9 ms·
The problem is when we fully defer to scientists on things that are beyond their area of expertise. For instance, while an epidemiologist can provide valuable g
by olalonde 3y ago
The problem is when we fully defer to scientists on things that are beyond their area of expertise. For instance, while an epidemiologist can provide valuable guidance on measures that could reduce the spread of a virus, they might not be equipped to assess the broader implications of these measures on aspects like the economy, child development, or mental health. Similarly, a climate scientist can project temperature changes for the coming century, but determining the comprehensive impact of these changes on human societies or conducting a cost-benefit analysis of various measures
to mitigate it might be outside their domain.
- drapado 3y agoFortunately, expertise is not limited to a single concrete topic. There are experts in climate change from a socio-economic perspective, which are able to do science in such complex environments :)
- olalonde 3y agoIf such experts existed, centrally planned economies would work wonderfully. Unfortunately, they don't. For sufficiently complex problems, the knowledge is diffuse across a wide range of individuals and there is no one expert we can turn to. That's why debate, and tolerating dissent, is important.
- agoose77 3y agoHuh? These experts absolutely exist - look e.g. at iSAGE during the pandemic in the UK. They combined epidemiology with sociology to provide a more comprehensive view of the situation. It's just that you ultimately have to listen to people saying "do X, which is expensive". Governments don't on the whole tend to love that.
- __loam 3y agoDissent is important, within reason. Things like claiming a medication we know is ineffective can cure Covid in the face of 99% of the medical establishment telling you you're a moron is not within reason, for example.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoIf we had made significant investments in CO2 reduction a decade or two earlier when scientists told us the full range of future effects, we would be in a much better position than we are today. Whoever is selling you this “comprehensive impact” nonsense lied to you so they could continue using the atmosphere as a dumping ground.
- ChadNauseam 3y agoThe GP comment is objectively true. Most climatologists study the climate, rather than the economics of climate intervention. “Climatologists agree that global warming is real” is them speaking within their area of expertise, “Climatologists agree that an investment in solar panels is worth the cost” is laundering their authority from one area into a superficially similar one. The fact that solar panels are worth the cost doesn’t impact this argument However, since climatologists are much smarter than the average person, I would still rather that the average person defer to climatologists on almost any issue (regardless of what it has to do with the climate)
- logicchains 3y ago>since climatologists are much smarter than the average person What's the logic behind that? Intelligence doesn't conjure up knowledge out of thin air, doesn't make someone any more knowledgeable about something outside their specialisation than anyone else.
- transcriptase 3y agoIt’s an especially weird field to make that claim about, given every major prediction to ever come out of it has been wrong.
- callalex 3y agoGot any data to back up that claim? Because all the data available to me disagrees with you. Here’s an easy to digest presentation of said data: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists...
- throwaway22032 3y agoSome things are simply not a matter of expertise. One could theoretically show comprehensively that individual freedoms reduce economic output and decrease average life span, and that would still not be an argument to restrict them.
- zbentley 3y agoWhy not?
- gedy 3y ago"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- HPsquared 3y agoMaximum economic output isn't the ultimate "good" most people are aiming for.
- zbentley 3y agoTrue, but output is highly correlated with prosperity in most places and through most of history for which we have data. Increased lifespan is also generally understood to be positive.
- nradov 3y agoI would rather not have the government tell me how to live my life even if it means I die young.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoAt best such things are decided through majority vote, at worst through some series of opaque bureaucratic bargaining. And the proportion of mostly self-interested folks is quite high in both cases, or at least that's what many HN commentators allege to be the case.
- MengerSponge 3y ago[flagged]
- edgyquant 3y agoLook at you being a prime example of an “expert” thinking we should enact his politics because he said so. Exactly the kind of thing GP is saying.
- MengerSponge 3y agoI literally said "Don't fully defer to me. But maybe listen a little sometimes, as a treat." Wearing a mask is as political an act as washing your hands with soap after you poop. I'm not saying what the policy should be, but I am articulating what actions would both protect people and grow the economy. Some of those things are facts (filtration reduces transmission rates of aerosolized pathogens), and some of those things are morals (not giving children diabetes is a good thing, actually) "Debate" of the facts is a waste of my time. Debate of the morals might be interesting, and I would love an actual policy debate, but I'm not holding my breath.
- spookthesunset 3y agoCovid was appeals to authority all the way down. The whole plot rested on “shut up, disengage your brain and listen to these people we decided to label as ‘experts’”. Experts don’t get to make policy decisions. Ever. That isn’t their job. Our reaction to covid was living proof of why that should never, ever happen.
- aCoreyJ 3y ago100s of thousands more died in the US because of how little we listened to experts. That's just fatalities, not other negative consequences . Our vaccination rates are abhorrent. Even if you just look economically, the US set itself back massively with supply chain and labor issues we will be dealing with for decades because of it.
- 3y ago
- jgalt212 3y ago> For instance, while an epidemiologist can provide valuable guidance on measures that could reduce the spread of a virus, they might not be equipped to assess the broader implications of these measures on aspects like the economy, child development, or mental health Amen to that. Some / most of them seemingly had little grasp of the the concept of cost / benefit analysis. And we let these jackasses (some, not all of them) drive the bus!
- ciwolsey 3y agoI don't agree anyone let scientists drive the bus. Scientists advised and the responsibility of balancing that advise against factors such as the economy was entirely the responsibility politicians and leaders.
