Believing in experts

[GMDino]

For the purposes of this discussion "you" and "your" is universal.  I'm NOT singling out any person here.

I was accused of only believing experts that I agree with.  Now within the context of the "discussion" I was having he wasn't wrong.  I believe that if a majority of people who have studied something and had it retested and peer reviewed can reach some kind of agreement on the best way to do something then yes I need to trust them over some rando on the internet no matter how much they claim to know.

As an aside I was talking about this with my daughter last night (experts on the internet) as she spends a lot more time than me doing research for things as part of her job. She said anyone who gives VERY specific information about what they do, and how they have had the exact experience being discussed is probably lying.  Most people would say they work in a field or they have some experience with a topic versus saying they now EXACTLY that situation and have a 100% definite opinion on it.

This goes for the "trust the science" crowd too.

Of course I trust the science.  I know that the science is being tested and retested and that science in and of itself is always trying to make sure it is still right or if it is wrong.  And when it is wrong we need to re-think "the science".

If 10-20 years down the road there is enough evidence and testing and reviews to show, for example, the Covid vaccine makes our eyes fall out then I'd have to admit I was wrong and you were right for not getting the shots.

But that would be based on the science.  Not you feelings, politics or religion.

That is an important distinction to me.

You might end up being right in the end but you are making a guess.  You have made up your mind before there is any proof of your belief.  That in no way makes you right now.  In the future you may be the blind squirrel that finds that acorn.  Much like those who claim the world will end on a specific date might get it right one day.  Just keep saying things and sooner or later you might hit one.

We were wrong about DDT, asbestos, lead in paint and gasoline.  Lots of things have changed over time due to "the science" that we had to adjust our views and personal habits.

Climate change and cigarette are just two things that we know more and it is in the public eye (for decades) there are still those who reject it simply because "the science" changed...even though we had the science and proof for decades but it was withheld because of money.

Medicine, astronomy, biology...are have evolved over time.  Sometimes we went down the wrong path and it took a long time to correct.  Doctor's resisted washing their hands, we don't go to leeches as the first thing when someone is sick and we treat post partum depression as a real problem.

Believing the experts, following the science is putting your trust in those who do the work.  Sometimes they and we are wrong.  Most times they are not.

But I'll still trust them before some guy down the street wo says the Bengals will win the Super Bowl every year...even if he's right someday. 

[Stewy]

As a scientist myself, the thing that bugs me the most is people believe expert conclusions.  People need to dig into the meat of issues themselves, find the sources and data and draw their own conclusions.

Odds are your "expert" has a political bias to their conclusions anyway, so if you aren't digging in yourself, it is highly likely you are being manipulated.  

The scientific methods declares every set of data, should have three viable conclusions/solutions.  If you're only getting one conclusion from an "expert", you're absolutely being manipulated.

Thisi s why whenever, I delve into giving an expert opinion on geoscience or Oil Industry matters, I provide multitudes of links, and images and share my conclusions based upon the observations.  But the observations are what's important.  I always want you all to dig into the data I provide and draw your own conclusions, though I'll always give an opinion of course.  :)

[*michaelsean*]

My problem is “best science at the time.” That doesn’t make it good science. It doesn’t mean it went through any of the rigors. It sounds more like a hypothesis. Best science should have already been proven. Honey has been used to treat wounds for a long time. 1000 years ago it was used. That was the best science at the time because it had been repeated over and over and found to be useful. It was actual science albeit not in the way we think of it today. Bleeding someone did not work, but in today’s age someone would call it the best science of the day because the current experts thought it worked.

A lot of things we did during Covid seemed like guesswork. Perhaps surprisingly I found the vaccines to be the least problematic, and got them. I got them mainly because I wanted us to get back to normal, but I wasn’t at all concerned about getting them.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-01-2023, 07:31 PM)Stewy Wrote: As a scientist myself, the thing that bugs me the most is people believe expert conclusions.  People need to dig into the meat of issues themselves, find the sources and data and draw their own conclusions.

Odds are your "expert" has a political bias to their conclusions anyway, so if you aren't digging in yourself, it is highly likely you are being manipulated.  

