> I’d argue this is more the result of capitalism Not science

I can agree with that, can you agree that:

• science is a pre-requisite to make it happen?

• the scientific community is not well known for saying (because they do not say it) that their work is producing harm because much of their work is conducted under capitalism?

I'm saying I don't believe the output of religion could destroy the ecosystem of Planet Earth with the same efficiency that the output of science is now doing.

Do you believe that religion is capable of it, and if so could you explain how?

Destroy the ecosystem of the planet.

Science seems better at some though, like climate change - I challenge you to describe a plausible scenario where religion could pull that one off on its own.

All pro-determinism theories are similarly opinion/meme-based imho.

> there is also the problem of inadequete education.. > > > > I think this is underlying the whole ball of wax.

And who sets educational criteria? :)

I don't know about you, but I smell a rat.

> The flaws appear over time as people and organized interest groups seeking power take advantage of overlooked weaknesses and/or create them through corrruption and sponsored legeslative.

And if the flaws are not identified and fixed (as is the case now), then I propose "less flawed" is not yet adequately implemented.

> 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.

https://youtu.be/PsgBtOVzHKI

https://youtu.be/P1ww1IXRfTA

Would be interesting to see what could have happened had we listened (and acted, competently).

New, more powerful and less flawed institutions seems like a reasonable approach to me.

> I somehow think it is not just the criminals who need ethical training.

Or ontological/epistemological training.

> Which means no one can cast a stone because everyone has sinned.

Not technically it doesn't.

Another interesting angle to this: I believe "mindshaping practices" can also refer to how the media not only tells people what to think, but also how to think[1]. People are arguably taught to engage in mind reading[2] via the manner in which politics and other topics (COVID being the most recent important example) are covered.

[1] "We 'know' X is true, because if you look at it in this way (and only this way - those other ways are just far right Russian conspiracy theories) it has the appearance of being True - thus, it 'is' True)".

[2] "This small subset of GroupA thinks/behaves in this way, thus all members of the group do the same."

There are easy ways to reveal (under a logical framework) how flawed this thinking is (replace GroupX with "The Jews", "The Blacks", etc and observe how cognition immediately changes, if it does not terminate in response), but they typically do not work.

> That's way easier said than done

So have been many capabilities humans now wield/enjoy (consider how long it took to get from London to New York before flight was figured out), until someone actually decided to figure out how to do it.

Apologies for the optimism. 🙏

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.

> Any advice either comes from someone who knows what he's talking about, or it does not.

Is "knows what he's talking about" a True/False binary:

a) in fact?

b) in appearance?

> shouldn’t listen to programmers about anything other than programming

> [We’re all] idiots with God complexes [because so much of the world has computers in it these days]

As a computer programmer, I am curious about how you've acquired omniscient knowledge of the capabilities of all people, as well as causality.

> 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.

[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

> 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?

> In the context of an expert though, where do you draw the line on confidence?

I say: at drawing conclusions (upgrading propositions to facts). It is not necessary to categorize something as a fact before taking action, it is only a cultural norm. The world runs mostly on mere belief, it just doesn't appear that way.

> Yeah and I should just reiterate that epistemic trespassing can only be done by someone who is an expert

As described in this article (you're the author I think?), but all people can engage in opining on matters without epistemic soundness, which may not be the exact same thing, but if considered comprehensively may very well have more causal importance.

> Here and, in everyday, we aren’t normally going about our lives (and certainly not in all matters) as experts

"A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one", though I'd say you are technically correct as it currently is, in the aggregate.

Well that's an anomalous reaction!

> My first comment was removed for being an opinion. Which is comical as the article is also merely opinion.

Two wrong do make a right?

> So this is an opinion piece masquerading as a philosophy article.

Is this another opinion disguised as a fact?

> Studies have shown that having ideas challenged which you associate with your identity, and in turn your group identity, are responded to neurologically in the same manner as physical threats, short-circuiting logical thought processes and exacerbating tribalism.

Agree, psychology textbooks and papers are informative - however, I think it's much more interesting if you observe the overwhelming amount of available evidence first hand: internet arguments. What you describe here is not surprising if one is considering people's System 1 powered, realtime intuitive reaction. But more interesting is that people regularly (and on some topics, usually/always) are literally not able to release themselves from a belief, or often even question their belief - individually, or with assistance. And even more hilarious: very often this occurs in a scenario where the individual in question is mocking the intelligence of other people...and often the people they are mocking are literally artifacts of their imagination.

Were this not so common[1] and therefore taken for granted as an unavoidable part of reality like the weather, I think it would get massive amounts of attention. And that it doesn't get hardly any attention (other than people complaining about it incessantly) suggests to me that there is something very, very strange about "reality".

> I would say it comes down to intentionally constructing processes of interrogating our beliefs as a culture. What's much more important than your base level of intelligence entering into a conversation is your willingness to actually explore concepts within that conversation. To truly engage in a dialog. To not feel threatened by entertaining conflicting beliefs. If that itself can become part of our group identity, this process is no longer existentially threatening.

Ah....now this is something I rarely encounter. Isn't it weird that with all the "experts" in the world, many of them on payroll in relevant positions, and with all the calls for "more critical thinking" we hear in the media, *no one seems to have put two and two together? I mean, you and I are surely not dummies, but are we that much smarter than others? Or is there perhaps something else going on?

> Again though, I'm not saying there is actually a "one true way" to view the world objectively. It's a process we can choose to attempt to engage in, which we will never perfect, but brings much better results over time.

Maybe aiming for objectivity is not the correct goal? If the problem space is fundamentally subjective (I believe it is), aiming for objectivity will fail indefinitely. I think is is perfectly plausible that our success and obsession with science may now be causing net harm to us, and maybe has been for quite some time with no way for us to realize it (since that would at the very least require thinking, and that topic has become as taboo as questioning religion was a hundred years ago - it is literally enforced at several levels, including the government and mostly all media).

[1] There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water"?