8 ms·

> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases I get where you're going here, and I don't totally disagree, but that's not "just" what experts are.

> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases I get where you're going here, and I don't totally disagree, but that's not "just" what experts are. Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. It's good to be skeptical, and it's important to understand that experts have bias too, but there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Being able to consume and be critical of information from biased experts while still benefiting from and being enriched by their knowledge and expertise (instead of disregarding it because you disagree) is I think the crown jewel of "critical thinking".

NullPrefix 5y ago
>Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. Are we still talking about Facebook fact checking experts?
huntertwo 5y ago
> there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Which camp does the fact checker fall into?
systemvoltage 5y ago
Jamie Metzl lays out an incredible delusional narrative constructed by health experts about the Pangolin/intermediate host theory for Sars-COV-2 origins, 4 hours of in-depth discussion, highly recommend. Experts made a U-turn but not because of typical respectful scientific protocol of discovering new facts (and therefore changing their minds), but rather due to peer-pressure, politics and group-think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I
cogman10 5y ago
It honestly makes me really nervous for the future. There is a LOT of distrust in experts that I see across the internet (and here in HN). While there are bad actors, consensus is generally going to guide you closer to the truth than fringe experts. What does the community of experts who have studied this say about it? Is it something generally accepted by the experts or is it something that most experts disagree with? It is nearly impossible that an entire field of study will succumb to bias. Climate change is the poster child here. Where experts disagree isn't that it is happening and caused by man, they disagree about the degree that it will be a problem (With all of them agreeing it's a major issue). Yet, I've often seen it claimed that those experts are all biased and this fringe expert funded by Koch research is really the one to be trusted (which, shocker, finds we should be burning MORE fossil fuels!)
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  Trust in scientists is too high when they keep pumping out studies that don't replicate, and don't publish the original data and methods used to reach conclusions. I wholly trust science that independently replicates and the fact that it's missing from the process means much of what we see is less than wholly trustworthy.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    Not all fields of science are created equal. Whether or not studies are replicated or data is available will depend entirely on the field of study. Certainly, a lot of the social sciences and "soft" sciences have a fair bit of replication/data problems. That said, the biomedical, environmental, geologic, and chemical sciences by and large have really solid data and repeats of that data. The areas of sciences we have a harder time controlling for are those where it'd be unethical to get better data and examples (nutritional science, for example). There are far too many fields of study to lump all science into the same bucket and call it all untrustworthy. A bigger problem is that scientific journalism treats every study as being equal. When, in fact, some studies are far better than others and carry a much larger weight of truth.
    - 5y ago
umvi 5y ago
> Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. One thing to note though is that the less mature a field is, the more gaps there will be an expert's knowledge/models. Doctors in the 1940s were regarded as medical experts, and yet many were actively promoting cigarettes. History is littered with "experts" whose expertise was outrageously wrong or misguided in hindsight. So I say people should judge experts by the maturity of their field and in the context they are providing expertise on. A civil engineer is giving expertise on whether a building will collapse or not? You'll likely get extremely reliable expertise you can count on. A doctor is promoting a glass of wine a day for health reasons? Take it with a grain of salt.
- popcube 5y ago
  but that the best advice we can get now
- nradov 5y ago
  Be careful: that salt will give you high blood pressure! Or not, depending on which medical "expert" turns out to be correct.
  - zuminator 5y ago
    I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual expert who would make the general claim that salt consumption will cause high blood pressure, as opposed to a claim that some people are salt-sensitive, or that high salt diets are positively correlated with high blood pressure, or something else. Part of the problem is that non-experts tend to summarize expert information in ways that alter or omit crucial points, and then people are disappointed when the crib notes version tends to be inaccurate.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Yes I was being somewhat flippant. Besides genetic susceptibility, the current research indicates that the issue with salt is more due to osmolality than quantity. https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ And yet the medical experts still get it wrong by oversimplifying the issue and making dietary recommendations based on quantity. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/changes-you-can-make-to-manage-high-blood-pressure/shaking-the-salt-habit-to-lower-high-blood-pressure https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/c...
davidw 5y ago
Right, and part of the problem with an "ah, who can know the truth" approach is that it absolutely will be weaponized by bad faith actors. It's really easy to be loud and persistent with a lie if no one calls it out because "who knows, really". A parallel to this is something I saw in Italy where a number of people complain that "all the politicians are corrupt". This provides cover for the really rotten politicians, because it puts the ones shoveling money to their cronies in the same category as the basically honest guy who's trying his best to actually do something positive for his constituents.
