4 ms·

sorry, being 'an expert' has no bearing on the veracity of your claims. and further, claiming the nominative of 'expert' tends to negatively correlate with vera

sorry, being 'an expert' has no bearing on the veracity of your claims. and further, claiming the nominative of 'expert' tends to negatively correlate with veracity. at best, you're an expert at the thing you study deeply, not the whole field. you perhaps may be more knowledgeable about different aspects of a given field, but that doesn't give you extraordinary powers of insight or reasoning. the exact opposite of your appeal is what teases out the known from the unknown, by triangulating from many arguments/opinions (the more, the better) whether they be 'expert' or not (the less correlated, the better).

epgui 5y ago
We're no longer talking about the subject matter, but there is absolutely value in knowing whether an opinion is informed by expertise or not. I did not "appeal to expertise", I merely signalled that I had expertise in the field. This has value. I suspect that a small minority of Hacker News participants are biochemists/biologists/life scientists, so the default assumption when you read comments on these topics is that they probably come from smart non-experts. By adding this extra information, I wasn't making my argument any better: I was only providing the readers with extra meta-information. I won't bother explaining the dangers of the appeal to authority, because I am persuaded that you are already familiar with the fallacy. However, I will say that not every form of "expertise signalling" is an appeal to authority, and it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise. I recommend this article on the subject, if you're interested in seeing where I'm coming from: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-... Edit: and I will happily and readily admit that I am not the "most expert" person on any subject, and I myself pretty much always defer to the expertise of those who are more expert than me.
- clairity 5y ago
  > “…it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise.” this is exactly what i’m pointedly disagreeing with. expertise gives you no such esteem to have others defer to you by default. what it does confer is an expectation of novel (to the non-expert) information and perhaps reasoning, but explicitly not deference. we are all often wrong, especially in our areas of expertise because of the disproportionate amount of time we spend in that area. have some humility that you may bring a relatively unique or more considered perspective to the table, but not infallibility or almighty ‘truth’. and earnest consideration of an ‘expert’ opinion is the best you should hope for. all the rest is by definition beyond the realm of science and into the realm of (small p) political. that is, expertise signalling is always an appeal to authority, no matter the magnitude or centrality of the claim. only the reasoning/evidence matters, not the titles of the person presenting them. you may expect some correlation there but should never assume it. (note that i’ve also scienced in my past life, if that meta-information matters to you in the way you seem to believe it should.)
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I'm fine with you disagreeing with it, everybody has a right to their opinion.
jacquesm 5y ago
> sorry, being 'an expert' has no bearing on the veracity of your claims Actually, it does. > claiming the nominative of 'expert' tends to negatively correlate with veracity. at best Not in my experience. > the exact opposite of your appeal is what teases out the known from the unknown, by triangulating from many arguments/opinions (the more, the better) whether they be 'expert' or not (the less correlated, the better). So, by your reasoning we should all ask out bakers for information about software development because they definitely aren't experts and they certainly will have opinions about it. This isn't a popularity contest, we're talking about actual knowledge here, and experts have usually spent a good chunk of their life acquiring it. You can't just toss that overboard in some kind of 'equal time' play (or in your case, even worse, a less than equal time) simply because everybody's opinions are equally valid. Expertise counts for something, no matter what the field.

epgui 5y ago

We're no longer talking about the subject matter, but there is absolutely value in knowing whether an opinion is informed by expertise or not. I did not "appeal to expertise", I merely signalled that I had expertise in the field. This has value. I suspect that a small minority of Hacker News participants are biochemists/biologists/life scientists, so the default assumption when you read comments on these topics is that they probably come from smart non-experts. By adding this extra information, I wasn't making my argument any better: I was only providing the readers with extra meta-information. I won't bother explaining the dangers of the appeal to authority, because I am persuaded that you are already familiar with the fallacy. However, I will say that not every form of "expertise signalling" is an appeal to authority, and it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise. I recommend this article on the subject, if you're interested in seeing where I'm coming from: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-... Edit: and I will happily and readily admit that I am not the "most expert" person on any subject, and I myself pretty much always defer to the expertise of those who are more expert than me.

clairity 5y ago
> “…it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise.” this is exactly what i’m pointedly disagreeing with. expertise gives you no such esteem to have others defer to you by default. what it does confer is an expectation of novel (to the non-expert) information and perhaps reasoning, but explicitly not deference. we are all often wrong, especially in our areas of expertise because of the disproportionate amount of time we spend in that area. have some humility that you may bring a relatively unique or more considered perspective to the table, but not infallibility or almighty ‘truth’. and earnest consideration of an ‘expert’ opinion is the best you should hope for. all the rest is by definition beyond the realm of science and into the realm of (small p) political. that is, expertise signalling is always an appeal to authority, no matter the magnitude or centrality of the claim. only the reasoning/evidence matters, not the titles of the person presenting them. you may expect some correlation there but should never assume it. (note that i’ve also scienced in my past life, if that meta-information matters to you in the way you seem to believe it should.)
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I'm fine with you disagreeing with it, everybody has a right to their opinion.

jacquesm 5y ago

> sorry, being 'an expert' has no bearing on the veracity of your claims Actually, it does. > claiming the nominative of 'expert' tends to negatively correlate with veracity. at best Not in my experience. > the exact opposite of your appeal is what teases out the known from the unknown, by triangulating from many arguments/opinions (the more, the better) whether they be 'expert' or not (the less correlated, the better). So, by your reasoning we should all ask out bakers for information about software development because they definitely aren't experts and they certainly will have opinions about it. This isn't a popularity contest, we're talking about actual knowledge here, and experts have usually spent a good chunk of their life acquiring it. You can't just toss that overboard in some kind of 'equal time' play (or in your case, even worse, a less than equal time) simply because everybody's opinions are equally valid. Expertise counts for something, no matter what the field.