From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 21:34:39 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Or you are both well-calibrated, but your critical faculties *are*
> stronger than his. If so, the interesting question is how they got
> that way. Could practice have something to do with it?
Yes, it is surely true that practicing critical reading or listening
strengthens the ease and penetrating power of ability to ferret out
error. It also seems that there is often a price to be paid, and on
some occasions I wish I could turn mine off!
Harvey writes
> I don't think anybody is advocating accepting bad ideas
> from experts or rejecting good ideas from anyone.
Of course not. It's like, not a good idea to accept bad ideas?? :-)
> In a perfect world, we would recreate all claims scientifically
> in our own laboratories. However, most of us simply don't have
> time to investigate every claim.
Yes, such a "perfect world" is sheer fantasy.
> Knowing the expertise of the speaker can help provide some hints.
In some cases and some contexts, but not all.
> ... a reasonable compromise short of investigating every single
> statement and trusting no one.
Yes, surely an impossibility.
> You guys are missing the point. Nobody is talking about accepting
> expertise without checking it out first.
I think we got that. But observe that exactly the same applies to
one's time and resources to check out credentials as does apply to,
as you wrote above, "time to investigate every claim".
> Some [sic] people are too busy to talk to every non-expert (or
> even crackpot) who thinks "all scientists are wrong" and "I've
> invented a new theory... Using expertise to filter out people
> who have no experience or knowledge in a particular subject does
> not mean that one has to blindly follow experts without question.
No one was suggesting that. In fact, in my last two posts
in this thread, I gave quite bluntly the examples of Einstein
and Thompson being egregiously wrong. I guess we agree here.
The vital point is *when* to use alleged or documented expertise
to filter out people's output.
> It merely means one is too busy to wade through all the
> non-experts arguing the basics over and over.
A subtle shift has occurred here that IMO is key to our disagreement.
You appear to be thinking about situations where one's mind is
already made up on "the basics", and indeed because of constraints
of time, one's mind is not as open as would be ideal (in some fantasy
world). Indeed, I have limited time to listen to further arguments
purporting to establish the existence of God, because using my God-given
taste and discernment ;-) I'm guessing or conjecturing that it's a waste
of time.
This is a far cry from discussions that I have chosen to participate
in that include a quite limited number of participants, and which in
are not about "the basics", but about highly controversial issues
often tinged with ideology. In these cases, just what does "expertise"
amount to? In my opinion, it amounts to nothing more than certain
objective patterns whose affect I actually try to suppress---namely,
that some writers after a while acquire low credibility because of
the numerous shortcomings evident in their previous contributions.
Yet even so, provided I have the time to carefully peruse a thread,
the arguments of such a poster should be taken on their own merits,
wouldn't you agree?
Colin writes
> In validating authority no system is perfect, but it helps
> if you don't have to work relentlessly at it.
Yes, but be aware of the potential clash with Harvey's statement
above "Nobody is talking about accepting expertise without checking
it out first".
> For example, when Amara says something about star stuff, I know that
> there's a wealth of knowledge back there because she spends her life
> in it.
That's a reasonable conjecture, but only that. I assume that you
haven't *really* checked out her thesis or her background in detail.
But more vitally, the point is that what Amara has to say about
astronomy, or what Doug Shrecky has to say about flies, is not
controversial, and even more importantly, as I said earlier, not
subject to ideologically based differences in values. Nonetheless,
I must ask: would you find the postings of either of these people
less informative if submitted anonymously? I for one would have
soon appreciated the content in the postings of each of these
contributors, even if each has signed his or her name "Student",
as did the famous statistician Gosset. (People very quickly came
to appreciate that "Student" really knew what he was talking about,
and to this very day "Student's T distribution" is a vital tool
in statistics.)
> "Trust content, not speakers" can work if the content includes the
> validation, and when it does it can turn the validation into a lot
> of hard work chewing through mountains of words. If you intend to
> act on information (which includes a revision of your own opinions)
> -caveat emptor-.
Yes, this is the crucial difference: when content consists of
reasoned paragraphs of conjecture and refutation, indeed Eliezer's
maxim applies. This is true, of course, of all our usual debates
here. Where it does not apply, as I think you are saying, is when
statements of facts or theories that do not themselves contain
arguments or explanations. For example, I'll take it more or less
on faith when a renowned physicist or philosopher of science states
"What Max Plank was really trying to achieve during the years 1895-
1900 was...", where I can be fairly sure that the likelihood is low
that the statement will turn out either to be disputable,
controversial, or tinged by ideology. But I will not necessarily
accept a statement, even from a professional physicist that might
state, for example, "The robot Arnold passed through the event
horizon minutes ago, and we are seeing only the light from the last
images tardily reaching us", because reasoning was here being
employed that touched on the very controversial philosophical
notions of time. One simply can *NOT* rely on credentials when
attempting to think about that statement, or ones like it.
> Colin Hales
> *am I qualified to say this? hmmm. I'd better check ;-) *
A joke in extremely bad taste, Colin! If anything ever needs to be
shouted down, it would be that you or anyone would require credentials
to make you above statements. Perhaps that was your point :-) I hope
it was.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST