Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about experts who disagree with other experts?
Peer disagreement is a different issue. A lay person should probably abstain from taking a strong stance on issues about which there is significant peer disagreement. For example, I have a fair amount of scientific training, but it is far from enough to qualify me as an expert in any real sense. In particular, I only have a couple semesters of college physics. It would then be foolish for me to have a strong opinion about the merits of string theory because that is a topic about which the real experts disagree. That isn't to say that I can't hold some opinion about which I think is correct, but I shouldn't present my opinion as having any real value. It's mostly just a guess.
I think the OP is referencing two things: general respect for experts in a given field and the response of lay people to a consensus of experts in a field. These two probably go hand-in-hand.
Let's face it, there are "experts" on at least two sides of every issue and their opinions tend to coincide with the interests of those paying them.
But that isn't actually true. Many experts work in tenured academic positions. They have virtually complete academic freedom, and their salaries don't depend in any way on them holding a certain view.
Bernanke was an expert. He was just wrong. Einstein was likely wrong about quantum theory; does that mean he wasn't an expert in physics?
Sheesh....the question was not whether or not Bernanke was considered an "expert". The question is why people do not simply trust the words of experts. I provided Bernanke as a reason why.
And before him Greenspan has admitted he screwed up. So, the question is better put as, why should we believe these "experts"?
Quote:
As a lay person, I should still value the opinions of experts because they are far more likely to be correct than the opinions of non-experts.
That at best is a vast generalization and means nothing. As you point out "experts" are wrong so they shouldn't be believed simply because someone decides they are an "expert".
But that isn't actually true. Many experts work in tenured academic positions. They have virtually complete academic freedom, and their salaries don't depend in any way on them holding a certain view.
The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department. Thomas Sowell
The left defines the word "expert" as someone who pushes a left wing agenda. Shown an expert who sees things differently, and that person will be dismissed by the left as the most retarded person to ever survive childhood.
Sheesh....the question was not whether or not Bernanke was considered an "expert". The question is why people do not simply trust the words of experts. I provided Bernanke as a reason why.
And before him Greenspan has admitted he screwed up. So, the question is better put as, why should we believe these "experts"?
That at best is a vast generalization and means nothing. As you point out "experts" are wrong so they shouldn't be believed simply because someone decides they are an "expert".
So some random guy off the street is just as qualified in your mind as a person who studies the same issue for life?
Here is a simple question. Why do people go to college and learn from professors? Why not just get average joes to teach you about physics and engineering? Do you really believe that it means nothing?
So I could just walk on your job and day one tell you how to do it even if I have never looked into what you do. Do you really believe this?
Economists are not scientists or "experts" in any way, shape or form. This is due to the fact that pretty much all economic theory is currently nothing more than a religion, having nothing to do with reality (other than to support the current powers-that-be). You might have noticed that they have ZERO predictive power as to what is going to happen in the economy; if economists had any scientific validity, they'd have pretty good predictive power.
And as to why we don't trust supposed expert opinions, I would say that many intellectual Americans became disillusioned--or enlightened--after:
(2) After realizing that the media continues to promote the absolute fallacy that 97% of scientists believe in human-caused climate change. The 97% statistic came from a review of published scientific studies that concluded only 32.6% of studies supported the idea: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW (anthropogenic global warming), 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming." The 97% statistic comes from taking this sentence in the abstract out of context: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." Since only 33.3% of the studies expressed a position on AGW (32.6% pro, 0.7% con), the actual percent of studies that endorsed man-caused global warming was 32.3% (97.1% of 33.3%).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
