Fluggernuffin t1_j19u8ft wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:55 PM

This is an interesting debate, and one that I feel is missing a key component. In general, we expect experts in a field to be knowledgeable, but even then, an expert's opinion is only more valid than a layman's because of specialized knowledge or experience; either learned from another expert, or observed directly.

If a so called "expert" made an assertion without presenting citation or evidence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge that assertion. If a layman made an assertion and did provide evidence, I would consider that compelling enough to at least speak to an expert about it.

HoldenCoughfield t1_j1a86pm wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:27 PM

My issue with this is somewhat akin to your points: being knowledgable is not the same as being intelligent, deductive, thoughtful, etc. There are plenty of SME’s who are just knowledgable. This is where the knowledge only carries itself and doesn’t lead to discourse that can be resolving or productive

EditRedditGeddit t1_j1blemc wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:24 AM

Yeah. Experts are better-trained to navigate evidence and context, but if they are put on a pedestal then they can easily mislead us with their own flawed reasoning too.

There has to be universal standards with reasoning, and experts still need to be able to explain themselves. I guess this gets a bit tricky though, because if a statistician is explaining to someone why their probability calculation is wrong, I'd still want them to defer to the statistician rather than their own instinct.

bildramer t1_j1d727v wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:55 PM

Yes. Expertise is not a synonym for "is accurate about topic", it's (ideally) better knowledge, better practices, experience, familiarity with arguments. Better epistemic practices are also alleged, but I think you should generally doubt that. That all indirectly leads to accuracy, but if they have an opinion, you can still ask them "why do you think so?", and they should be able to answer. A plumber may be able to give me more informed reasons about whether I should go for copper or plastic pipes (or something), and may favor an option. However:

If you have good reason to believe you know what exact process someone is using to answer your questions, that "screens off" expertise. If you know someone is just regurgiating the standard textbook advice, well, now you know he's exactly as good as the standard textbook advice, and your potential to do better increases. If you know an electrician is not considering pros and cons you yourself have considered, but going with the cheapest option, his expertise doesn't matter for that particular decision. And so on. Don't get too cocky, though.

iiioiia t1_j1jhcgd wrote on December 24, 2022 at 9:21 PM

> but even then, an expert's opinion is only more valid than a layman's because of specialized knowledge or experience; either learned from another expert, or observed directly

Another problem: "an expert's opinion" can be considered from various perspectives, like on average, or also on a per opinion basis - and, one can (at least in theory) take complexity into consideration (say: multi-variate causality), or ignore it (and thus perceive that it does not exist).

> If a so called "expert" made an assertion without presenting citation or evidence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge that assertion.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge all "expert" assertions, though doing so skilfully is not our strong suit.