Submitted by thenousman t3_zsnec1 in philosophy
Strato-Cruiser t1_j191ilv wrote
I get the message, but it feels too binary to me. In their example, I agree that an expert in statistics would be more appropriate especially in a high stakes environment where someone’s life and freedom is at risk. In general, I have no problems with experts speaking on topics in which they are not experts in. Their insight could be valid and correct, not because they are an expert in another field, but they used a methodology that got them to a valid conclusion. I think it’s important for the recipient to know they should evaluate and scrutinize a conclusion from an expert in a differing field. To not accept it because they are an expert in another field, and to not reject it because they are an expert in another field.
thenousman OP t1_j191zrm wrote
The problem is “Everyone said well that’s fine, he’s an expert”. They were, like it or not, vulnerable novices and the expert abused his authority, intentionally or not, and with serious consequences, like the mother being convicted of murdering her children.
Strato-Cruiser t1_j195dgq wrote
Yes, the doctor over evaluated his intelligence in understanding statistics because he’s an expert as a doctor, and the jurors took him for face value, so yes, that’s a problem. I don’t think, and there is research to show this, but intelligent people are no so aware that they are over estimating conclusions and understanding. However, the doctor not being an expert in statistics still could have reached a correct conclusion because he is capable of understanding statistics. It would be wrong to dismiss him because he’s not an expert in statistics and it would be wrong to accept him because he is an expert as a doctor. Recipients of the information need to scrutinize the methodology of how a conclusion was reached. Now I admit that may be a tall order for people in a jury pool. However, there is another expert there, the defense lawyer, who’s job is to scrutinize everything and consider how jurors take in information. That defense lawyer should be calling an expert in statistics.
In general, in one’s day to day life. It is not good to dismiss someone because they are not an expert in a field, and it’s not good to accept a conclusion because they are an expert in a different field.
thenousman OP t1_j196kuu wrote
Yep, nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism. And it evidently was a tall order, and so therefore an abuse of expert authority that neglected novice vulnerabilities.
Strato-Cruiser t1_j1975tk wrote
Yeah, and I don’t think any malice from the doctor was intended. A defense lawyer should understand jurors and the information that they need. Because jurors are subject to making short cuts in thinking like, this person is an expert doctor, he must be right about this medically related statistic. That’s lazy reasoning, but it is how our brains function. A lawyer should know these things through experience and get another expert to add insight for the jurors.
[deleted] t1_j197wnl wrote
[deleted]
Strato-Cruiser t1_j1986ae wrote
Yes, the myth of the rational voter.
[deleted] t1_j1994an wrote
[deleted]
Whalesurgeon t1_j19uvt9 wrote
Because avoiding responsibility for the political direction of the country is moral?
Even irrational, ignorant beings can surely still assert their own values upon politics without there being anything wrong with it, I think.
iiioiia t1_j19w5uq wrote
[Apologies: I am taking out my general contempt for humanity on your comments, which are for the most part, more or less fine.
> Yes, the doctor over evaluated his intelligence in understanding statistics because he’s an expert as a doctor
Does a piece of paper declaring that someone "is an expert" [1] cause them to become able to reliably (say, > 90% correct) understand any question that is posed to them?
Possibly relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
> ...It would be wrong to dismiss him because he’s not an expert in statistics
Agree, though it may be prudent to be skeptical of any pronouncements that involve statistics, which is what happened in this story.
> However, there is another expert there, the defense lawyer, who’s job is to scrutinize everything and consider how jurors take in information. That defense lawyer should be calling an expert in statistics.
They should probably also be nicer to their friends and family, eat better, exercise, not drink/smoke, inform themselves accurately before voting or even supporting the political system one grew up under, etc - just as we all should, including me. Yet, it seems people tend not to do all that they "should" - rather, most people seem to have extremely strong aversions to such things, despite regularly claiming with complete sincerity otherwise.
[1] which technically, no doctor actually receives, calling into question the very claim of them being "an expert", whatever that means
zlance t1_j19kjd8 wrote
It's like my dad, an expert mathematician and software engineer has goofy ideas about medical field.
Domain expertise is absolutely necessary in reasoning on a topic with a degree of authority. It's great that one can learn of logic and calculative tools by being in expert in one field, but while thoes skills translate to a large degree, they don't protect one from making an error in setting up the model to reason about.
