On the role of experts in creating personal belief systems.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Leon Redbone.

Okay, I guess I'll let you live.

that earns you an 'especially'.

FORGET ABOUT YOUR TROUBLES,
YOU'RE DOING FINE...
\


LEAVE YOUR CARES AND WORRIES
FAR BEHIND...
\


AND RELAX!
\

[Elder Iptuous]

 
i love it.

[Kai]

I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.

The argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge.  My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.

No, I think what the author was pointing out is that there are a large number of things we know, individually, that are received from experts but not individually tested. I believe quantum electrodynamics works as Feynman said, but I can only take his word for it and see that it is somehow internally consistent with what happens around me, because I haven't tested it myself. And there is either a biting anxiety or a backpedal whenever I think about this, because I am like everyone else in that I receive most of my knowledge from experts.

[Kai]

But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.

EDIT:  Removed initial reaction.  If you want a split, say so.  Quit your fucking whining.

TGRR,
Enough is fucking enough.

[Pæs]

I feel that I'm not fully appreciating the concern that having knowledge you haven't based on direct experience is causing you.

I don't have time to fully recreate the experiments which led to the knowledge that future experiments will be based on. I have to outsource my truth-finding to others.

The problem is when the concept of "rational folk" breaks down because people aren't all that rational. Even scientists.

And we do just take expert opinion as granted. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. Whether that expert is a looney or a respected scientist. The fact is, I feel a great deal of tension when trying to break out of my "bubble of epistemic closure", as the author calls it. I am not so smart.

I feel like we compensate here by having peer review. If you don't know that the expert can be trusted, you need to believe that the systems we have in place to test their beliefs are capable of determining their validity.

I don't believe that quantum electrodynamics works as Feynman said but I do believe, because it appears that the scientific community believes, that Feynman's description is the best description we currently have. I don't think it's a matter of pondering it for a moment to make sure it's not totally out of whack, then shrugging and nodding a casual "whatever you say, Feynman."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.

The argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge.  My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.

No, I think what the author was pointing out is that there are a large number of things we know, individually, that are received from experts but not individually tested. I believe quantum electrodynamics works as Feynman said, but I can only take his word for it and see that it is somehow internally consistent with what happens around me, because I haven't tested it myself. And there is either a biting anxiety or a backpedal whenever I think about this, because I am like everyone else in that I receive most of my knowledge from experts.

I guess it comes down to trust and credibility. Is it credible to believe that the entire academic system is built to perpetuate unverified, unverifiable information... the exact opposite of what it was purportedly designed to do? Is that what your personal experience with academia tells you?

I see what the author was pointing out, but I agree with LMNO that the analogy is so flawed as to be virtually meaningless.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.

See, he KNEW you'd act like that.   

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't know what to say other than that I can't address the cognitive dissonance Kai mentioned because I don't experience it. I don't even really understand it. The reason I don't experience that cognitive dissonance is because, while I cannot personally perform the experiments and see the results that prove the explanations I accept from scientific experts, I can and do experience the world in a way that is consistent with scientific method, and that experience gives me tangible evidence that science and the scientific method are valid and trustworthy.

Whereas, on the other hand, I have no tangible evidence at all that some guy in a very tall hat is communicating directly with a disembodied all-powerful entity.

In addition, I observe that while even highly-regarded religious leaders rarely agree with one another about that which they claim to be experts in, which in my opinion decreases their plausibility, scientists, by and large, do tend to agree with one another, and where there are disputes, it is widely agreed that additional information will resolve the dispute. This trend toward consensus increases the plausibility of scientific experts. Furthermore, I observe that in order for something to be accepted as fact in science, it must fit cohesively with everything else already known about how that field of study works; contradictory information typically invalidates a hypothesis. This consistency increases the plausibility of highly-regarded scientific experts.

[Pæs]

I don't know what to say other than that I can't address the cognitive dissonance Kai mentioned because I don't experience it. I don't even really understand it. The reason I don't experience that cognitive dissonance is because, while I cannot personally perform the experiments and see the results that prove the explanations I accept from scientific experts, I can and do experience the world in a way that is consistent with scientific method, and that experience gives me tangible evidence that science and the scientific method are valid and trustworthy.

Whereas, on the other hand, I have no tangible evidence at all that some guy in a very tall hat is communicating directly with a disembodied all-powerful entity.

