7 ms·

Science gets it wrong sometimes. New information requires revision. The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. There will always be some probabilt

by skh 8y ago

Science gets it wrong sometimes. New information requires revision. The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. There will always be some probabilty of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jamieson-becker 8y ago
> There will always be some probability of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong. But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. Is that really the best we can do? How many times in history has consensus expert opinion been found later to be dangerous and wrong? Should we assign that task to an AI or a customer service drone of unknown education and experience? Or, should we assume that any reader of any particular "dangerous and wrong" things might be a better judge of whether those things are, in fact, "dangerous and wrong" as applied to their specific circumstance?
- skh 8y ago
  We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area to the point of being an expert then they’d agree with the conclusion too. Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up. It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.
  - jamieson-becker 8y ago
    >> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > We is you, me, and society at large. But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial? > Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. Are you a qualified, cited expert in this area that you are holding forth on? > If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. There is some room for intelligent debate in nearly any 'consensus' opinion. Some percentage of even experts nearly always disagree with the consensus, and consensus has often been proven wrong. If society went along with the expert scientific opinion concerning eugenics, for example, many of us might not even be alive today. > Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up. Non-experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is exactly how the world has existed for thousands of years. You seem to be saying that the answer is to just shut down this debate if it occurs among the great unwashed. > It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. And, yet, we do. In most free jurisdictions, you are free to practice medicine on yourself or do design your own structure or home.
    - skh 8y ago
      Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for government to get involved in this too. For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire to make. This is a good thing. I’ll restate my point in a different way. When government is deciding what types of scientific information peddling ought to be banned or regulated it’s best for our leaders to consult the experts of that area.

by skh 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jamieson-becker 8y ago

> There will always be some probability of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong. But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. Is that really the best we can do? How many times in history has consensus expert opinion been found later to be dangerous and wrong? Should we assign that task to an AI or a customer service drone of unknown education and experience? Or, should we assume that any reader of any particular "dangerous and wrong" things might be a better judge of whether those things are, in fact, "dangerous and wrong" as applied to their specific circumstance?

skh 8y ago
We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area to the point of being an expert then they’d agree with the conclusion too. Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up. It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.
- jamieson-becker 8y ago
  >> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > We is you, me, and society at large. But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial? > Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. Are you a qualified, cited expert in this area that you are holding forth on? > If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. There is some room for intelligent debate in nearly any 'consensus' opinion. Some percentage of even experts nearly always disagree with the consensus, and consensus has often been proven wrong. If society went along with the expert scientific opinion concerning eugenics, for example, many of us might not even be alive today. > Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up. Non-experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is exactly how the world has existed for thousands of years. You seem to be saying that the answer is to just shut down this debate if it occurs among the great unwashed. > It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. And, yet, we do. In most free jurisdictions, you are free to practice medicine on yourself or do design your own structure or home.
  - skh 8y ago
    Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for government to get involved in this too. For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire to make. This is a good thing. I’ll restate my point in a different way. When government is deciding what types of scientific information peddling ought to be banned or regulated it’s best for our leaders to consult the experts of that area.