of a fruit crop (or whatever) for a given season are "the best", by definition. It would be lovely if we had a kind of absolute scale to measure by (as is often done in sports and other less complex domains), but that is not possible. However, what is possible (or should be, to some degree) is that (more) people could think from an absolute perspective, which I believe can substantially change how some things appear. How you would go about doing this though is not obvious, to me.
dillondoyle 5y ago
If that's the argument it's the same with any department in any uni. All those math professors are just citing each other. That Erdos is the worst circle in math!!
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  No. Maths makes testable predictions, which can be checked with computers in completely deterministic ways using extremely little human judgemnt. The same reality principle applies to the exact sciences and to a lesser extent the social sciences. At some point we leave the social sciences for the humanities where taste is disguised as fact. Not always, and the boundary is unclear but at some point knowledge ends and bullshit begins. If you believe there is no god theology is clearly bullshit. If you don't think white people are indelibly and irredeemably racist then Ibram Kendi is full of shit. Finance, politics, international relations are more complicated because humans play against humans. As an insight becomes known it becomes useless because humans incorporate it into their models to beat other humans. But Math clearly has real experise. Ramanujan was recognised on the basis of correspondence. Soros has real expertise in finace. Dominic Cummings managed to run two referendum campaigns that beat UK elite opinion. Kissinger and Bismarck are and were real experts in politics. But they can't demonstrate crushing qualitative superiority like experts in exact sciences can.
wolverine876 5y ago
I don't understand the question: You don't understand what qualifies them as experts? Look at their bios.

mistermann 5y ago

I would think it would be a relative scale, whoever are the top x% (by some measure) would by The Experts, by definition. As a terrible analogy, the top 10% of a fruit crop (or whatever) for a given season are "the best", by definition. It would be lovely if we had a kind of absolute scale to measure by (as is often done in sports and other less complex domains), but that is not possible. However, what is possible (or should be, to some degree) is that (more) people could think from an absolute perspective, which I believe can substantially change how some things appear. How you would go about doing this though is not obvious, to me.

dillondoyle 5y ago

If that's the argument it's the same with any department in any uni. All those math professors are just citing each other. That Erdos is the worst circle in math!!

barry-cotter 5y ago
No. Maths makes testable predictions, which can be checked with computers in completely deterministic ways using extremely little human judgemnt. The same reality principle applies to the exact sciences and to a lesser extent the social sciences. At some point we leave the social sciences for the humanities where taste is disguised as fact. Not always, and the boundary is unclear but at some point knowledge ends and bullshit begins. If you believe there is no god theology is clearly bullshit. If you don't think white people are indelibly and irredeemably racist then Ibram Kendi is full of shit. Finance, politics, international relations are more complicated because humans play against humans. As an insight becomes known it becomes useless because humans incorporate it into their models to beat other humans. But Math clearly has real experise. Ramanujan was recognised on the basis of correspondence. Soros has real expertise in finace. Dominic Cummings managed to run two referendum campaigns that beat UK elite opinion. Kissinger and Bismarck are and were real experts in politics. But they can't demonstrate crushing qualitative superiority like experts in exact sciences can.

wolverine876 5y ago

I don't understand the question: You don't understand what qualifies them as experts? Look at their bios.