In addition, I observe that while even highly-regarded religious leaders rarely agree with one another about that which they claim to be experts in, which in my opinion decreases their plausibility, scientists, by and large, do tend to agree with one another, and where there are disputes, it is widely agreed that additional information will resolve the dispute. This trend toward consensus increases the plausibility of scientific experts. Furthermore, I observe that in order for something to be accepted as fact in science, it must fit cohesively with everything else already known about how that field of study works; contradictory information typically invalidates a hypothesis. This consistency increases the plausibility of highly-regarded scientific experts.

This is what I meant when I said whatever I said.

[hirley0]

edit at 1:48 tomorrow? slow count to 9

[Cain]

Economists are "expects" who frequently use highly sophisticated mathematical models and predictions about the global economy, which inform journalists, bureaucrats, businessmen and elected politicians in their decision making.  They are also very frequently wrong.

Military strategists are often highly trained experts, with backgrounds in logistics and operations plannings.  Using sophisticated statistical techniques, officers calculate feedback loops to help direct bombing campaigns and targeted strikes against designated enemies and strategic assets.  And yet wars frequently devolve into a stalemate of low-level counter-counter-counter-counter-insurgency, which no-one wins until one side is tired enough to retreat.

The intelligence community is made up of career professionals with background historical, cultural, linguistic, "economic", "strategic" and political expertise in the nations they are studying.  They use high-tech and sophisticated tools and techniques to verify information and seek out new sources, and even more sophisticated programs to try and model the short and long-term behaviour of regimes and other influential actors.  And yet they are consistently duped, either by their own political leadership or by outsiders with an agenda.

A lot of times, these "experts", in addition to academic consultants, are hired by various companies, government bodies, media outlets and so on.  They contribute their dubious knowledge to everyone else via articles, television programs, books, talks and so on.  Often the success of such individuals is unrelated to their performance at their job, and is more a matter of marketing than anything else.  Soundbites.  Who can control the media narrative within a given timeframe.  Etc.

Our society is geared towards respecting the knowledge of such experts, despite their continued failures.  Books like "Think Like an Economist" are bestsellers, just after an economic downturns caused by people thinking too much like economists instead of sensible people confronted with a system too complex for them to understand.  Idiot savants like Nate Silver are idolized for being able to use a pocket calculator and completely ignore the wider political context of what they are discussing ("voter suppression will only affect 2% of the total vote and so is not important").  Even more insidiously, there has been the rise of the "generalized expert", wonks like Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias who, despite having no actual expertise in what they are discussing, believe themselves to be experts at being experts, and so argue with people who have decades of experience in healthcare, foreign policy or housing, via a blinding torrent of bullshit graphs and half-assed statistics.  Unfortunately, what these people are really good at are at generating clicks and moved copy, so their editors don't especially care whether they are right or wrong.

What this adds up to is a generalized "intellectual" climate of half-true theories being taken as gospel, of lies masquerading as truth and people with the best rationalizations of why they were wrong getting a large say in how to fuck up the next Grand Project.  It is best to think of such people as part of an intellectual cartel of mediocrity.

As Diego Gambetta points out in his book on criminal communication, such cartels are popular in Italian higher education, and presumably elsewhere too.  Committees select the chairs, not academic credit.  Chairs and positions are traded as favours between those who sit on the committees, "you give my former student a job and I'll owe you something down the line".  Interestingly, most of these "academic barons", as they are known, are of poor academic quality.  They edit volumes, write introductions and...dont do much of anything else.  The research they do return is shoddy, and their quality of thinking is, at best, questionable.  Naturally, there are reasons for this, to do with the nature of cartels and criminal incompetence.  Each academic baron is reliant on a system of credit and debt to the other barons.  A sufficiently talented researcher, however, is a threat, because he does not need favours to get ahead, and will not be in anyone's debt.  He is not controllable, and so is not awarded places within the Italian academic system.

As such, the best are excluded from the academic climate, while the mediocre and lacklustre prosper, and have great influence.  They are considered "experts" and so courted by the above groups named, while their "expertise" is mostly in appearing like an expert, advancing their own agenda and doing as little work as possible.  Their influence on what people believe, however, cannot be understated.