- tiahura 5y ago
  “the problem with an "ah, who can know the truth" approach is that it absolutely will be weaponized by bad faith actors.” So are pens. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of horrors that have been committed by the stroke of a pen? Should we ban pens?
temp8964 5y ago
But fact-checkers aren’t experts. And experts don’t claim their research conclusions as facts.
hogFeast 5y ago
But the problem is that expertise is used to shut down debate...that is the reason why it is controversial. People do not disbelieve experts because they think they are experts themselves. They disbelieve experts because the argument today is: I am an expert, I am right, if you disagree with me you are likely a danger to other people. What has changed is the attitude of "experts" to other people. And I say "experts" because it is also increasingly common for people who have expertise in one subject to claim that they have expertise in another subject, and use that authority to elevate their claims beyond contention. It isn't about scepticism or some kind of re-interpretation of scientific truth...it is one group of people attempting to use their authority to force through their view of what society should be like. If you want to see what the looks like, China is led by "experts"...it isn't pretty. I think Covid has brought this to the fore because you have scientific "experts" ruling on societal and political issues, not because people necessarily disbelieve those claims (ofc, experts and politicians are very clear to make this unclear...they want you to believe that the people who oppose them are lunatics, they aren't, they are rarely people who deny Covid is occurring or deny vaccines work...they just have different political views which suggest different solutions to those problems...there are no experts in politics, that is why we have voting, "experts" today are attempting to shut down debate, shut down politics, and would shut down voting if given the chance). Also, another big issue is that experts undermine themselves. I can only speak to what is happening in the UK but experts here have made predictions that were fairly consistently untrue - https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios - people did not disbelieve these predictions at the start, they disbelieve them now because the evidence is clear: the predictions are consistently wrong, and consistently used to justify a political decision that the "experts" want (one that has massive externalities in areas that the "experts" don't know about...paragraph 3 again). This happens, no-one can predict the future, no-one can predict the course of a pandemic 100%...but the problem is that the "experts" are saying: we can predict this, we are correct all the time...again, this is something totally different. Again, what has changed is the experts, not the people.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  Have the spectator really not updated this page since October? Poor form fellows, very poor form.
cardiffspaceman 5y ago
I served as a juror on a criminal case, in which the prosecution seemed to want to make a big deal out of DNA evidence found on some clothing. In turn, the defense wanted to dispose of that evidence by having an expert say that DNA evidence was unreliable. The expert they brought in was someone who admitted their knowledge of the field was only based on an article they read. So the percentage of experts who spend real research on a question appears to be less than 100.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is a long, sad history of trial courts improperly convicting defendants based on pseudoscience testimony by "expert" witnesses. We now know that forensic analysis of things like hair samples and bite marks is mostly bullshit. Even fingerprint and ballistic analysis has a high error rate. Unfortunately jurors often assign expert witnesses a level of credibility that they don't deserve.
laserlight 5y ago
There are astrology “experts”. The idea that someone is an expert is very difficult to establish. Many times I discover that “expert” doctors who give public health advice don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. Experts are made in a biased environment. Those who could get rid of their biases would probably be filtered out by that same environment.
amelius 5y ago
Yes. What most laypeople don't understand is that finding cracks in the work of experts has real rewards for other experts, because of the scientific method. Therefore, it is unlikely that a layperson will find those cracks first.
klabb3 5y ago
> Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. For sure, but that's not at all how fact checking is implemented today. Most of the critique is related to the silencing, discrediting and deplatforming of reporters and professionals (i.e. experts by your definition) that express a different interpretation or selection of data. Even if it was enforced through gate-keeping by merit, it would still be massively subject to bias and political capture. It's abundantly clear that fact-checking is at best using Western authority consensus, which is much more narrow than even scientific consensus, which itself has a majorly flawed track record in recent history. What fact checking is effectively doing is treating information, debate and ideas as a form of hazardous material, too dangerous to be freely exchanged, unless certified by chain of custody through the supply chain of truths. Independently of the do-gooders' commandable intents, the result is predictably Orwellian. The systems, processes and bureaucracies for policing speech are rapidly expanding during this pandemic, see e.g. the Trusted News Initiative[1] and check their partner list. (There are of course countless other moving pieces.) [1]: https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...

