3 ms·

The trouble I had was in the first sentence: > I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but in a particular area of human knowledge, specifi

The trouble I had was in the first sentence: > I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but in a particular area of human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy. At least as far as the US is concerned, public policy encompasses everything. So as far as I can tell, this person really is claiming to be an expert on everything. "Social science" does not fair much better. NOAD helpfully supplies "the scientific study of human society and social relationships". That seems to be a substantially broad claim, on the level of claiming to be an expert in, say, physical science. While there certainly are a few people who might make a competent application for that title (Feinman comes to mind), it seems to stretch the meaning of "expert", as Feinman's expertise in, say, biology, is of a substantially different sort than his expertise in particle physics. I think the author may be falsely attributing his frustration about being heard to the "generational" "disregard for experts" instead of his own inability to defend an overly broad claim of expertise. If this article was "I am an expert in how much money we should be spending on space exploration and nobody is listening to me" then that would be an interesting, and entirely different, discussion. As it stands it's just tilting at windmills.

blhack 13y ago
Here: http://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Thomas-M--Nichols,-Ph-D-.aspx http://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Thomas-M--Nichols,-Ph... >Thomas M. Nichols is a professor of national security affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department, where is also the Course Director for Security, Strategy, and Forces. A former Secretary of the Navy Fellow at the Naval War College, he previously taught international relations and Soviet/Russian affairs at Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. He is a former chairman of the Strategy and Policy Department at the Naval War College, for which he was awarded the Navy Civilian Meritorious Service Medal in 2005. He holds a PhD from Georgetown, an MA from Columbia University, the Certificate of the Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union at Columbia, and a BA from Boston University. I think the definitions of [1]"public policy" and [2]"social science" here are meant strictly, not as generalities. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Mr. Nichols is an expert in an area where our experts have led us on multi-trillion dollar misadventures. I think I know a lot about Android, but it ain't gonna cost that much if I'm wrong.
- lliamander 13y ago
  The problem is that the fields in which he is an expert have failed to provide sufficiently better predictive power over the judgement of a well-read or experienced layman[1]. I do not mean that as a criticism of the OP; this is merely a consequence of how young "social science" as a science is, and how difficult of a subject matter it attempts to study. The fact that a "2 sigma" level of confidence is considered acceptable in social science, whereas particle physics has a stand of 5 sigma, should demonstrate that judgement of experts from different disciplines should be different depending upon their area of expertise (but this has been known since the time of Aristotle). Now it is fair to point out that medicine(as an application of biology) and counseling (as an application of psychology) are held to the same statistical standard, yet the medical community has the advantage of being able to generalize about the responses of human physiology in a way that the social sciences cannot, and counselors at least have the option of leveraging their empathy when trying to understand their clients. Public policy (as an application of sociology) has neither advantage. But I also think he is painting a false dilemma, either that or he is being uncharitable to his opposition, which I would characterize as "populist"[2]. With regard to the governance of America, it is not simply a choice between experts and the unwashed masses. We also have the option of decentralizing power and policy decisions and letting states, counties, and cities - as well as voluntaristic organizations like professional societies, religious communities, corporations, and charities - decide more of their own rules. This does preclude a "rule by experts", but does delay their ascension until their science has fully matured. Now, to be fair, my own discipline of computer science/software engineering has yet to grow into maturity as well [3][4]. Yet for all the griping about "techo-elitism" there are quite a number of counter-indicators of this: - there are no legal barriers to entry in this discipline: while a degree is typically expected by employers it is not mandated by law and many enter this discipline without one. - there is a strong culture of having an "open book", i.e. the open source community. - a portfolio of work is typically the central piece of one's resume (rather than credentials or years of experience) While not having a source of standards can be very detrimental[5], as Brian-Puccio pointed out[6] having a source of standards isn't going to solve the problem. As Dijkstra said, we gain respectability by limiting ourselves to the feasible, and we are successful when we allow ourselves to be opportunity-driven rather than mission driven. Only upon that foundation can we construct a source of credible authority. [1]http://harveymansfield.org/multimedia/jim-manzi-on-science-knowledge-and-freedom/ http://harveymansfield.org/multimedia/jim-manzi-on-science-k... [2]which, I might add, is the really only position that is truly "democratic" in the traditional sense of the word. The author strikes me as someone who is merely paying lip service to the notion of democracy, perhaps to keep his job, while trying to carefully trying disarm it of any actual governing power. Of course, this side-note trails too far into the realm of speculation about the character of a man whom I do not know, and is in any case less relevant to the main points I am trying to convey. [3]https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1041.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD104... [4]http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-ha... [5]http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/04/18/After-The-Disaster.html http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/04/18/After-The-Disa... [6]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082283