The scientific methods declares every set of data, should have three viable conclusions/solutions.  If you're only getting one conclusion from an "expert", you're absolutely being manipulated.

Thisi s why whenever, I delve into giving an expert opinion on geoscience or Oil Industry matters, I provide multitudes of links, and images and share my conclusions based upon the observations.  But the observations are what's important.  I always want you all to dig into the data I provide and draw your own conclusions, though I'll always give an opinion of course.  :)

Says the resident, it’s my field, expert. The title should have been “Youngest Griffin Son”. Second place would be “Scary Santa Claus”

[Millhouse]

In regards to Covid, next time a world pandemic hits similar to it, I think the U.S. should try it's very best to copy what the Japanese did and/or doing. Numbers don't lie, so why were the Japanese far superior than the 'West' when it comes to dealing with Covid? 

Now I'm no scientist myself, but how can anyone think that the U.S. did too much  and instead should have left it up to the personal freedom of everyone to do whatever they wanted as if Covid didn't exist?

I guess I will always fall on the side of trying to save as many lives as possible even if some "personal freedoms" are inhibited for a short while. Then again I will always have a different personal perspective on this than a vast majority of people could ever relate too (which is a good thing!).

Japan : 
Population roughly 125 million  -   total of 33 million plus cases - 392 million plus vaccines given - 74,694 total deaths thru last month

U.S. :
Population roughly 331 million  -   total of 103 million plus cases - 668 million plus vaccines given - 1,127,152 total deaths thru last month

https://covid19.who.int/region/amro/country/us
https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/jp

[HarleyDog]

I watched, “The real Anthony Fauci” last night, simply because I’m trying to learn more about Robert F. Kennedy. I was intrigued to say the least. I’m sure, as stewy mentioned, there’s some political bias here, but where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 07:31 PM)Stewy Wrote: As a scientist myself, the thing that bugs me the most is people believe expert conclusions.  People need to dig into the meat of issues themselves, find the sources and data and draw their own conclusions.

Odds are your "expert" has a political bias to their conclusions anyway, so if you aren't digging in yourself, it is highly likely you are being manipulated.  

The scientific methods declares every set of data, should have three viable conclusions/solutions.  If you're only getting one conclusion from an "expert", you're absolutely being manipulated.

Thisi s why whenever, I delve into giving an expert opinion on geoscience or Oil Industry matters, I provide multitudes of links, and images and share my conclusions based upon the observations.  But the observations are what's important.  I always want you all to dig into the data I provide and draw your own conclusions, though I'll always give an opinion of course.  :)

Stew, remember that celebrity singer who said that her girlfriend's boyfriend's testicles swelled up from a COVID vaccination? Her advice was also "Do your own research"--as she had.

People who "do their own research" without some notion of modern research standards won't do much better than people who just believe "experts." 

This thread interests me because it raises the issue of how authority is constructed in advanced 21st century democracies, how it is both legitimated and opposed for political purposes. 

You take care with your research and are suspicious when "expertise" appears without that care. You are recapping the Enlightenment argument that people have a capacity to understand and think for themselves, as opposed to trusting the paternalistic guidance of the Church. How can we get that for everyone?

Also, not all issues of authority are scientific, and the goal of research is not necessarily to exclude "bias." When we are dealing with human constructions as opposed to nature, a standard of scientific objectivity can mislead and obscure. 

Competent science is going to be beyond most people. But our democracies have evolved in part to vet expertise so that policy can be based on what we know most securely, and less on individual/party whims. That's what the argument is about in forum discussions involving education and parents' rights, where the authority of parents faces the authority of educators/social scientists. 

If my study of history and science and the development of modern knowledge leads me to think that understanding evolution is the basis of modern biology, and I want that taught my children in schools, I'll find myself facing off with anti-Enlightenment parents whose religion/ministers teach them to accept Genesis on faith. They won't want evolution taught in schools. (This is an actual example from my personal history as a school parent.)

And not being a biologist, I'll have to rely on expert help arguing against them, and research I cannot do myself.  Somehow, we must decide which experts count as "experts," amidst competing ideas of expertise. My solution at the moment is to go back to the ancients, e.g. Platonic and Aristotelean standards of what counts as "good argument," and what counts as undermining good argument. Most can or will agree to these, unless they suspect embracing them will undermine what they want to believe, shrink their political power.

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 10:55 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I watched, “The real Anthony Fauci” last night, simply because I’m trying to learn more about Robert F. Kennedy. I was intrigued to say the least. I’m sure, as stewy mentioned, there’s some political bias here, but where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.

Haven't seen that. 

What did you learn about Fauci? 

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 10:15 PM)Millhouse Wrote: In regards to Covid, next time a world pandemic hits similar to it, I think the U.S. should try it's very best to copy what the Japanese did and/or doing. Numbers don't lie, so why were the Japanese far superior than the 'West' when it comes to dealing with Covid? 

Excellent question and example.

Possibly very few Japanese were deflected from vaccination by vax conspiracies and fear the government's protective measures were

really about long term social control, or by belief the virus was a "hoax." 

[GMDino]

(07-01-2023, 07:31 PM)Stewy Wrote: As a scientist myself, the thing that bugs me the most is people believe expert conclusions.  People need to dig into the meat of issues themselves, find the sources and data and draw their own conclusions.

Odds are your "expert" has a political bias to their conclusions anyway, so if you aren't digging in yourself, it is highly likely you are being manipulated.  

The scientific methods declares every set of data, should have three viable conclusions/solutions.  If you're only getting one conclusion from an "expert", you're absolutely being manipulated.

Thisi s why whenever, I delve into giving an expert opinion on geoscience or Oil Industry matters, I provide multitudes of links, and images and share my conclusions based upon the observations.  But the observations are what's important.  I always want you all to dig into the data I provide and draw your own conclusions, though I'll always give an opinion of course.  :)

You are not wrong.  Being diligent and looking into things is great!  But you, for example, who has a background in that are of study doing is one thing.  My accountant friend who "knows" things will search until he finds one article to disprove a trove of supporting article as his "proof".

I don't believe I said to follow the experts blindly and I agree that even if they did everything "right" it is worthwhile to continue to investigate the subject.  That *IS* what science is to me.

[GMDino]

(07-01-2023, 09:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My problem is “best science at the time.”  That doesn’t make it good science. It doesn’t mean it went through any of the rigors. It sounds more like a hypothesis. Best science should have already been proven. Honey has been used to treat wounds for a long time. 1000 years ago it was used. That was the best science at the time because it had been repeated over and over and found to be useful. It was actual science albeit not in the way we think of it today. Bleeding someone did not work, but in today’s age someone would call it the best science of the day because the current experts thought it worked.

A lot of things we did during Covid seemed like guesswork. Perhaps surprisingly I found the vaccines to be the least problematic, and got them. I got them mainly because I wanted us to get back to normal, but I wasn’t at all concerned about getting them.

Agreed.  that's why I had added the caveats about what they went through with reviews and testing.  Covid is unique in that we truncated all of that.  And that's why I added that we might be wrong and it might take 20 years to find that out.

Some of the things we did/suggested during covid were similar to what we did during the Spanish Flu 100+ years ago.  People resisted them then too but over a century we found that they were good suggestions to help slow the rate of infection.

Mask are another example.  How much did they help?  In other countries it is normal to wear masks during flu season or if you yourself are sick and in public.  In America it became a political football about "Freedom".  As Millhouse said above we did some things differently and had different results mostly based on cultural difference from country to country.

[Stewy]

(07-01-2023, 09:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Says the resident, it’s my field, expert. The title should have been “Youngest Griffin Son”. Second place would be “Scary Santa Claus”

I don't even know what this means....

[Stewy]

(07-02-2023, 10:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: You are not wrong.  Being diligent and looking into things is great!  But you, for example, who has a background in that are of study doing is one thing.  My accountant friend who "knows" things will search until he finds one article to disprove a trove of supporting article as his "proof".

I don't believe I said to follow the experts blindly and I agree that even if they did everything "right" it is worthwhile to continue to investigate the subject.  That *IS* what science is to me.

Yeah well, I've gotten some push back in this thread, and it wasn't my intent to suggest we dismiss or ignore "experts" completely.  

