To what extent do you trust people who are considered to be experts?

Are there any fields in which you think what the experts conclude rapidly changes throughout history and makes you trust them less?

Are there any fields of expertise in which the experts seem to come to different conclusions which causes you to trust them less?

Lastly, are there any areas in which experts generally all agree and their opinions haven't changed much through history but you're still skeptical?

(March 31, 2018 at 3:26 am)paulpablo Wrote: To what extent do you trust people who are considered to be experts?

To the extent that, if I so chose to learn their field, their findings would be obvious and apparent to me. Also, I look for a consensus among experts and peer reviewed, published work.

Quote:Are there any fields in which you think what the experts conclude rapidly changes throughout history and makes you trust them less?

Being able to change one's views to accommodate new information is a reason to trust someone more not less.

Quote:Are there any fields of expertise in which the experts seem to come to different conclusions which causes you to trust them less?

Lastly, are there any areas in which experts generally all agree and their opinions haven't changed much through history but you're still skeptical?

Eh, no, not really.

1.  It depends on the qualifications of the 'expert' and the field in which they work. By way of example, I'm perfectly comfortable trusting Steven Spielberg on the subject of film making. I'm significantly less comfortable trusting Zecharia Sitchin regarding planetary dynamics.

2. Generally speaking, the changing opinions of experts makes me trust them more, not less. 

3. Not really.  While scientific consensus is important, differing views and peer review are what provide for (in large part) the advancing of human knowledge.

4.  Yes.  Most experts in astrology agree with each other, but I'm still skeptical of astrology.

Boru

(March 31, 2018 at 3:26 am)paulpablo Wrote: To what extent do you trust people who are considered to be experts?

Are there any fields in which you think what the experts conclude rapidly changes throughout history and makes you trust them less?

Are there any fields of expertise in which the experts seem to come to different conclusions which causes you to trust them less?

Lastly, are there any areas in which experts generally all agree and their opinions haven't changed much through history but you're still skeptical?

Theology is a study of nothing.
Astrology.
Experts in Astral projection.
Chiropractors and those people who run the zetan detectors at scientology camps.

I got thinking about this after watching a documentary called "What the health"

Previous to that I watch the Joe Rogan podcast and on his podcast he talks about people in the sugar industry hiding how much damage sugar does in your diet, he cites various sources, I watched what the health and it said the exact opposite.  Sugar is fine, the meat industry is blaming sugar when it is in fact meat that's to blame for things like diabetes and obesity.

In general I try not to go overboard on sugar and processed meat anyway so I'm not all that worried.

There's general areas where I think people prop themselves up as a specialist expert when they're really just taking shots in the dark, especially when it's something as vague as an expert in sexual relationships, which is another podcast I was listening to but just finding it annoying listening to someone who is just so sure of themselves in a topic where I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to be so sure.

Years ago I was doing some work for a restaurateur. I was a fan of the restaurant and really enjoyed the food there. In the course of doing some wiring for the owner, I spent some time in his office connecting some cameras, recorders, and monitors. He was usually working in that office when I was there and it was a learning experience for me. The MANAGEMENT and ORGANIZATION of the restaurant was his responsibility (he did some of the cooking too, BTW) and he was clearly really good at running a restaurant. He ordered supplies, in reasonable quantities and in time, he handled personnel matters, he did the books and payroll, coordinated subcontractors like me to maintain and/or add to his infrastructure and he maintained the insurance, permits, credit card companies and all the paperwork.

I also realized when he bought the restaurant, other than being a busboy in high school, he had precious little restaurant management experience. How in the holy hell did he get good at running a restaurant? Well, he's a fast study. Anything he tried that worked he kept doing, things he tried that needed kicked up a notch he kicked up a notch, and things he tried that didn't work at all he stopped doing. And he managed to learn all this when the restaurant was 'the new place' and customers were willing to come back even if their first experience there wasn't quite perfect.

About the most significant thing he misjudged, long term, was his willingness to do it. After 25 years, despite making a PILE of money, he was burned out and unable/unwilling to delegate out the management of his restaurant to an underling. Fair enough, I'd say. I watched him run the place the way he learned worked, and having someone else step in and get up to speed without destroying the place was a considerable risk.

Quite the learning experience for me. How well and how fast a successful restaurant can take off just might be up to one skilled entrepreneur.

As for everything else, because of despite schooling, the right person manages to get a position in mathematics, or astronomy, of physics and catches on to something and does well. I cite in my experience the restaurant guy with showing me pretty much how anyone can do anything.

(March 31, 2018 at 5:58 am)paulpablo Wrote: I got thinking about this after watching a documentary called "What the health"

Previous to that I watch the Joe Rogan podcast and on his podcast he talks about people in the sugar industry hiding how much damage sugar does in your diet, he cites various sources, I watched what the health and it said the exact opposite.  Sugar is fine, the meat industry is blaming sugar when it is in fact meat that's to blame for things like diabetes and obesity.

In general I try not to go overboard on sugar and processed meat anyway so I'm not all that worried.

There's general areas where I think people prop themselves up as a specialist expert when they're really just taking shots in the dark, especially when it's something as vague as an expert in sexual relationships, which is another podcast I was listening to but just finding it annoying listening to someone who is just so sure of themselves in a topic where I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to be so sure.

Dietitian here.

‘What the Health’ is an unscientific, unobjective, cherry picked load of crap.  Documentaries like these are exactly the reason we need public trust in experts.  Many people are of the opinion that nutrition science is the one field where experts can’t be trusted, and anyone with an opinion and access to the internet can be an expert.  As an RD, it’s maddening.

(March 31, 2018 at 7:57 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Dietitian here.

‘What the Health’ is an unscientific, unobjective, cherry picked load of crap.  Documentaries like these are exactly the reason we need public trust in experts.  Many people are of the opinion that nutrition science is the one field where experts can’t be trusted, and anyone with an opinion and access to the internet can be an expert.  As an RD, it’s maddening.

One huge problem you have is that for every Dietitian there are a hundred nutritionists and Joe public have no idea that the two are completely unrelated. Nutritionist is not a protected term, anyone can and do, call themselves a nutritionist and they answer to no one. It's pseudo-science at its worst, it's dangerous bullshit but the punters don't know this.

My general rule:

Trust an expert if there’s a consensus among experts in his field, and if that field is considered overwhelmingly trustworthy by other relevant fields.

(March 31, 2018 at 11:17 am)Tiberius Wrote: My general rule:

Trust an expert if there’s a consensus among experts in his field, and if that field is considered overwhelmingly trustworthy by other relevant fields.

And if the expert abides by that consensus.