blhack 13y ago

Here: http://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Thomas-M--Nichols,-Ph-D-.aspx http://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Thomas-M--Nichols,-Ph... >Thomas M. Nichols is a professor of national security affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department, where is also the Course Director for Security, Strategy, and Forces. A former Secretary of the Navy Fellow at the Naval War College, he previously taught international relations and Soviet/Russian affairs at Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. He is a former chairman of the Strategy and Policy Department at the Naval War College, for which he was awarded the Navy Civilian Meritorious Service Medal in 2005. He holds a PhD from Georgetown, an MA from Columbia University, the Certificate of the Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union at Columbia, and a BA from Boston University. I think the definitions of [1]"public policy" and [2]"social science" here are meant strictly, not as generalities. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

Zigurd 13y ago
Mr. Nichols is an expert in an area where our experts have led us on multi-trillion dollar misadventures. I think I know a lot about Android, but it ain't gonna cost that much if I'm wrong.
lliamander 13y ago
The problem is that the fields in which he is an expert have failed to provide sufficiently better predictive power over the judgement of a well-read or experienced layman[1]. I do not mean that as a criticism of the OP; this is merely a consequence of how young "social science" as a science is, and how difficult of a subject matter it attempts to study. The fact that a "2 sigma" level of confidence is considered acceptable in social science, whereas particle physics has a stand of 5 sigma, should demonstrate that judgement of experts from different disciplines should be different depending upon their area of expertise (but this has been known since the time of Aristotle). Now it is fair to point out that medicine(as an application of biology) and counseling (as an application of psychology) are held to the same statistical standard, yet the medical community has the advantage of being able to generalize about the responses of human physiology in a way that the social sciences cannot, and counselors at least have the option of leveraging their empathy when trying to understand their clients. Public policy (as an application of sociology) has neither advantage. But I also think he is painting a false dilemma, either that or he is being uncharitable to his opposition, which I would characterize as "populist"[2]. With regard to the governance of America, it is not simply a choice between experts and the unwashed masses. We also have the option of decentralizing power and policy decisions and letting states, counties, and cities - as well as voluntaristic organizations like professional societies, religious communities, corporations, and charities - decide more of their own rules. This does preclude a "rule by experts", but does delay their ascension until their science has fully matured. Now, to be fair, my own discipline of computer science/software engineering has yet to grow into maturity as well [3][4]. Yet for all the griping about "techo-elitism" there are quite a number of counter-indicators of this: - there are no legal barriers to entry in this discipline: while a degree is typically expected by employers it is not mandated by law and many enter this discipline without one. - there is a strong culture of having an "open book", i.e. the open source community. - a portfolio of work is typically the central piece of one's resume (rather than credentials or years of experience) While not having a source of standards can be very detrimental[5], as Brian-Puccio pointed out[6] having a source of standards isn't going to solve the problem. As Dijkstra said, we gain respectability by limiting ourselves to the feasible, and we are successful when we allow ourselves to be opportunity-driven rather than mission driven. Only upon that foundation can we construct a source of credible authority. [1]http://harveymansfield.org/multimedia/jim-manzi-on-science-knowledge-and-freedom/ http://harveymansfield.org/multimedia/jim-manzi-on-science-k... [2]which, I might add, is the really only position that is truly "democratic" in the traditional sense of the word. The author strikes me as someone who is merely paying lip service to the notion of democracy, perhaps to keep his job, while trying to carefully trying disarm it of any actual governing power. Of course, this side-note trails too far into the realm of speculation about the character of a man whom I do not know, and is in any case less relevant to the main points I am trying to convey. [3]https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1041.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD104... [4]http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-ha... [5]http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/04/18/After-The-Disaster.html http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/04/18/After-The-Disa... [6]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082283