The Death of Expertise

[untermensche]

You are no expert but your nose is browned.

I understand.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are a number of very dangerous heuristics that are built-in to human civilization, because they were good enough in the past, but which may be inadequate or downright dangerous in a modern technological society.

These include, but are not limited to, giving credibility to ideas based on the popularity and fame of the person who is promoting or proposing them; and the assumption that if you hear about something (particularly if it is confronting and extraordinary), it must be highly relevant to your life - which were both survival traits in small communities dominated by the physically strong, and at threat from large numbers of real local hazards; but are not effective modes of thought in a globalized society dominated by the wealthy and politically powerful, and with few serious threats to most people.

What you describe here I think applies across the board, not just to the question of "expertise".

We can only figure out as we go how to behave in the constantly evolving situation that we ourselves or others creates. We develop new and imaginative technical means to solve difficult problems only to see our enemies use them imaginatively against us. We find impressive solutions only to see people abuse them to create new and intractable problems. It's like driving faster and faster on a winding road.

So far, so good... And now, America just put Trump at the White House!

And I guess the limit of expertise is that is leads us to a place where we need more of it all the time. Not the time to have a Trump call the shots.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What is needed is a death to any claims of expertise on these boards.

This is not the place for them.

Those claims are for job interviews.

If you got some expertise prove it.

If I don't recognize it maybe your proof sucks or maybe I am blind.

Who gives a shit?

 

[beero1000]

What is needed is a death to any claims of expertise on these boards.

This is not the place for them.

Those claims are for job interviews.

If you got some expertise prove it.

If I don't recognize it maybe your proof sucks or maybe I am blind.

Who gives a shit?

ohmygodtheirony

 

[untermensche]

What is needed is a death to any claims of expertise on these boards.

This is not the place for them.

Those claims are for job interviews.

If you got some expertise prove it.

If I don't recognize it maybe your proof sucks or maybe I am blind.

Who gives a shit?

ohmygodtheirony

ohmygodtheironysquared

 

[untermensche]

Who exactly are these claimers of expertise?

I want names.

And what the hell are they experts in?

 

[beero1000]

Who exactly are these claimers of expertise?

I want names.

And what the hell are they experts in?

Irony.

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Literally the only claim of expertise in the thread.

 

[untermensche]

Irony.

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Literally the only claim of expertise in the thread.

So I am the only one who has an area of expertise?

What should we do about that?

 

[beero1000]

Irony.

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Literally the only claim of expertise in the thread.

So I am the only one who has an area of expertise?

What should we do about that?

I dunno, maybe this guy has an idea.

What is needed is a death to any claims of expertise on these boards.

This is not the place for them.

Those claims are for job interviews.

If you got some expertise prove it.

If I don't recognize it maybe your proof sucks or maybe I am blind.

Who gives a shit?

I really hope you're better at pharmacy than you are at having a coherent set of opinions.

 

[untermensche]

Irony.

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Literally the only claim of expertise in the thread.

So I am the only one who has an area of expertise?

What should we do about that?

I dunno, maybe this guy has an idea.

What is needed is a death to any claims of expertise on these boards.

This is not the place for them.

Those claims are for job interviews.

If you got some expertise prove it.

If I don't recognize it maybe your proof sucks or maybe I am blind.

Who gives a shit?

I really hope you're better at pharmacy than you are at having a coherent set of opinions.

OK I will stop making the incredible claim that I am a pharmacist.

Now we are even.

What the fuck do you have to say?

Are you sixteen or seventeen? I just want to know where you are coming from.

 

[beero1000]

OK I will stop making the incredible claim that I am a pharmacist.

Now we are even.

What the fuck do you have to say?

Are you sixteen or seventeen? I just want to know where you are coming from.

I think we'd all much rather you had a coherent set of opinions so your posts don't obviously contradict each other quite so often. The ability to make and understand sound logical arguments would be nice too. And also it would be great if you could stop derailing the thread, as bilby asked.

I'm just a concerned citizen of indeterminate age who is troubled by people who, despite all of the evidence, insist on being wrong on the internet. I think I'll let my posting history determine general opinion of my expertise on various topics. Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king, y'know?

 

[untermensche]

OK I will stop making the incredible claim that I am a pharmacist.

Now we are even.

What the fuck do you have to say?

Are you sixteen or seventeen? I just want to know where you are coming from.

I think we'd all much rather you had a coherent set of opinions so your posts don't obviously contradict each other quite so often. The ability to make and understand sound logical arguments would be nice too. And also it would be great if you could stop derailing the thread, as bilby asked.

I'm just a concerned citizen of indeterminate age who is troubled by people who, despite all of the evidence, insist on being wrong on the internet. I think I'll let my posting history determine general opinion of my expertise on various topics. Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king, y'know?

