3 ms·
I agree. Sometimes it is clear-cut like you describe. Often, though, it is a judgement call between one's gut feeling and the science facts mentioned by advisor
by tezza 14y ago
I agree. Sometimes it is clear-cut like you describe. Often, though, it is a judgement call between one's gut feeling and the science facts mentioned by advisors.
There are limits to what people can communicate, and I think that an expert opinion can be better than a list of scientific evidence enumerated by lesser experts.
Please see the DNA / ballistics courtroom argument made by Dreyfus.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_socrates.html http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_socrates.h...
"It is ironic that judges hearing a case will expect expert witnesses to rationalize their testimony, for when rendering a decision involving conflicting conceptions of what is the central issue in a case and therefore what is the appropriate guiding precedent, judges will rarely if ever attempt to explain their choice of precedents. They presumably realize that they know more than they can explain and that ultimately unrationalized intuition must guide their decision-making, yet lawyers and juries seldom accord witnesses the same prerogative."
- Retric 14y agoWhile most people are irrational that does not mean irrationality is a good thing. As a side note, people who do court room testimony are rarely scientists. Most Doctors, Forensic Exports, Medical Examiners, etc may have scientific training, but rather than looking for 'universal' answers there applying theory to a specific case. The problem is subtle but opens people up to a lot of biases.
- 001sky 14y agoRational and irrational are not a complete set of descriptors. One can be rational and quite ignorant, for example, simultaneously without contradiction. It all comes down to levels of abstraction, frames of reference, and perspective. Unless, of course, you believe in an all-knowing intelligence. Which would be ironic for a scientist.
- Retric 14y agoExcept, when a rational person does not know something they are far more likely to say those magic words 'I don't know'.
- 001sky 14y agoThis isn't necessarily so. Uttering the words "I don't know" too often damanges your credibility and social standing. A "rational person" thus avoids this type of behaviour. It is particularly damaging for "experts" to do this. That is, if they were being 'rational'.
- Retric 14y agoYour fooling yourself, people say it all the time. I don't know Ubuntu, but it's I have plenty of Red Hat experience so this should be easy. And even if your clueless there are ways around that: 'What's your thoughts on Darfur?' I am a Physicist, so the political situation in Darfur is really outside my area of expertise. However, from what I herd on NPR last night it sounds bad. Why? PS: I work as a consultant and pretending to know more than you do is one of the fastest ways to ruin your reputation.
- 001sky 14y agoYour fooling yourself... -- This is a bit presumptuous. To say the least. Your counter examples are cynical. It's like ou're happy to admit your greatest weakness is you're too smart and you work too hard. Great. I'm not impressed. Avoiding admitting your wrong in your (professed) area of expertise through (trivial) abstraction might seem clever (to you) but assumes your talking down to you're audience.
- npsimons 14y agoOften, though, it is a judgement call between one's gut feeling and the science facts mentioned by advisors. Maybe a cause of some our problems is because people too often trust their gut feeling over cold hard scientific facts.