NullPrefix 5y ago

huntertwo 5y ago

> there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Which camp does the fact checker fall into?

systemvoltage 5y ago

Jamie Metzl lays out an incredible delusional narrative constructed by health experts about the Pangolin/intermediate host theory for Sars-COV-2 origins, 4 hours of in-depth discussion, highly recommend. Experts made a U-turn but not because of typical respectful scientific protocol of discovering new facts (and therefore changing their minds), but rather due to peer-pressure, politics and group-think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I

cogman10 5y ago

It honestly makes me really nervous for the future. There is a LOT of distrust in experts that I see across the internet (and here in HN). While there are bad actors, consensus is generally going to guide you closer to the truth than fringe experts. What does the community of experts who have studied this say about it? Is it something generally accepted by the experts or is it something that most experts disagree with? It is nearly impossible that an entire field of study will succumb to bias. Climate change is the poster child here. Where experts disagree isn't that it is happening and caused by man, they disagree about the degree that it will be a problem (With all of them agreeing it's a major issue). Yet, I've often seen it claimed that those experts are all biased and this fringe expert funded by Koch research is really the one to be trusted (which, shocker, finds we should be burning MORE fossil fuels!)

ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Trust in scientists is too high when they keep pumping out studies that don't replicate, and don't publish the original data and methods used to reach conclusions. I wholly trust science that independently replicates and the fact that it's missing from the process means much of what we see is less than wholly trustworthy.
- cogman10 5y ago
  Not all fields of science are created equal. Whether or not studies are replicated or data is available will depend entirely on the field of study. Certainly, a lot of the social sciences and "soft" sciences have a fair bit of replication/data problems. That said, the biomedical, environmental, geologic, and chemical sciences by and large have really solid data and repeats of that data. The areas of sciences we have a harder time controlling for are those where it'd be unethical to get better data and examples (nutritional science, for example). There are far too many fields of study to lump all science into the same bucket and call it all untrustworthy. A bigger problem is that scientific journalism treats every study as being equal. When, in fact, some studies are far better than others and carry a much larger weight of truth.
  - 5y ago

umvi 5y ago

> Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. One thing to note though is that the less mature a field is, the more gaps there will be an expert's knowledge/models. Doctors in the 1940s were regarded as medical experts, and yet many were actively promoting cigarettes. History is littered with "experts" whose expertise was outrageously wrong or misguided in hindsight. So I say people should judge experts by the maturity of their field and in the context they are providing expertise on. A civil engineer is giving expertise on whether a building will collapse or not? You'll likely get extremely reliable expertise you can count on. A doctor is promoting a glass of wine a day for health reasons? Take it with a grain of salt.

popcube 5y ago
but that the best advice we can get now
nradov 5y ago
Be careful: that salt will give you high blood pressure! Or not, depending on which medical "expert" turns out to be correct.
- zuminator 5y ago
  I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual expert who would make the general claim that salt consumption will cause high blood pressure, as opposed to a claim that some people are salt-sensitive, or that high salt diets are positively correlated with high blood pressure, or something else. Part of the problem is that non-experts tend to summarize expert information in ways that alter or omit crucial points, and then people are disappointed when the crib notes version tends to be inaccurate.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Yes I was being somewhat flippant. Besides genetic susceptibility, the current research indicates that the issue with salt is more due to osmolality than quantity. https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ And yet the medical experts still get it wrong by oversimplifying the issue and making dietary recommendations based on quantity. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/changes-you-can-make-to-manage-high-blood-pressure/shaking-the-salt-habit-to-lower-high-blood-pressure https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/c...

davidw 5y ago

Right, and part of the problem with an "ah, who can know the truth" approach is that it absolutely will be weaponized by bad faith actors. It's really easy to be loud and persistent with a lie if no one calls it out because "who knows, really". A parallel to this is something I saw in Italy where a number of people complain that "all the politicians are corrupt". This provides cover for the really rotten politicians, because it puts the ones shoveling money to their cronies in the same category as the basically honest guy who's trying his best to actually do something positive for his constituents.