You are full of shit. That is what you are.

I have an area of expertise. To say I do not is just stupidity.

But obviously it is a narrow area and carries no weight on many matters and I have never once claimed it did.

Me saying that claims of expertise should be put to death is not in contradiction with the fact I have an area of expertise.

You wouldn't know a logical contradiction if there was infinite time in the past for you to figure it out.

 

[sharon45]

Yes, but just being an expert is still hardly an automatic pass, since each issue brought up has to be shown as correct.

By "Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden" laymen, no doubt.

Well, that too, but I am saying things like self-help and diet books are by so-called experts and celebrities, but I think the reason why there are so many is, because they don't generally work, since they refuse to address the main problem. One has to seriously want to lose weight or want help, and carefully explaining those ideas alone, ought to be the largest part of these books.

 

[sharon45]

We can only figure out as we go how to behave in the constantly evolving situation that we ourselves or others creates. We develop new and imaginative technical means to solve difficult problems only to see our enemies use them imaginatively against us. We find impressive solutions only to see people abuse them to create new and intractable problems. It's like driving faster and faster on a winding road.

That is where wisdom comes in. See, we can come up with all sorts of ideas, but the question always is, should we use them? We came up with the bomb to finish WWII, yet since then, we have been stuck with something that could eventually damage us much further.

 

[beero1000]

I think we'd all much rather you had a coherent set of opinions so your posts don't obviously contradict each other quite so often. The ability to make and understand sound logical arguments would be nice too. And also it would be great if you could stop derailing the thread, as bilby asked.

I'm just a concerned citizen of indeterminate age who is troubled by people who, despite all of the evidence, insist on being wrong on the internet. I think I'll let my posting history determine general opinion of my expertise on various topics. Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king, y'know?

You are full of shit. That is what you are.

I have an area of expertise. To say I do not is just stupidity.

But obviously it is a narrow area and carries no weight on many matters and I have never once claimed it did.

Me saying that claims of expertise should be put to death is not in contradiction with the fact I have an area of expertise.

You wouldn't know a logical contradiction if there was infinite time in the past for you to figure it out.

In your admittedly inexpert opinion, it seems.

 

[beero1000]

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

I have been thinking about this for a while, but unsurprisingly, it took an expert to sum it up so effectively.

Just because everyone has the right to an opinion, That does not imply that all opinions are equal.

Sometimes we are just wrong. And the first rule of Dunning-Kruger club is 'You don't know when you are in Dunning-Kruger club'.

1: We can all stipulate: the expert isn’t always right.

2: But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, it shouldn’t engender insecurity or anxiety to think that an expert’s view is likely to be better-informed than yours. (Because, likely, it is.)

3: Experts come in many flavors. Education enables it, but practitioners in a field acquire expertise through experience; usually the combination of the two is the mark of a true expert in a field. But if you have neither education nor experience, you might want to consider exactly what it is you’re bringing to the argument.

4: In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible. The University of Google doesn’t count. Remember: having a strong opinion about something isn’t the same as knowing something.

5: And yes, your political opinions have value. Of course they do: you’re a member of a democracy and what you want is as important as what any other voter wants. As a layman, however, your political analysis, has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is.

And, of course, these points also apply in other areas of expertise - the author is a political analyst, but were he instead a physicist, he could just as reasonably said "5: And yes, your physics opinions have value. Of course they do: you’re a member of a democracy and what you understand is as important as what any other voter understands. As a layman, however, your physical analysis, has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is."

You are entitled to imagine that Quantum physics might enable psychic abilities (for example); but you are also entitled to be (and probably are) deeply wrong.

Back to the OP:

I thought it was well-written and thought out, but it mostly sidesteps the elephant in the room - agreeing on the identity of the expert in the first place. After all, there isn't really a great definition for 'expert'. We generally use some subjective combination of credentials, experience, and consensus, or a functional definition like "an expert is much more likely to be correct than the general population", etc. But, all of the subjective definitions are subjective (hence phrases like "so-called experts"), and the functional definitions don't work a priori (e.g. I think I'm right and this guy says I'm wrong, so he can't be an expert because an expert is usually right).

So we're stuck. If someone is wrong enough, no amount of expertise is useful because they don't recognize it as expertise in the first place. And if someone is wrong enough and also lacks the background or ability to follow arguments that show why they're wrong, then they we are really in trouble. I think that is the more sinister "Fox News" type breakdown of discourse. If we can't agree on what makes a valid argument, or agree on an expert arbiter of correctness, then is there any way to bridge the gap?

