4 ms·
Experience isn't only first-hand though; those studies count. The correct comparison is what experts say vs what actually happens. For example, various proponen
by andreareina 4y ago
Experience isn't only first-hand though; those studies count. The correct comparison is what experts say vs what actually happens. For example, various proponents of local realism before experimental confirmation of Bell's Theorem.
I do think it's stated a bit strongly though, I'd prefer s/ignorance/fallibility/ for similar reasons to what you're articulating: I grant a higher prior probability to a statement given by a (relevant!) expert. Of course that's relative to the statement itself: an expert might get nonsense from log(-10) to log(-9) but that's still not holding any water.
- ggm 4y agoThe problem would be it's the 'argument by appeal to authority' fallacy. True science must always be open to test. The thing is we're on derivative downstream consequences of the science. They come with some caveats to "question everything" But "we don't know how anaesthesia works really" is a big problem. All we've got is observational science (which Feynman hated and analogised to stamp collecting) that "it works"