I wonder. If once you are and expert at something you remain an expert at it, or is constant curiosity and renewal necessary and is actually a qualifying attribute of being and expert?
Maks, absolutely. An expert who doesn't keep updating their knowledge and is not curious about their field pretty soon becomes a mediocre practitioner at best.
Hi Massimo Thanks for your feedback I found the quote and the notes around it for a bit more context
Gibsons law: For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. In law and public policy the observation that equally qualified expert witnesses can come to opposite conclusions. The reason for this is there is nuance and context to almost everything involving people second training and data can be overwhelmed by ideological beliefs and life experiences and third incentives are the most powerful forces in the world so for example people say things if it's in their career interest to dos so
Nicholas, yes, sometimes experts in a given area/topic come at different conclusions. And when that happens one needs to widen the field of experts and keep searching. But the phrase by itself risks undermining general trust in the very concept of expertise, making it sound like "your opinion, my opinion" sort of relativism. Which is far from the reality.
For instance, expert climatologists do disagree on which models are most accurate to predict future climate change. They don't disagree on the fact of climate change, and that it is driven by human activities.
Of course one can always find the occasional dissenting voice. But it's the consensus that matters.
And of course just because there is consensus it doesn't mean it's right. Experts are still human beings. It just means it's our best bet to move forward.
Hum, there maybe some questions about who decides who's the expert? I guess the rest of the book actually leads to no one Socrates could find was an expert? Spoilers alert : the book actually ends in a stalemate.
That's the best kind! Open ending books make me want to read it again and again. 🙂 most platonic books are like that. I find Laches particularly interesting because the 2 generals seem to have terrible records in actual history, but I guess that's why they were chosen in this dialogue to demonstrate that they were not the experts in courage! 💪
Well, Nicias is often maligned, I think. He was right in warning the Athenians not to open a new front against Syracuse, but they didn’t listen. Once there, he did the best he could. But his Achilles’ heel was superstition, which led him to wait to long to evacuate, with disastrous consequences.
I would agree that we should consult experts however there is more often the case that there is more than one expert on a subject that warrants you consider all the experts as far as practical when making a decision or coming to a conclusion on the matter under discussion.
David, I discuss that situation in the podcast. If there is genuine and widespread disagreement among experts then we non-experts better take an agnostic stance. However, if there is a large consensus, even though not unanimous, we are better served by ignoring the dissenting opinions.
So, we should support Trump and not who the majority wants? Seriously, who decides who the appropriate expert is? Do we need a consultant to choose expertise? Can we trust credentials? Et bloody veterans
Ed, we need commonsense to assess expertise. We can trust certain credentials but not others. And we can go with a majority of experts over a minority.
I wonder. If once you are and expert at something you remain an expert at it, or is constant curiosity and renewal necessary and is actually a qualifying attribute of being and expert?
Maks, absolutely. An expert who doesn't keep updating their knowledge and is not curious about their field pretty soon becomes a mediocre practitioner at best.
Hi Massimo Thanks for your feedback I found the quote and the notes around it for a bit more context
Gibsons law: For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. In law and public policy the observation that equally qualified expert witnesses can come to opposite conclusions. The reason for this is there is nuance and context to almost everything involving people second training and data can be overwhelmed by ideological beliefs and life experiences and third incentives are the most powerful forces in the world so for example people say things if it's in their career interest to dos so
Nicholas, yes, sometimes experts in a given area/topic come at different conclusions. And when that happens one needs to widen the field of experts and keep searching. But the phrase by itself risks undermining general trust in the very concept of expertise, making it sound like "your opinion, my opinion" sort of relativism. Which is far from the reality.
For instance, expert climatologists do disagree on which models are most accurate to predict future climate change. They don't disagree on the fact of climate change, and that it is driven by human activities.
Of course one can always find the occasional dissenting voice. But it's the consensus that matters.
And of course just because there is consensus it doesn't mean it's right. Experts are still human beings. It just means it's our best bet to move forward.
I cannot remember who said it but the quote is For every PHD there is an equal and opposite PHD
Nicholas, whoever said it doesn't have a good grasp of the academic world.
In the podcast I actually briefly discuss a series of criteria by which to decide whether we can trust an expert.
Hum, there maybe some questions about who decides who's the expert? I guess the rest of the book actually leads to no one Socrates could find was an expert? Spoilers alert : the book actually ends in a stalemate.
Yes, the book ends in aporia. Which doesn’t mean we don’t get a good glimpse of what PlatSoc actually thought… 😃
That's the best kind! Open ending books make me want to read it again and again. 🙂 most platonic books are like that. I find Laches particularly interesting because the 2 generals seem to have terrible records in actual history, but I guess that's why they were chosen in this dialogue to demonstrate that they were not the experts in courage! 💪
Well, Nicias is often maligned, I think. He was right in warning the Athenians not to open a new front against Syracuse, but they didn’t listen. Once there, he did the best he could. But his Achilles’ heel was superstition, which led him to wait to long to evacuate, with disastrous consequences.
Ha! Laches, my favourite book! 🙂
I would agree that we should consult experts however there is more often the case that there is more than one expert on a subject that warrants you consider all the experts as far as practical when making a decision or coming to a conclusion on the matter under discussion.
David, I discuss that situation in the podcast. If there is genuine and widespread disagreement among experts then we non-experts better take an agnostic stance. However, if there is a large consensus, even though not unanimous, we are better served by ignoring the dissenting opinions.
So, we should support Trump and not who the majority wants? Seriously, who decides who the appropriate expert is? Do we need a consultant to choose expertise? Can we trust credentials? Et bloody veterans
Ed, we need commonsense to assess expertise. We can trust certain credentials but not others. And we can go with a majority of experts over a minority.
"cetera"--not "veterans"!