No doubt this is worse in softer fields like policy, but it happens a lot in math and physics too. There are many (some are even well-known) cranks who regularly claim to have proved or discovered something extraordinary. They view themselves as put upon by the "so-called experts" who reject their claims out of hand because they are [insert conspiracy theory here]. From the expert perspective though, they are just making errors (usually trivial) and refusing to comprehend when they are pointed out. An impasse. The resulting strategies are usually "Claim victory over oppression by the man" and "Ignore the crank, and try to get some actual work done". I could see those being suboptimal, but I don't know of any better way.

 

[bilby]

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

I have been thinking about this for a while, but unsurprisingly, it took an expert to sum it up so effectively.

Just because everyone has the right to an opinion, That does not imply that all opinions are equal.

Sometimes we are just wrong. And the first rule of Dunning-Kruger club is 'You don't know when you are in Dunning-Kruger club'.



And, of course, these points also apply in other areas of expertise - the author is a political analyst, but were he instead a physicist, he could just as reasonably said "5: And yes, your physics opinions have value. Of course they do: you’re a member of a democracy and what you understand is as important as what any other voter understands. As a layman, however, your physical analysis, has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is."

You are entitled to imagine that Quantum physics might enable psychic abilities (for example); but you are also entitled to be (and probably are) deeply wrong.

Back to the OP:

I thought it was well-written and thought out, but it mostly sidesteps the elephant in the room - agreeing on the identity of the expert in the first place. After all, there isn't really a great definition for 'expert'. We generally use some subjective combination of credentials, experience, and consensus, or a functional definition like "an expert is much more likely to be correct than the general population", etc. But, all of the subjective definitions are subjective (hence phrases like "so-called experts"), and the functional definitions don't work a priori (e.g. I think I'm right and this guy says I'm wrong, so he can't be an expert because an expert is usually right).

So we're stuck. If someone is wrong enough, no amount of expertise is useful because they don't recognize it as expertise in the first place. And if someone is wrong enough and also lacks the background or ability to follow arguments that show why they're wrong, then they we are really in trouble. I think that is the more sinister "Fox News" type breakdown of discourse. If we can't agree on what makes a valid argument, or agree on an expert arbiter of correctness, then is there any way to bridge the gap?

No doubt this is worse in softer fields like policy, but it happens a lot in math and physics too. There are many (some are even well-known) cranks who regularly claim to have proved or discovered something extraordinary. They view themselves as put upon by the "so-called experts" who reject their claims out of hand because they are [insert conspiracy theory here]. From the expert perspective though, they are just making errors (usually trivial) and refusing to comprehend when they are pointed out. An impasse. The resulting strategies are usually "Claim victory over oppression by the man" and "Ignore the crank, and try to get some actual work done". I could see those being suboptimal, but I don't know of any better way.

It's certainly a difficult problem; But I think the functional definitions can be useful when viewed with an historical context - if "an expert is much more likely to be correct than the general population", then we can make an assessment of expertise by looking at the value of past contributions to the field. An engineer who has designed and built a hundred bridges, none of which have collapsed, can reasonably be assessed as having more expertise in bridge construction than an engineer who has designed and built only one bridge, which collapsed soon after completion; or than a person who claims to be an engineer, but who has never designed or built any bridges.

Of course, this acts as a brake on innovation - a person with a new and brilliant idea might well be initially written off as a crackpot - but that's not necessarily a bad thing, in a world like ours, where crackpots massively outnumber novel genii. We see this effect throughout the history of technology and ideas, in that many brilliant people are only recognized as such posthumously - which sucks for them personally, but is probably better for society as a whole than would be letting the crackpots do crazy things on the grounds that they might just possibly be genii.

Another effective way to recognize a crank is their disinclination to serious discussion or debate; They have ideas, and present them to whoever will listen, but they are highly resistant to listening to other ideas, in a way that experts typically are not - an expert might reject an idea quickly (leveraging his expertise to do so), but he will rarely dismiss it instantly, without any consideration at all, or without providing some non-fallacious reasoning as to why it deserves rejection.

Ultimately an expert should be able to persuade their peers to accept them as experts, and the peers so persuaded should be able to demonstrate useful and workable applications for, or successful predictions of, their joint expertise - which I shall refer to as 'value'. A person who cannot persuade others to their opinion is likely wrong; as is a group of people who agree with one another, but who cannot show any 'value' arising from any of the related body of expertise that they have agreed upon.

 

[sharon45]

After all, there isn't really a great definition for 'expert'.

Exactly.

We generally use some subjective combination of credentials, experience, and consensus, or a functional definition like "an expert is much more likely to be correct than the general population", etc. But, all of the subjective definitions are subjective (hence phrases like "so-called experts"), and the functional definitions don't work a priori (e.g. I think I'm right and this guy says I'm wrong, so he can't be an expert because an expert is usually right).

The so-called experts who run political campaigns make lots of stupid miscalculations, where it obviously doesn't matter about one person's objection.

