Expert, Smexpert
| April 5, 2010 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
IN A RECENT THREAD VJTORLEY WRITES:
Here’s a question for everyone: when is it rational NOT to believe an expert? That’s a difficult one. The following is a (by no means exhaustive) list of “warning signs” which indicate that what an expert says may be open to legitimate doubt:
(1) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the known facts are dwarfed by the unknowns, as much remains to be discovered. In that case, even if the expert knows a LOT more than you do, he/she is about as much in the dark as you are.
(Here’s a concrete mathematical illustration: if you know 0.01% of everything that could be known in the relevant field, and the expert knows 100 times more than you do, that’s still only 1%, which means that he/she is 99% in the dark, while you are 99.99% in the dark. That’s not much of a difference.)
(2) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the relevant uncertainties have not been adequately quantified.
(3) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions made by the dominant scientific model are based on mechanisms whose causal adequacy to generate the effects predicted has not been established – in other words, where the capacity or efficacy of the mechanisms has not been adequately quantified.
(4) The expert makes a claim which strikes you as prima facie outrageously implausible, but is unable to demonstrate that the dominant scientific model upon which he/she relies is adequate to support that claim – in other words, the expert can’t prove to you that his/her model is at least capable of getting you from X to Y.
(5) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions made by the dominant scientific model are highly sensitive to the initial assumptions which are input, so that a tiny revision in these assumptions dramatically alters the predictions made by the model.
(6) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions appear to accord well with the data, but the mechanics of the phenomenon itself are poorly understood, so that the currently accepted model, while plausible, is not necessarily the only possible way of explaining the phenomenon – in other words, another model may supplant it in the future.
(7) The question in dispute relates to multiple disciplines, in several of which you have a limited degree of expertise, whereas the expert you are listening to has a great deal of expertise in just ONE of these disciplines.
(8) The expert in question has a track record of making bad judgements on other subjects with which you are familiar, and most of these judgements tend to betray a common cognitive blind-spot.
(9) The expert in question is very dogmatic about his/her claim, even though other experts in the same field have contrary opinions, or are considerably less certain about the claim.
(10) The claim itself appears to be ideologically motivated to some degree – i.e. it is accompanied by snide put-downs of alternative world-views which are held by many people, but not by the expert.
(11) The expert has been financially rewarded or has obtained fame or promotion by promoting his/her claim, but would not have been so rewarded had he/she promoted a contrary claim.
(12) The expert’s claim is asserted hotly and with great vehemence, accompanied by moral indignation and/or contempt towards those who question or reject the claim.
Can anyone think of any other warning signs? If so, please feel free to add to the list.
As an exercise, readers might like to check the boxes for neo-Darwinian evolution (as opposed to common descent) and the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming.
Regarding global warming, I think it’s best to be prepared. Personally, I’m skeptical that anthropogenic global warming is likely to be dangerous on a global scale over the next 100 years. But of course, I could be completely wrong. The good news is that even if anthropogenic global warming does pose a real threat to the biosphere, we have a feasible action plan that won’t cost the earth, that won’t line the pockets of the bureaucrats, and that will solve all our energy problems:
Sustainable Nuclear Power by Professor Barry Brook.
The following articles show (I hope) why it remains rational to doubt the claim that anthropogenic global warming is likely to be dangerous in the foreseeable future.
Why I am a Global Warming Skeptic by Dr. Doug Hoffman.
The Crumbling Pillars of Climate Change by Dr. Doug Hoffman.
The Grand View: Four Billion Years of Climate Change by Dr. Doug Hoffman.
Could Human CO2 Emissions Cause Another PETM? by Dr. Doug Hoffman.
A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science by Dr. Roy Spencer.
Connecting the Dots: Theoretical and Observational Evidence for Negative Cloud Feedbacks by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. William Braswell.
Global Warming Skepticism 101 by Dr. Roy Spencer.
A Climate of Belief by Dr. Patrick Frank
103 Responses to Expert, Smexpert
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s also worth pointing out that while there is overwhelming consensus among biologists concerning the truth of evolution, there is no such consensus among theologians, even on issues as fundamental as God’s attributes.
When the “experts” can’t even agree on fundamental questions, their expertise doesn’t carry very much weight.
StephenB, I believe they have evidence but not evidence that would count for you and me. Their “evidence” comes from their Godless Worldview and so seems credible to them.
It is these assumptions that drive the Atheist scientist. If one believes God is not, how easily all things show His absence!
