As a non-expert, I count meself well qualified ter contribute ter this discussion. Herewith…
Mathbae asks: ‘Whom can we trust?
Trust, say, one of the BIG questions of life, inter related to
knowledge, ‘wadda-we-kow?’ Socrates, and with interdependency,
John Donne, ‘No man is an island.’
Guess from the beginning of life, children (and animals) demonstrate
a powerful need for regularities and into maturity we cling to our expectations dogmatically even as they break down. A problem of
learning, as Nassim Taleb discusses in ‘The Black Swan’ is that once
we produce a theory, we are not likely to easily change our minds.
And that applies to ‘experts’ as well.
So should we uncritically trust the expert? Taleb, in Chapter 10,
‘The Scandal of Prediction,’ :) gives examples of our human
epistemic hubris and poor record in prediction, our tendency ter over-estimate what we know to under-estimate uncertainty, and
our practice of over-looking our record of failed forecasts. Well
then, so who de we trustt? Every day some of us must rely on
some expert or other, we catch a plane, visit a dentist, undergo
a medical procedure. Past record of performance may re assure
here, and Taleb makes the distinction between experts who tend
ter be ‘experts’; … eg livestock judges, astronomers, pilots,
mathematicians ( when they deal with mathematical ‘problems)
and experts who are not ‘experts’ … eg stock brokers,
psychologists, intelligence analysts or professions that deal with
the future and base their predictions on any, other than short term physical processes. )
But what about scientists and ‘science’? Scientists per se .. well
…er no…they’re jest human like the rest of us, subject ter
confirmation bias of paridigm, ideology and the need ter procure
GRANTS. Fortunately, given the shifting sands we live on, our lack
of expertise, we have evolved the institutions of the OPEN SOCIETY
to provide checks and balances on the hubris of individuals and
power cliques.
The methodology of science, of conjecture, (guess) of testing,
tentative provisional acceptance of a hypothesis or theory, and
of refutation leading ter a new state of play. We recognise that
scientists don’t always adhere ter the methodology, maybe
inocculate their theory or gatekeep, but the METHODOLOGY
opens up to critical examination, show – yer – workings -
trans-parency and has brought great advancements ter human standards of living and ter life expectancy.
Like democracy itself, government by non expert representatives)
of the people, involing transparent enquiry and elections, ultimately
our fate lies in our own hands, not experts, not central planners , dictators, faceless decision makers of the IPCC an Yew Nighted
Nashuns At its heart it’s based on skepticism and protecting the
checks and balances. Amen.
