The fundamental problem is NOT that we think experts make some mistakes, or some systematic mistakes...the fundamental problem is that we (each) think we (individually) don't.But if you plan to mostly ignore the experts and mainly base your beliefs on your own reasoning and analysis, you need to not only assume that ideological bias has so polluted the experts as to make them nearly worthless, but you also need to assume that you are mostly immune from such problems!
I personally make this mistake (I insufficiently account for the fact that there's an awful lot of folks who know more than I do about the topic, some of whom are as smart or smarter, and who disagree with me) most seriously in the fields of climate science and macroeconomics. AFAICT, a large majority of the "experts" in each field think that they have predictive capability, and I'm suspicious of the claim.
Posts
4 comments:
There is also the possibility that the source of error is not that the experts are in error, but that they are misrepresenting the truth to suit their own purposes.
Here we can see that the source of error is not applicable to my own judgment. Of course I may still be subject to other sources of error, and these may outweigh the error that comes from the untruthfulness of the experts, but now we are dealing with an empirical question rather than a paradox.
I don't know how stupid this is, but the way I came to climate science skepticism was the following: they could not produce models that predicted the future with anything close to a certainty, while constantly producing press releases claiming that any and all data confirmed their models. They also leave a trail of failed predictions, while the certainty of their press releases remains constant.
There are tons of other problems I have with climate science of course. But those can all be swatted away and this one will remain.
I think I'm smart and unbiased enough to judge when a prediction fails, and does so repeatedly.
Am I deluded in my own abilities?
contemplationist....
I tend to think of the world as supplying us oodles and oodles of data...some supporting our position and some detracting. I agree with you that the lack of successful predictions is a large piece of data that should incline more towards disbelieving than otherwise. However, as an epistemologist...that isn't the only piece of data. LARGE numbers of very smart folks, who have studied the topic in FAR greater detail than I have think that the models get a lot right, even given their questionable predictions. How do you weigh your analysis of failed predictions against other folks who are (probably) better scientists, more informed, and proponents of AGW?
The decent Bayesian can play chase the $, as drpat does...and argue that interest rather than truth drives the question....
Or...we can be suspicious, but MUCH less certain of our skepticism than an arbitrary college libertarian (like I once was).
With climate change, we have the added problem that just about any position has a lot of money riding on it. Of course you can't say that just because position X (the world is about to enter an ice-age due to the malevolence of the Norse Ice-Giants) is associated with the many sellers of sacrificial goats (not to mention Big-Mead), it doesn't mean that the particular person you are dismissing is actually in the pay of anyone. (Even the giants)
Post a Comment