What value do experts provide to society?

[goldisheavy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/...n1Ci+ftIHPaVerA

 

I think this is a great article and a very timely one. Very apropos of the moment.

[Martial Development]

I didn't care for the title of the article. "Financial experts" give real experts a bad name.

 

Chemists, for example, are not playing a zero-sum game with each other, and their chemical compounds. Whereas the continued success of the financial industry was predicated on an endless stream of "bigger fools".

[goldisheavy]

I didn't care for the title of the article. "Financial experts" give real experts a bad name.

 

Chemists, for example, are not playing a zero-sum game with each other, and their chemical compounds. Whereas the continued success of the financial industry was predicated on an endless stream of "bigger fools".

 

The article touches on many kinds of expertise. It's true that the guy writing it is mostly interested in the financial and political experts, but the studies he mentions at the beginning investigate the phenomenon of expertise on a more general level. I think it's a worthy article.

 

The point is that people are fallible and even in a completely idealized discipline such as mathematics where you deal exclusively with the known (by definition) people make mistakes all the time. And what to say when you have to interact with reality that's unknown and complex?

 

Expertise makes more sense in hard sciences like chemistry and physics, but the closer you move to soft science such as biology and psychology, the more dangerous expertise becomes. Even in hard science experts make mistakes. So being careful around experts is a wise attitude no matter what.

Edited March 26, 2009 by goldisheavy

[ZenStatic]

The article touches on many kinds of expertise. It's true that the guy writing it is mostly interested in the financial and political experts, but the studies he mentions at the beginning investigate the phenomenon of expertise on a more general level. I think it's a worthy article.

 

The point is that people are fallible and even in a completely idealized discipline such as mathematics where you deal exclusively with the known (by definition) people make mistakes all the time. And what to say when you have to interact with reality that's unknown and complex?

 

Expertise makes more sense in hard sciences like chemistry and physics, but the closer you move to soft science such as biology and psychology, the more dangerous expertise becomes. Even in hard science experts make mistakes. So being careful around experts is a wise attitude no matter what.

 

The only reason you like the article is because you feel it validates your shit attitude towards people that actually know things that you only act as if you do. It must be sad and lonely up there on your pedestal.

[goldisheavy]

The only reason you like the article is because you feel it validates your shit attitude towards people that actually know things that you only act as if you do. It must be sad and lonely up there on your pedestal.

 

The same thing can be said about anyone, right? I'm not special in that regard. That's kind of the whole point I am trying to make.

[thelerner]

Actually you are special in that regard. You do come off x;l..editedsd09..

 

More importantly, what happens if you do make a serious study of the problems of those considered experts. What if you spent years correlating the data, getting definitive proof? After all that study and effort would you cross a line and become instantly wrong??

 

Is this not an indictment of our entire educational system? Well I'm not going to stand for the badmouthing of logic reason and America.. I"m out of here.

 

 

[zanshin]

Even in topics like hard sciences there's a lot of disagreement among experts, but if you want to learn you can't ignore the experts, you need to collect information and seek out different sides. Even with the financial market example, Greenspan might have been wrong with some things about the economy, but everyone takes his opinions very seriously and wise to do so, would be a big mistake to discount any future speeches etc. he makes. The author condemns blind following of experts opinions, but saying the financial experts led us off a cliff short sighted too, because there were plenty who warned and told us cliff was coming.

 

I liked the part about foxes and hedgehogs, I remember when John Kerry ran for president I liked him in the debates because he'd talk about different conditions and exceptions with his positions, but the media and public in general didn't like him because he was indecisive. It does seem like people go for bravado, they feel sure of believing things that are asserted confidently with slick presentation and discount those who express doubts or disclaimers- when really the doubts and disclaimers are- well the reason my amateur trading account is doing much better than my retirement funds run by experts.

 

My disclaimer is my opinion nothing to do with the goldisheavy disagreements with board experts, I'm personally neutral on that, but my disclaimer is also that sometimes you get more out of the opinions who disagree with the majority than the ones who do. If I make a major purchase that seems popular I might skim thru the raves but will read very carefully the reviews of a few people who didn't like it before making a decison, but my next disclaimer would be I really don't care if the pans are from people who really don't have hands on experience with the product. You see how indecisive I am, I sure would bomb if it was my opinion on tv.

[goldisheavy]

Is this not an indictment of our entire educational system?

 

I don't think it's an indictment, but it's a fair critique. Kind of like, "buyer beware". I think it's a good reminder.

[Taiji Bum]

Well, if the New York Times prints it then it must be true and totally unbiased.....

[goldisheavy]

Edited March 28, 2009 by goldisheavy