Oh my, how did “Godlessness” enter this discussion? Many of the experts that Stephen says aren’t experts are believers in God.
The original claim (and I appreciate you getting us back to the original claim, Morgentau) was “about naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.” A belief that natural forces “generated macro evolution” is no more anti-God than a belief that natural forces generate any other aspect of the world. Theistic evolutionists, or evolutionary creationists (CE’s, as gingoro prefers to be called) believe in common descent through the mechanisms described by the experts in mainstream science and also believe that the flow of natural events manifests the will of God.
This is not a God vs. no God issue, I don’t think.
—Morgentau: “StephenB, I agree with you that naturalistic forces cannot explain all of life. My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about “naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.”
That is not exactly the issue on the table. The point is that evolutionary biologists cannot provide evidence to support that claim.
—”My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about “naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.”
I did use more than one term throughout because evolutionary biologists think that their mechanism can explain all of them, but the term “all of life” was used consistently and without any variation at 56, 61, and 64, and 66, well before anyone claimed to be disturbed by a “shift.” So I am not buying the idea that there was any real confusion about terms.
“My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about “naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.”
Macro evolution is the essence of the debate. If no one can explain how macro evolution happened, then they cannot explain how all of life happened. So essentially to say macro evolution or all of life means the same thing. We can explain how a lot of life happened, just not all. The part they cannot explain is origin of life and origin of novel complex capabilities or what is commonly referred to as macro evolution here. No goal posts have been moved and the debate has not shifted.
Many evolutionary biologist would be considered experts if they were honest but they are not. So in my book and my guess in anyone else’s estimation no one is an expert that lies about what they know. Anyone want to call someone an expert who lies about what is known in their field. I wouldn’t bet there would be too many who would do so.
StephenB @95,
For those of us in the moderation queue, it is very frustrating that our comments may not appear for hours or never at all.
You may never see a post from us where we point something like this out.
I think it’s unfair to use an apparent silence as evidence that there wasn’t a response.
This goes for all of us who are moderated, not just myself.
—Morgentau: “StephenB, I believe they have evidence but not evidence that would count for you and me. Their “evidence” comes from their Godless Worldview and so seems credible to them.”
No, their “interpretation” of the facts comes from their world view. That they have no real evidence to support their world view is a different matter.
— “It is these assumptions that drive the Atheist scientist. If one believes God is not, how easily all things show His absence!”
Learn from the wisdom of Aleta, who wrote,
“This is not a God vs. no God issue, I don’t think.”
Seversky you stated:
“we would have to disqualify all theologians since none can offer a mechanism by which God created life, the Universe and everything.”
I would have to say advances in our understanding of quantum mechanics, which has shown consciousness and transcendent information to be foundational and dominate of 3-D material reality, have rendered your objection obsolete. Indeed it is 3-D material reality which has been completely undermined as a valid scientific hypothesis to postulate “emergence” from, which makes all grandiose claims of atheistic evolutionary scientists absurd from first premises of science.
A number of good warning signs re experts have been offered here, and much thanks.
Here’s another one, from a little old hack: If advice doesn’t accord with your own experience, be careful.
For one thing, if you have lived a number of decades in your own environment, you might know more than you think.
You can’t put it into words, maybe, but that’s not the same as not knowing.
Here is an example: Maybe you know that a given street is not safe to walk down at night, even though a local expert proclaims your neighbourhood a low-crime zone.
Why doubt? Because you know that a local outlaw biker was recently parolled and has a squat on that street, where his “friends” visit him. But the expert doesn’t know, because he looks only at statistics, not immediate future events.
An “immediate future event” is what will happen to you if you get rolled by the outlaw biker and his “friends”.
But hey, you will get loads of sympathy from the emergency room nurses.
Where was the expert wrong?
According to you, he designated the area a low-crime zone not a no-crime zone. Even if you were unlucky enough to get rolled by the outlaw biker and his buddies the area might still be statistically a low-crime zone. The expert would still be right to that extent.
Of course, if the biker gang were foolish enough to pull off a whole string of robberies in the immediate vicinity then the expert might have to re-classify the area. Then the police, if they are smart, will consult the expert about the crime stats and he will be able to advise them about where they need to deploy extra resources.
Experts are not gods but they can be useful.
Seversky at 99, thanks for thoughts!
The main thing for the local resident is to actually, really know what is going on, and avoid being a victim, and ignore statistics that do not represent reality – as many statistics do not, in a local area.
Of course, the sympathy of ER nurses may be useful, if he is looking for a wife.