Jun 1, 2023 11:14 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 1, 2023 11:14 PM by C C.)
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...n-experts/
INTRO (Ethan Siegel): Have you ever found yourself in the middle of an argument where both sides argue voraciously for their particular opinion or point-of-view, while the overwhelming majority of scientists — and those with bona fide scientific expertise on this particular issue — are all on the same side? We’ve seen this happen time and time again in the public arena spanning a wide variety of issues, including:
It’s a situation that comes up all too frequently: an expert in their field publicly states a conclusion that is thoroughly accepted by the overwhelming majority of professionals who work in that field, only to get a deluge of responses from the public. Although the individual content of those responses will vary, the gist of them is usually the same:
But most of the time — so often that we can be comfortable saying it’s practically all of the time — there are serious gaps and fundamental misunderstandings at work in the knowledge and mindset of the non-expert. Although there can be oversights or errors on the part of the expert, that’s the exception, and it’s practically never exposed by a non-expert when that occurs. If you, as a non-expert, are ever tempted to explain an expert’s field to them, here are some things worth considering... (MORE - details)
POINTS COVERED:
First: ask yourself whether you, yourself, are also an expert in this particular field?
Second: if you’re not an expert yourself, are you certain that you’ve discovered — and verified — that the expert has made an erroneous assertion somewhere?
Third: is the expert whose assertions are being questioned the one who’s staking out a position that runs contrary to the scientific consensus in their field?
Follow-up: how can you tell which “experts” are the ones you should be listening to?
Fourth: ask yourself, honestly, if you’re certain and convinced that there really is a conspiracy afoot, and that the scientific experts whose expertise you’re rejecting are all in on it?
Five: are you in a position to learn, and has the expert-in-question already agreed to listen to you explain your version of what you think is going on in an endeavor to confirm what you’ve gotten right, and to teach and correct you where you’re in need of correction?
INTRO (Ethan Siegel): Have you ever found yourself in the middle of an argument where both sides argue voraciously for their particular opinion or point-of-view, while the overwhelming majority of scientists — and those with bona fide scientific expertise on this particular issue — are all on the same side? We’ve seen this happen time and time again in the public arena spanning a wide variety of issues, including:
- about whether tobacco causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other health hazards,
- about whether the human-caused emission of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels is the driving force behind global warming and worldwide climate change,
- about whether humans really landed and walked on the Moon during NASA’s Apollo program in the 1960s and 1970s,
- about whether vaccines are safe and effective means of reducing the risk of severe infection and long-term negative health effects arising from disease,
- about whether an unmanaged HIV infection is really the cause of AIDS,
- about whether 4G and 5G wireless/WiFi technologies are safe for humans and other animals,
- and about whether airplane vapor trails are secretly toxic chemicals added to the atmosphere by the government, among many other issues.
It’s a situation that comes up all too frequently: an expert in their field publicly states a conclusion that is thoroughly accepted by the overwhelming majority of professionals who work in that field, only to get a deluge of responses from the public. Although the individual content of those responses will vary, the gist of them is usually the same:
- a declaration that the expert is wrong,
- an assertion that a non-consensus opinion is instead correct,
- and an accusation that the expert themselves is either corrupt, intellectually compromised, or a victim of groupthink.
But most of the time — so often that we can be comfortable saying it’s practically all of the time — there are serious gaps and fundamental misunderstandings at work in the knowledge and mindset of the non-expert. Although there can be oversights or errors on the part of the expert, that’s the exception, and it’s practically never exposed by a non-expert when that occurs. If you, as a non-expert, are ever tempted to explain an expert’s field to them, here are some things worth considering... (MORE - details)
POINTS COVERED:
First: ask yourself whether you, yourself, are also an expert in this particular field?
Second: if you’re not an expert yourself, are you certain that you’ve discovered — and verified — that the expert has made an erroneous assertion somewhere?
Third: is the expert whose assertions are being questioned the one who’s staking out a position that runs contrary to the scientific consensus in their field?
Follow-up: how can you tell which “experts” are the ones you should be listening to?
Fourth: ask yourself, honestly, if you’re certain and convinced that there really is a conspiracy afoot, and that the scientific experts whose expertise you’re rejecting are all in on it?
Five: are you in a position to learn, and has the expert-in-question already agreed to listen to you explain your version of what you think is going on in an endeavor to confirm what you’ve gotten right, and to teach and correct you where you’re in need of correction?