3 ms·

>A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic

by vba616 3y ago

>A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. It seems hard to argue with that...but what exactly is the meaning of saying people are "absolutely unqualified" to do something which they in fact do constantly and which there is no obvious alternative in order for society to function? If we accept that non-experts are not qualified to determine what is good information, then doesn't it entirely undermine democratic control over society? For that matter, doesn't it entirely undermine the concept of management in industry or government? Individual autonomy and rights too? Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or that I have a counterargument, just that the logical implications seem extremely radical, and I don't know of a plan for how society can function on such a basis.

synetic 3y ago
It seems hard to argue with that...but what exactly is the meaning of saying people are "absolutely unqualified" to do something which they in fact do constantly and which there is no obvious alternative in order for society to function? In my opinion the answer is this. Roughly speaking, in general: Overwhelming expert consensus opinion on a topic has a much higher chance of being correct than any contrary belief I have based off of “research” that I do. The overwhelming expert consensus might very well be wrong but it’s clear that they are way more likely to be right than I am.
- vba616 3y ago
  "Overwhelming expert consensus" implies that you know who is an expert so I don't see how it helps an idealized clueless average citizen who arguendo cannot judge accurate information from mis- or dis- information. Also, you have heard of "100 Autoren Gegen Einstein"? Obviously people who bring that up in an actual conflict of ideas are almost certainly not Einstein, but how do we know, and if we think we know who is right and it is the majority, how do we refute the claim that polls don't determine truth?

by vba616 3y ago

synetic 3y ago

It seems hard to argue with that...but what exactly is the meaning of saying people are "absolutely unqualified" to do something which they in fact do constantly and which there is no obvious alternative in order for society to function? In my opinion the answer is this. Roughly speaking, in general: Overwhelming expert consensus opinion on a topic has a much higher chance of being correct than any contrary belief I have based off of “research” that I do. The overwhelming expert consensus might very well be wrong but it’s clear that they are way more likely to be right than I am.

vba616 3y ago
"Overwhelming expert consensus" implies that you know who is an expert so I don't see how it helps an idealized clueless average citizen who arguendo cannot judge accurate information from mis- or dis- information. Also, you have heard of "100 Autoren Gegen Einstein"? Obviously people who bring that up in an actual conflict of ideas are almost certainly not Einstein, but how do we know, and if we think we know who is right and it is the majority, how do we refute the claim that polls don't determine truth?