Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PurpleSwitch t1_j1a9rkt wrote

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

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

2

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.

2