[Dildo Argentino]

Economists are "expects" who frequently use highly sophisticated mathematical models and predictions about the global economy, which inform journalists, bureaucrats, businessmen and elected politicians in their decision making.  They are also very frequently wrong.

Military strategists are often highly trained experts, with backgrounds in logistics and operations plannings.  Using sophisticated statistical techniques, officers calculate feedback loops to help direct bombing campaigns and targeted strikes against designated enemies and strategic assets.  And yet wars frequently devolve into a stalemate of low-level counter-counter-counter-counter-insurgency, which no-one wins until one side is tired enough to retreat.

The intelligence community is made up of career professionals with background historical, cultural, linguistic, "economic", "strategic" and political expertise in the nations they are studying.  They use high-tech and sophisticated tools and techniques to verify information and seek out new sources, and even more sophisticated programs to try and model the short and long-term behaviour of regimes and other influential actors.  And yet they are consistently duped, either by their own political leadership or by outsiders with an agenda.

A lot of times, these "experts", in addition to academic consultants, are hired by various companies, government bodies, media outlets and so on.  They contribute their dubious knowledge to everyone else via articles, television programs, books, talks and so on.  Often the success of such individuals is unrelated to their performance at their job, and is more a matter of marketing than anything else.  Soundbites.  Who can control the media narrative within a given timeframe.  Etc.

Our society is geared towards respecting the knowledge of such experts, despite their continued failures.  Books like "Think Like an Economist" are bestsellers, just after an economic downturns caused by people thinking too much like economists instead of sensible people confronted with a system too complex for them to understand.  Idiot savants like Nate Silver are idolized for being able to use a pocket calculator and completely ignore the wider political context of what they are discussing ("voter suppression will only affect 2% of the total vote and so is not important").  Even more insidiously, there has been the rise of the "generalized expert", wonks like Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias who, despite having no actual expertise in what they are discussing, believe themselves to be experts at being experts, and so argue with people who have decades of experience in healthcare, foreign policy or housing, via a blinding torrent of bullshit graphs and half-assed statistics.  Unfortunately, what these people are really good at are at generating clicks and moved copy, so their editors don't especially care whether they are right or wrong.

What this adds up to is a generalized "intellectual" climate of half-true theories being taken as gospel, of lies masquerading as truth and people with the best rationalizations of why they were wrong getting a large say in how to fuck up the next Grand Project.  It is best to think of such people as part of an intellectual cartel of mediocrity.

As Diego Gambetta points out in his book on criminal communication, such cartels are popular in Italian higher education, and presumably elsewhere too.  Committees select the chairs, not academic credit.  Chairs and positions are traded as favours between those who sit on the committees, "you give my former student a job and I'll owe you something down the line".  Interestingly, most of these "academic barons", as they are known, are of poor academic quality.  They edit volumes, write introductions and...dont do much of anything else.  The research they do return is shoddy, and their quality of thinking is, at best, questionable.  Naturally, there are reasons for this, to do with the nature of cartels and criminal incompetence.  Each academic baron is reliant on a system of credit and debt to the other barons.  A sufficiently talented researcher, however, is a threat, because he does not need favours to get ahead, and will not be in anyone's debt.  He is not controllable, and so is not awarded places within the Italian academic system.

As such, the best are excluded from the academic climate, while the mediocre and lacklustre prosper, and have great influence.  They are considered "experts" and so courted by the above groups named, while their "expertise" is mostly in appearing like an expert, advancing their own agenda and doing as little work as possible.  Their influence on what people believe, however, cannot be understated.

I fully agree with this message. And would add that "academic climate" by and large equals "scientific community".

[Dildo Argentino]

I can think of a couple of reasons that it MIGHT have helped (tribe cohesion, etc), but it's too widespread to be a random trait.

I think actually the whole of the answer you need is in there. (Malinowski and Fritz Pearls on ritual) ritual is the grease of societies (from tribe to fractally organised megapopulation), social evolution (the evolution of social entities) has been accelerating rapidly for about 12 thousand years, the group organism with the better grease gets to survive. Ritual is the source of all appreciation of art. Appreciation of art is an acquired trait in human individuals (concept of beauty is dependent on culture). Also, the survival traits of human individuals and human societies can and do diverge - essentially, that is the fact whose disasterous consequences threaten us all. I don't see how that's not enough. If you think it's not enough, can you explain why?