Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Strato-Cruiser t1_j195dgq wrote

Reply to comment by thenousman in Epistemic Trespassing: Stay in your lane mf by thenousman

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.

10

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.

5

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.

2

[deleted] t1_j197wnl wrote

[deleted]

−3

Strato-Cruiser t1_j1986ae wrote

Yes, the myth of the rational voter.

2

[deleted] t1_j1994an wrote

[deleted]

−5

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.

1

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

2