EG. I read a paper by a PhD in Business that reasoned that vaccines are causing autism. It found that if you take autism and speech disorders and lump them together as one, there is a positive correlation between the two values over some time. Of course it was torn down by subject matter experts who said that you can't reason that the two disorders are in the same class. But hey, this person probably does know math well, and probably business too.
hacksaw001 t1_j19ilta wrote
The opinion of an expert on a topic outside their field is a layman's opinion, since they're not an expert in that field.
Being an expert means you're a regular person who has advanced knowledge on a specific topic. This doesn't imply some kind of general aptitude, or advanced reasoning skill which could be applied to other fields. Certainly both of these could make attaining expertise easier, but they aren't prerequisites for expertise. The main prerequisite is the willingness and ability to spend a long time on a specific topic.
Therefore the opinion of an expert outside of their field of expertise is not likely to be more valuable than any other layperson's opinion, especially as the topic moves further from their field of knowledge.
A layperson's opinion could be valid and useful, or it could be incorrect and harmful. The problem is that neither the layperson, nor their audience knows which one.
Strato-Cruiser t1_j19ks0a wrote
I agree with you. To me there is a scale of how more likely I will scrutinize an expert outside of their expertise. If we use the example in the article, the understanding of that statistic is not highly advanced, it’s perfectly plausible for an intelligent doctor to learn enough about statistics without becoming an expert, it’s just this doctor did not, other doctors will have a better understanding maybe because statistics is an interesting topic. For example, it wouldn’t surprise me for a medical doctor to understand the physics of how a wing on a plane provides lift, even though he is not an expert in physics. If he were to explain it, I think he could be quite capable. If he started to explain the physics of a black hole, I would be more likely to scrutinize that. There is a degree of how far one is diving outside of their expertise and how far they’re diving into another.
iiioiia t1_j19wksg wrote
> The opinion of an expert on a topic outside [their field] [is] [a layman's opinion], since they're not an expert in that field.
layman: a person without professional [or] specialized [knowledge] in a particular subject
Some people have competence in more than one field.
hacksaw001 t1_j1bfrtl wrote
Yeah, you can be an expert in more than one field, for sure!
iiioiia t1_j1ivuip wrote
Demonstrating how easily casual language can be misinformative - "Being an expert means you're a regular person who has advanced knowledge on a specific topic" could easily be (and very often is) interpreted to mean that if someone isn't ~formally identified as "an expert" then their opinion on a subject is necessarily inferior to that of an [declared to be] expert.
PurpleSwitch t1_j1a9rkt wrote
I agree that it seems overly binary. I'm a biochemist who spends a lot of time debunking anti-scientitic rubbish like anti-climate change stuff, or anti vaccination rhetoric. I try my best to stay in my lane but it's difficult to gauge what counts.
My background means that I can speak more authoritatively on vaccines than on climate change, but also knowing about the development of mRNA vaccines in recent years doesn't help to dispel misinformation. Sometimes knowing more complicates things more. The challenge often is in simplifying something so that someone who isn't a scientist can follow it, and that takes a different set of skills than the biochemistry itself.
A lot of what I do is deferring to people who are experts, but that's still wielding a sort of authority over people, because it often involves TL;DRing scientific literature that they don't have the skills or experience to read, but otherwise how do I explain why they should listen to these guys as opposed to the kinds of people at sites like naturalhealthyliving dot com
Strato-Cruiser t1_j1aj1f5 wrote
It can be a fine line. As I commented in another spot you have to gauge how far you’re pushing into another field. What I don’t like about the article is that it appears to put too much responsibility of the expert to stay in their lane so they do not accidentally lead people astray. Rather, I would put more responsibility on the layperson to question the methodology of a conclusion by the person making the claim.
When you’re debunking something, if your methodology is trust me, I’m a biochemist, that’s not good enough. It appears that is not what you do. It appears you try to understand things to the best of your ability, and your expertise may help you understand things a bit better that are outside of your expertise. I find it very obnoxious when someone will dismiss me because I’m not an expert, even though I have consumed a hefty amount of information on the topic.
One of my favorite examples of why you should analyze the claim and not the person, is the Wright brothers. In particular Wilbur Wright. No training in math, engineering, or physics. Never went to college. At that time, a betting man would have put their money on Samuel Langley, the scientist, the expert, and the Wrights beat him at a fraction of the cost. Langley became too focused on a problem that Wilbur saw was not a problem, and Wilbur was correct and focused on the correct problem that was keeping planes from flying.
iiioiia t1_j19v3xw wrote
> Their insight could be valid and correct, not because they are an expert in another field, but they used a methodology that got them to a valid conclusion.
By "valid", do you mean necessarily and comprehensively correct?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments