Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Angrboda]

What about science communication?

Science communication is a hobby of mine, and the Dunning and Kruger paper has implications for this field. Indeed, the implications of the findings are far more insidious than the realization that, yes, we all have weak points. Take for instance a common line of reasoning used in science communication. When faced with a topic I don't understand, "I recognize that I am not an expert, so I rely on the accumulated wisdom of experts." Furthermore, a common suggestion in critical thinking is that when you are presented with scientific claims, you examine the evidence from a range of experts to test the claim. But just think about that for a moment.

First, you have to pick an expert. OK, how do I, as a non-scientist, tell the difference between Michael Behe and Richard Dawkins? How do I tell the difference between a scientific society, such as NOAA, and something like the Heartland Institute? In short, to pick a good expert on a given topic, I need some expertise on the topic. The Internet can help with this, since a large number of biologists would tell you that Richard Dawkins is a reliable source of information on evolution, and very few would point you in the direction of Michael Behe. In other words, in aggregate, is the Internet always right? Umm, yeah, I think I'll take a pass on that.

This is a topic that is of interest to Dunning. "Our own recent work shows that, yes, you need experts to spot experts," he said. "Everyone can spot the poor performer, but often spotting the best performers is beyond the competence of the group. That said, spotting an expert outside of one’s field is a task one can become better at. And that’s important, given just how much information, good and bad, is not available to people. For example, is the expert associated with a university (a good sign) or some 'think tank' (a bad sign)?" Again, though, this takes experience and expertise. Groups like think tanks try to give themselves the trappings of expertise in a move specifically designed to fool us into trusting their statements.

— Revisiting why incompetents think they’re awesome