- jgalt212 3y agode facto vs de jure
- __loam 3y ago> Some / most of them seemingly had little grasp of the the concept of cost / benefit analysis Massive economic impact from social distancing vs massive economic impact from mass casualties and complete collapse of the healthcare system. Those are your choices lol.
- spookthesunset 3y agoExcept there were no mass casualties and no first world healthcare system collapsed. Covid was not space aids. We knew this within weeks of “two weeks to flatten the curve” and rather than celebrate the models got it wrong, society decided to double down on the insanity.
- __loam 3y agoAt least a million people died in the United States of Covid, and that's probably an underestimate. Imagine if we had done nothing. The healthcare system remained intact because we took public health measures to slow down the spread of the disease.
- lordnacho 3y agoYes, this is true, but then who actually takes the decisions? Someone who isn't an expert on anything at all.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI don’t think we need experts, we need polymaths, people who are sufficiently good enough not in one thing, but in multiple things and work at the intersection of the information needed to make proper decisions.
- Loquebantur 3y agoSociety is meant to overcome individual shortcomings via constructive collaboration. Adding individual strengths, not weaknesses, necessitates adherence to some rules in open communication. Science should know explicitly how to do that.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoPerhaps I was misunderstood; the idea is that this polymath would collaborate with the experts and act as a bridge between fields.
- lordnacho 3y agoThey ain't the ones in charge either, though I think I agree with the need for such people. We basically have PR people deciding what's going to look best for them.
- Loquebantur 3y agoYes, but those polymaths are rare obviously. Wherefore I mentioned how the same might be accomplished without them, simply by listenening and explaining to each other. Of course, if you assume individual experts to be really entrenched in their particular fields and entirely unable to bridge the gaps between them, you might be dependent on such talent. I have never seen a job offering to that effect though?
- nitwit005 3y agoNo one is looking to people who do weather modeling for policy advice. They do occasionally ask economists, but then generally ignore their advice due to being politically unpopular. I suspect you greatly over-estimate how much politicians listened to epidemiologists during covid as well. A lot of decisions were more out of desire to be seen to be doing something, because the voters went to them and essentially demanded they do something.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago[flagged]
- __loam 3y agoIt's also fun to see people here pretend there's not a huge field studying public health and the effect of these policies on things like the economy. Yeah, social distancing was bad for the economy. Having millions more deaths due to Covid and the total collapse of the healthcare system in this country would have also been bad for the economy.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoSure but if those experts were so smart, wouldn't they have been able to foresee the second order effect of crappy messaging and prevent conspiracy theories from taking hold? Or foresee the effects of labeling things that aren't conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories and ruining their own credibility?
- __loam 3y agoTrying to address every insane rant on social media is completely impossible. Also, do you have any actual examples of them mislabeling "conspiracy theories"? I think the public health establishment did a fine job given the challenge they faced. It was never going to be perfect. The fact that we got a vaccine as quickly as we did, organized a mass vaccination campaign and all that did end the pandemic is proof that all the policies succeeded, not that they failed.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoLuckily, scientists don't make these decisions - policymakers do. This is a non issue.
- spookthesunset 3y agoRather than do their job of balancing competing priorities, many of the elected policy makers handed the keys over to a bunch of insane public health officials. In many places said unelected, unaccountable public health officials had the authority to enact all kinds of crazy crap. That’s why many blue state cities continued to have mask mandates, vaccine mandates and more well into the three year mark. If 2020 taught me anything, it’s that technocracy is a horrible form of government. If “heath-care experts” were given the chance, I fully imagine us still playing covid theater to this day.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoAgain, health officials don't make these decisions. They don't have the power. > If 2020 taught me anything, it’s that technocracy is a horrible form of government. If “heath-care experts” were given the chance, I fully imagine us still playing covid theater to this day. You may want to take a look at the mortality rates of the US vs those of other developed nations where the "technocrats", as you call them, were listened to closely. What I see in there is a complete failure of the US as a society, an example of people throwing the most vulnerable under the bus to avoid slight inconveniences like wearing a mask. Regardless, the opposite of this "technocracy" is leaving specialized agencies in the hands of utterly unprepared people, career politicians, businesspeople and lawyers, instead of scientists and engineers. That is just madness.
- mistermann 3y ago> people throwing the most vulnerable under the bus to avoid slight inconveniences like wearing a mask. That's one variable. I suspect another is ~revenge, for past transgressions, real or imagined. As the saying goes: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap", and while sayings like this (there are many) is obviously speculative, I suspect there's a lot of truth to it. > Regardless, the opposite of this "technocracy" is leaving specialized agencies in the hands of utterly unprepared people, career politicians, businesspeople and lawyers, instead of scientists and engineers. That is just madness. An alternate approach is that we could collectively pursue optimality, regardless of whether that is outside the current Overton Window of behavior. No obligation, but it is an option if things ever get really bad. This is what so called democracy is advertised as doing, but I suspect that advertising is rather false.
- ThomPete 3y agoThis is not the problem. The problem is that thinking in terms of these distinct subject matter is at the very heart of the problem. Reality doesn't have a clear divide between different subjects. You can start from anywhere and build knowledge from there, there is no faculty that gaurantees some knowledge being objective. There is only conjecture and criticism.
- stainablesteel 3y agoi can't think of a better mechanism of dissent than to be more accepting of people outside of their domain trying to make claims on something they're not an expert on. even if its wrong, it can still get people thinking from a different perspective.