It shouldn't need saying, but just to get everyone to take a breath here. Just because experts are sometimes wrong, and in recent cases often wrong, does not mean that the reverse of their ideas is true, nor that non-experts are automatically right. While no one says this directly, recognising that of course this is quite stupid, something very closely related is occurring often. When an expert is cited in support of an idea, a general rejection of experts is deemed sufficient argument to dismiss any of them. Talented amateurs, especially those who are accomplished in some other field, may be able to see as clearly or more clearly than experts, especially when things are new and uncertain. And also, talented amateurs are useful in the opposite case, when a field is hidebound and ossified, needing a fresh look.
But even the wisdom of talented amateurs isn't all that common. And untalented amateurs have a very poor record indeed. That experts get things wrong - and in the case of C19, many of them gave clear indications that their assessments were provisional and could change in the face of new data - does not mean that the field is now open and all bets are off.
I challenge experts, live and online, all the time. I enjoy it. Yet it is usually on the basis of other experts whose reasoning seems better to me. Seldom is it some idea I have worked out entirely on my own. If it were entirely my own creation, I would be almost certain it was false. At most, I can make an original recombination of others' ideas.
12 comments:
Eperts, schmexperts. I have been graphing new cases, new deaths, and total deaths for a while. (data cutoff is midnight GMT.) The last week gives indication of the hump being turned. ( Deaths today/deaths yesterday has been declining from 1.39 on March 23 to 1.07 today, w less and less variation.) I figure that it isn't worth the effort to become an expert, so I have dedicated relatively little time on the Wuhan virus.
Experts- like Nobel Prize winning economist Stiglitz who shilled for Chavista Venezuela, stating correctly in 2007 that in recent years there had been very good economic growth. While Siglizt was correct for 2004-2007, that selective data ignored the fact that from 1998, the year Chavez was elected, through 2006 or 2007, Venezuela's economic growth was below average in Latin America. (As Venezuela's economic growth 1998-2013- 2013 being the last year that oil averaged ~$100/BBL- was pathetic compared to the rest of the world.)
The issue is not so much "experts" as propagandists who, under the guise of "knowledge," try to make points to fit their narrative. Such as Noam Chomsky, who ignores facts that don't fit his narrative- at least I have seen that for Latin America. Such as Bernie Sanders, who in his shilling for Cuba, ignores how Cuba compares to other countries. Yes Bernie, Castro had "literacy programs," but Cuba wasn't the only country that improved literacy. From 1960-2015, Cuba ranked 16th out of 20 countries in Latin America in increase in literacy, which brings forth two points that Bernie ignores. First, because Cuba's literacy from 1950-1960 was among the highest in Latin America, Cuba didn't need to increase literacy as much as other countries. Second, other countries also increased literacy. You don't need totalitarianism to increase literacy- or to improve health care.
It doesn't help the experts much when uncomprehending reporters get selective about what they pass along. Is what you read what they really said?
James is right. But there is also a problem about how to tell who the best experts are, when you aren't an expert yourself. Degrees are only a partial solution, since people with the same degrees may disagree. Which one is the true expert whose wisdom should guide us?
Normally we rely on reputation (which is a form of honor). In this environment, though, reputation is disabled: the one who is saying whatever the elites in the media and government want to hear will be elevated in reputation to great heights right away, even if it turns out they are wrong about everything. The expert who is disagreeing with what they'd like to hear will be run down and treated scornfully, though he or she may be right (or may not be).
It's a very difficult problem. We lack the expertise ourselves to judge who the best experts really are, and the usual workarounds we have for that issue aren't functional right now.
@ Richard Johnson - Jonathan over at Chicago Boyz passed along an email he received from Richard Prost, professor emeritsu from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.* Prost had graphed the numbers out of Johns Hopkins as of March 29th. Two weeks ago. "So I plotted the data and took the first derivative with respect to time. What it shows is that the velocity of the epidemic in the US is definitely slowing, and quickly.
While the number of confirmed cases continues to rise, it is rising more slowly. If there were a confounding effect from increased surveillance (more testing revealing yet more cases), the apparent velocity should be going up.
Instead, it is going down. So I believe the effect to be real, and thus I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the epidemic. While this data says nothing about the potential for re-emergence in the fall or following spring, it does suggest that we have in fact, flattened the curve." (Italics mine) Put roughly, the first derivative indicates that the rate of growth was already slowing as of that date, even though there was still growth. Taking the second derivative - and I can't recall the last time I took a second derivative - we find that that line was flat, even then. The original post : https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/62282.html
*There was a lot of discussion about whether there actually is a Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, because apparently UWisc Med School does not have a Milwaukee campus. People jumped to conclusions about that. They are separate institutions.
@ james - yes, as always, we should pay close attention to what the experts actually said, not what reporters say they said. The differences can be striking, especially in terms of the disclaimers and cautionary statements.
@ Grim - I try to follow reasoning and persuasiveness, but I find that I am greatly swayed by who is fighting fair in the argument and who is not. That's not infallible either. People who are correct may also be jerks or dirty fighters, and decent folks can certainly just be wrong. Still, I believe there is enough correlation under the general category "can't be trusted."
I have long been enjoying the proliferation of half smart people, who think they are the experts, and the accredited and learned are just stupid.
The internet is so great. ;)
Some problems aren't really new--plagues, for instance. Given that cures and treatments don't show up quickly, we're left with low tech approaches. Do the experts seem to know their history, and understand when the old approaches worked and when they didn't?
Crime is another of those not-so-new problems for which we have an oversupply of snake-oil experts. Revisit the history: what worked before, and in what situations did it fail?
Assistant Village Idiot: Just because experts are sometimes wrong, and in recent cases often wrong, does not mean that the reverse of their ideas is true, nor that non-experts are automatically right.
That is very much true. Experts are often wrong, though experts are more often right than non-experts about matters within their field of expertise. Consequently, an appeal to authority is an inductive argument.
Grim: Which one is the true expert whose wisdom should guide us?
Valid fields overlap many other related fields. So entomology overlaps with zoology, biology, evolution, ecology, systematics, even mechanics. Fields that lack overlap are less likely to be properly founded than fields that do.
A valid appeal to authority is to a consensus within the authority's field of expertise. This does not mean unanimity, nor that there are no disagreements within the field. So there is a consensus in planetary science that the Earth's moon is billions of years old, but no consensus about how the Moon formed. Someone who rejected the former would not be stating a consensus in the field, while someone discussing the latter should allow for plausible alternatives.
Z: Consider a claim, X. Someone cites a valid appeal to authority supporting X. You saying authority can be wrong does not undermine the support. It’s implicit that authority can be wrong, but they are more likely right than not when speaking to a consensus within their own, valid field of study.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
“A valid appeal to authority is to a consensus within the authority's field of expertise.“
Yes, to epicycles instead of heliocentric views.
Grim: Yes, to epicycles instead of heliocentric views.
Many scholars who held to geocentrism weren't necessarily stupid, and had valid reasons to hold their views. However, the appeal to authority is faulty because the dissenters could be subjected to the Inquisition, that is, undue bias.
In any case, saying experts can be wrong does not constitute an argument because a valid appeal to authority doesn't claim that experts can't be wrong. Indeed, progress depends on overthrowing consensus.
Obligatory Carl Sagan quote:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Post a Comment