tiahura 5y ago
“the problem with an "ah, who can know the truth" approach is that it absolutely will be weaponized by bad faith actors.” So are pens. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of horrors that have been committed by the stroke of a pen? Should we ban pens?

temp8964 5y ago

But fact-checkers aren’t experts. And experts don’t claim their research conclusions as facts.

hogFeast 5y ago

But the problem is that expertise is used to shut down debate...that is the reason why it is controversial. People do not disbelieve experts because they think they are experts themselves. They disbelieve experts because the argument today is: I am an expert, I am right, if you disagree with me you are likely a danger to other people. What has changed is the attitude of "experts" to other people. And I say "experts" because it is also increasingly common for people who have expertise in one subject to claim that they have expertise in another subject, and use that authority to elevate their claims beyond contention. It isn't about scepticism or some kind of re-interpretation of scientific truth...it is one group of people attempting to use their authority to force through their view of what society should be like. If you want to see what the looks like, China is led by "experts"...it isn't pretty. I think Covid has brought this to the fore because you have scientific "experts" ruling on societal and political issues, not because people necessarily disbelieve those claims (ofc, experts and politicians are very clear to make this unclear...they want you to believe that the people who oppose them are lunatics, they aren't, they are rarely people who deny Covid is occurring or deny vaccines work...they just have different political views which suggest different solutions to those problems...there are no experts in politics, that is why we have voting, "experts" today are attempting to shut down debate, shut down politics, and would shut down voting if given the chance). Also, another big issue is that experts undermine themselves. I can only speak to what is happening in the UK but experts here have made predictions that were fairly consistently untrue - https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios - people did not disbelieve these predictions at the start, they disbelieve them now because the evidence is clear: the predictions are consistently wrong, and consistently used to justify a political decision that the "experts" want (one that has massive externalities in areas that the "experts" don't know about...paragraph 3 again). This happens, no-one can predict the future, no-one can predict the course of a pandemic 100%...but the problem is that the "experts" are saying: we can predict this, we are correct all the time...again, this is something totally different. Again, what has changed is the experts, not the people.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
Have the spectator really not updated this page since October? Poor form fellows, very poor form.

cardiffspaceman 5y ago

I served as a juror on a criminal case, in which the prosecution seemed to want to make a big deal out of DNA evidence found on some clothing. In turn, the defense wanted to dispose of that evidence by having an expert say that DNA evidence was unreliable. The expert they brought in was someone who admitted their knowledge of the field was only based on an article they read. So the percentage of experts who spend real research on a question appears to be less than 100.

nradov 5y ago
There is a long, sad history of trial courts improperly convicting defendants based on pseudoscience testimony by "expert" witnesses. We now know that forensic analysis of things like hair samples and bite marks is mostly bullshit. Even fingerprint and ballistic analysis has a high error rate. Unfortunately jurors often assign expert witnesses a level of credibility that they don't deserve.

laserlight 5y ago

There are astrology “experts”. The idea that someone is an expert is very difficult to establish. Many times I discover that “expert” doctors who give public health advice don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. Experts are made in a biased environment. Those who could get rid of their biases would probably be filtered out by that same environment.

amelius 5y ago

Yes. What most laypeople don't understand is that finding cracks in the work of experts has real rewards for other experts, because of the scientific method. Therefore, it is unlikely that a layperson will find those cracks first.

klabb3 5y ago

> Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. For sure, but that's not at all how fact checking is implemented today. Most of the critique is related to the silencing, discrediting and deplatforming of reporters and professionals (i.e. experts by your definition) that express a different interpretation or selection of data. Even if it was enforced through gate-keeping by merit, it would still be massively subject to bias and political capture. It's abundantly clear that fact-checking is at best using Western authority consensus, which is much more narrow than even scientific consensus, which itself has a majorly flawed track record in recent history. What fact checking is effectively doing is treating information, debate and ideas as a form of hazardous material, too dangerous to be freely exchanged, unless certified by chain of custody through the supply chain of truths. Independently of the do-gooders' commandable intents, the result is predictably Orwellian. The systems, processes and bureaucracies for policing speech are rapidly expanding during this pandemic, see e.g. the Trusted News Initiative[1] and check their partner list. (There are of course countless other moving pieces.) [1]: https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...