So we're stuck. If someone is wrong enough, no amount of expertise is useful because they don't recognize it as expertise in the first place. And if someone is wrong enough and also lacks the background or ability to follow arguments that show why they're wrong, then they we are really in trouble. I think that is the more sinister "Fox News" type breakdown of discourse. If we can't agree on what makes a valid argument, or agree on an expert arbiter of correctness, then is there any way to bridge the gap?

You have the experts who come up with the ideas, then there can be also experts who are able to reason well with other people to clearly communicate said ideas.

 

[beero1000]

It's certainly a difficult problem; But I think the functional definitions can be useful when viewed with an historical context - if "an expert is much more likely to be correct than the general population", then we can make an assessment of expertise by looking at the value of past contributions to the field. An engineer who has designed and built a hundred bridges, none of which have collapsed, can reasonably be assessed as having more expertise in bridge construction than an engineer who has designed and built only one bridge, which collapsed soon after completion; or than a person who claims to be an engineer, but who has never designed or built any bridges.

Yes, it's much easier when there are tangible results of expertise, but there are many fields that don't have such direct metrics for experience. Unsurprisingly, it is much rarer (I think) for people to disagree on whether or not someone is an expert in engineering.

Of course, this acts as a brake on innovation - a person with a new and brilliant idea might well be initially written off as a crackpot - but that's not necessarily a bad thing, in a world like ours, where crackpots massively outnumber novel genii. We see this effect throughout the history of technology and ideas, in that many brilliant people are only recognized as such posthumously - which sucks for them personally, but is probably better for society as a whole than would be letting the crackpots do crazy things on the grounds that they might just possibly be genii.

I agree, and even experts won't necessarily evaluate the same idea in the same way. It happens often enough to be a named principle: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Another effective way to recognize a crank is their disinclination to serious discussion or debate; They have ideas, and present them to whoever will listen, but they are highly resistant to listening to other ideas, in a way that experts typically are not - an expert might reject an idea quickly (leveraging his expertise to do so), but he will rarely dismiss it instantly, without any consideration at all, or without providing some non-fallacious reasoning as to why it deserves rejection.

Academics have been making 'checklists' for quickly categorizing crank claims, and the items are usually an interesting mix of the quick and practical vs the deep. John Baez's crackpot index comes to mind. Sean Carroll's alternative science respectability list. Scott Aaronson also had an interesting list. An important thing to note is that they all have red flag items that are some flavor of "not addressing previous work". That's a good sign that you'll be wasting your time.

Ultimately an expert should be able to persuade their peers to accept them as experts, and the peers so persuaded should be able to demonstrate useful and workable applications for, or successful predictions of, their joint expertise - which I shall refer to as 'value'. A person who cannot persuade others to their opinion is likely wrong; as is a group of people who agree with one another, but who cannot show any 'value' arising from any of the related body of expertise that they have agreed upon.

I'm leery about restricting expertise to something that needs applications or predictions. There are plenty of fields that don't (or didn't) have any useful and workable applications or successful predictions, yet are still recognized as fields of expertise. Certainly, the very abstract regions of pure math or theoretical physics could have difficulty meeting your definition of value, but I would say that the experienced people working in the field can be considered experts. I also don't have a problem with saying that theologians can be considered experts in theology or that astrologers can be considered experts in astrology. Within the framework of the field, they are more likely to be more knowledgeable and correct than the average person. Of course, if they depart their area of expertise by, say, making claims about systems other than the ones they are accepted as knowledgeable about, they are fair game. Similarly, if quantum mechanics is found to be wrong, physicists won't stop being experts in quantum mechanics, it's just that their expertise won't apply as well to the real world.

 

[bilby]

Thanks, there's some really good stuff at those links.

I am particularly struck by Scott Aaronson's saying: "My purpose here is not to heap embarrassment on the author: he’s a serious mathematician who had a well-defined and interesting approach, and who (most importantly) retracted his claim as soon as a bug was discovered. (Would that everyone did the same!) Though the stakes are usually smaller, similar things have happened to most of us, including me", which introduces yet another strong indicator of genuine expertise - a history of having publicly made, and then equally publicly retracted, errors. Everyone makes errors, and while a refusal to accept that one is mistaken in one particular case is not necessarily a problem - you might, after all, be right - a history of never admitting error, or of returning (without explanation) to positions and arguments you previously acknowledged as erroneous, is highly suspect.

Everyone makes errors; And an important step on the path to expertise is the admission, understanding, and rejection of your earlier errors. Acknowledgment of the assistance of others in pointing them out is also a good sign. If a person has no history of accepting and correcting the errors they have made, then it is highly unlikely that they are capable of becoming an expert, and therefore unlikely that they have done so. Earlier erroneous claims (with retractions, apologies, or thanks to those who corrected them) may be few and far between, for a particularly intelligent person - but their total absence is a major red-flag.