One doesn't have to be a scientist to do things like find the job title of the author or the source of their information.  if they didn't provide links to that information, it is a huge red flag.  If they works for a politically leaning organization or a workspace that is ultra "this" or "that", then that is suspect.  

The worst these days are people who read blog read opinions (that come off as truth) on other "news" articles and then create huge click bait followings that then seem like legitimate news sources.  This is a huge problem in our Social Media world.  Example:  Our daughter is ultra liberal, but not broadly informed.  The govt would do something, she'd over react.  My wife and I would go to the changed actual law, actual news article, etc. and then the arguments would start, where she would be unaware of omissions that her source conveniently left out, partial summaries that mislead for a political commentary or just out right lies.  As she is indigent enough to dig in, every time she would come to us with political hysteria, we'd start asking her the source, were there links to AP articles, Reuters govt documents or peer reviewed information.  At first the answer was always no, and she'd try to push it aside to express her outrage and hysteria.  However, after 4-5 times in a row of us quickly looking up the actual/original source of the information, it was clear she was being mislead - EVERY time.

Summary:  You don't need a college degree to question the information you've read.  Google can reveal who holds an authors leash and an author's motivation very quickly.  YOU just have to give a shit to not be mislead and manipulated.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2023, 11:02 AM)Stewy Wrote: Yeah well, I've gotten some push back in this thread, and it wasn't my intent to suggest we dismiss or ignore "experts" completely.  

One doesn't have to be a scientist to do things like find the job title of the author or the source of their information.  if they didn't provide links to that information, it is a huge red flag.  If they works for a politically leaning organization or a workspace that is ultra "this" or "that", then that is suspect.  

The worst these days are people who read blog read opinions (that come off as truth) on other "news" articles and then create huge click bait followings that then seem like legitimate news sources.  This is a huge problem in our Social Media world.  Example:  Our daughter is ultra liberal, but not broadly informed.  The govt would do something, she'd over react.  My wife and I would go to the changed actual law, actual news article, etc. and then the arguments would start, where she would be unaware of omissions that her source conveniently left out, partial summaries that mislead for a political commentary or just out right lies.  As she is indigent enough to dig in, every time she would come to us with political hysteria, we'd start asking her the source, were there links to AP articles, Reuters govt documents or peer reviewed information.  At first the answer was always no, and she'd try to push it aside to express her outrage and hysteria.  However, after 4-5 times in a row of us quickly looking up the actual/original source of the information, it was clear she was being mislead - EVERY time.

Summary:  You don't need a college degree to question the information you've read.  Google can reveal who holds an authors leash and an author's motivation very quickly.  YOU just have to give a shit to not be mislead and manipulated.

Totally agree.  I've been on both sides of that.  I've had to explain to my parents why something was happening because their sources are always MSNBC or whatever the read on the internet.  And I've had friends provide sources to me when I was off on some law or politician.

And many times I've seen one of those "too good to be true" articles and after searching for a short time found out it was bogus so I didn't share it.

It is up to the individual to make sure they aren't just reinforcing their own biases.  

[HarleyDog]

(07-02-2023, 12:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Haven't seen that. 

What did you learn about Fauci?

It’s about collusion between drug companies and government and his involvement. 

[Dill]

(07-02-2023, 11:51 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: It’s about collusion between drug companies and government and his involvement. 

Drug companies and the government have "colluded" since the 1930s, e.g., to provide medical care for the armed forces and then to mass manufacture antibiotics during WWII. Then Medicare and Medicaide.

What sort of collusion are you referring to here? 

Is it good--like the mass production of free vaccines?

Or bad, like buying drugs for Medicare programs without negotiating prices?  

Just curious. This relates to the thread topic in that I suspect it may involve distrust in government, founded or unfounded.

[HarleyDog]

(07-02-2023, 12:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Drug companies and the government have "colluded" since the 1930s, e.g., to provide medical care for the armed forces and then to mass manufacture antibiotics during WWII. Then Medicare and Medicaide.

What sort of collusion are you referring to here? 

Is it good--like the mass production of free vaccines?

Or bad, like buying drugs for Medicare programs without negotiating prices?  

Just curious. This relates to the thread topic in that I suspect it may involve distrust in government, founded or unfounded.

Yes, it is distrust in both. It brings to question the use/push of AZT during the aids epidemic and the push of remdesivir during Covid and Faici’s involvement in both.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-02-2023, 10:46 AM)Stewy Wrote: I don't even know what this means....

Read what his daughter said about experts and it’s in their field . You are our resident oil and energy expert. Bels is our resident “we were just working on this” expert. If people don’t get the joke it’s the joke tellers fault. My bad.

[Leon]

i put my trust in the Word. not man made science with an agenda. science is wrong way more than its right but folks wanna say gotta trust the science. no thanks. ill trust what i know is true. not what a bunch of govt lab coats tell me is true

[Dill]

(07-02-2023, 11:02 AM)Stewy Wrote: Yeah well, I've gotten some push back in this thread, and it wasn't my intent to suggest we dismiss or ignore "experts" completely.  

One doesn't have to be a scientist to do things like find the job title of the author or the source of their information.  if they didn't provide links to that information, it is a huge red flag.  If they works for a politically leaning organization or a workspace that is ultra "this" or "that", then that is suspect.  

The worst these days are people who read blog read opinions (that come off as truth) on other "news" articles and then create huge click bait followings that then seem like legitimate news sources.  This is a huge problem in our Social Media world.  Example:  Our daughter is ultra liberal, but not broadly informed.  The govt would do something, she'd over react.  My wife and I would go to the changed actual law, actual news article, etc. and then the arguments would start, where she would be unaware of omissions that her source conveniently left out, partial summaries that mislead for a political commentary or just out right lies.  As she is indigent enough to dig in, every time she would come to us with political hysteria, we'd start asking her the source, were there links to AP articles, Reuters govt documents or peer reviewed information.  At first the answer was always no, and she'd try to push it aside to express her outrage and hysteria.  However, after 4-5 times in a row of us quickly looking up the actual/original source of the information, it was clear she was being mislead - EVERY time.

Summary:  You don't need a college degree to question the information you've read.  Google can reveal who holds an authors leash and an author's motivation very quickly.  YOU just have to give a shit to not be mislead and manipulated.

Yo Stew! One may not need a college degree, but one probably should have some idea of how to vet knowledge beyond whether it just agrees with what one already wants to believe.  That needs to be a basal standard if we are going to have a critically literate and informed population vetting political candidates and their policies. Colleges are supposed to be teaching students how to do that, but perhaps not as successfully as they used to.

How do you explain this standard to people who simply decide that sources "ultra" their side are GREAT sources but "ultra" the other side are "biased"--so much so they don't need to go beyond titles to examine method or construction of data? To me that indicates they are wholly unfamiliar with this standard. They do not know how to employ it as a base line for research, or recognize when others are holding to it. They use terms like "bias" with little idea of what would constitute bias.

I share your distress at how social media feeds and supports "bias hunters" looking for confirmation of what they already want to believe. SM has become a kind of "counter education" teaching people--especially young people--that THAT'S how you do it: Find links that agree with you and then confront others with opposing links, with no ability to assess an author's method on either side of the issue. Then go to personal attack if they still don't agree. If someone actually finds valid research (beyond confirmation bias), it's by accident.

Finally, you didn't say how old your daughter was. If she's HS age or a college undergraduate, I wouldn't worry to much. You are doing the right thing by offering counter points to her arguments. You've introduced her to the "peer reviewed" criterion, so she's already got the right influences around her.

By the way, here is a somewhat helpful chart used in many colleges today for students learning basic research. Anyone can find it by googling "CRAAP test."
It's only a start though. E.g., it asks 19 year-olds whether a site appears "biased," but most that age are still using the "bias=different from what I believe" standard. Learning how to assess qualifications requires some experience too. That takes time. Still, it jives with what you are doing with your daughter, checking qualifications, introducing the concept of neutrality via questions about audience and goals, whether and how citations are employed, etc. To this could be added simply things like whether a website is .com, .ed, .org, or .gov. to help assess purpose and reliability.