Yes, if people are giving opposing arguments for the same position, it is a sign that someone is rationalizing a position.
However, the reason someone rationalizes a position is because his intuition favors that position. If two thirds of the experts favor a position based on their intuitions, but give opposing arguments for it, there is still no reason for me to think that my intuition in favor of the minority position is better than their intuition.
And since people’s intuitions are affected, presumably on average in a good way, by the study of a topic, it is reasonable to give some weight to such a majority position, certainly more weight than to my own intuitions on the matter.
You think that we can trust people to form judgments which are good, that they nonetheless can’t explain properly? I agree, a little, but I wouldn’t want to build anything on evidence of such low quality. Maybe I can accept it for things I don’t care about, where understanding the primary evidence is too much effort, but I feel like I’m almost better off ignoring it entirely.
I’m not saying that it would be impossible for us to form a better judgment in principle. I am saying that if almost all the experts can’t explain the matter properly, there is no reason to think I can do so myself—I am better off trusting their low quality judgments.
If it’s a widely studied matter (just not by me, yet) and truly ALL experts don’t seem to be able to transmit their reasons for believing things to me, then I’m going to be very skeptical that there’s anything in the field of study to learn at all, unless there’s a good argument that I should expect the field to be so enigmatic. I think I’m better off believing nothing about the topic if it’s so immune to communication.
It’s only when experts agree, and when it seems like I can in principle follow their work and understand the primary evidence, e.g. any advanced science or engineering discipline, that I can trust experts even though they’ve failed to present an easily digestible course for me to follow.
In the situation under discussion, most experts agree on a conclusion, and disagree about the argument.
It is possible (but not necessary) that this means that nothing can be known about the subject. However, if this is the case, then much less is it the case that I personally can know the opposite, namely by agreeing with the minority.
I agree. It seems to me the world is full of charlatans and fools who pretend to be experts. And many of them will go to great lengths to signal their ersatz-experthood.
I think that there are only two checks on this problem: First, if the expert can justify his beliefs to intelligent but skeptical laypeople. Second, if the expert can consistently make accurate and interesting predictions. Ideally, the expert should be able to do both.
If not, there is a serious risk that the expert and his comrades will drift into charlatanhood.
Where you say “pretend to be experts”, do you include those credentialled as experts by accredited institutions? If so, this is the “theologist problem” and your analysis needs I think to cut a little deeper.
Absolutely. For example, as an attorney, I have met attorneys who are pretty much incompetent but who put on airs, throw around fancy lingo, and succeed in convincing a lot of people they know what they are doing.
I met one guy who is listed in “Best Lawyers in America” for his so-called area of expertise; teaches a class in that area at a top law school; and pulls down a big fat salary. And yet he is an idiot who just acts confident.
Perhaps this is less of a problem in the law since there are judges and juries to provide some kind of reality check now and then.
I met one guy who is listed in “Best Lawyers in America” for his so-called area of expertise; teaches a class in that area at a top law school; and pulls down a big fat salary. And yet he is an idiot who just acts confident.
As a current law student, I’m curious about this. Who is he and what does he teach? How do you tell whether someone is actually qualified? How did he get to this position without having any expertise, given that universities, firms, and clients are usually pretty picky and careful about who they hire? (Feel free to private message me if you need to.)
Is this just political disagreement? People often call intelligent, controversial politicians and judges (Bush, Obama, Scalia, Thomas) “idiots” when they usually mean they disagree with the person in question.
Obviously I’m not going to name names. But actually, that’s part of the problem: Once somebody has a reputation or credential of being an expert, people are hesitant to publicly question that person’s qualifications for fear of damaging themselves. So it can lead to a kind of groupthink.
Anyway, I worked with this guy on a project or two and it quickly became clear he was pretty much clueless. Or at least wildly less qualified than one would think given his credentials. I had a good time laughing about it (in private) with other junior attorneys.
And no, it’s not a political disagreement. I have no idea what this guy’s politics are like. (Except of course for guesses based on his social class and millieu). But I do agree with you that a lot of people are biased in this way. I myself am regularly accused of being stupid or of being a paid shill during internet debates on politically charged issues and I agree 100% with whomever said that politics is the mindkiller.
Anyway, since you are a law student there is a decent chance you will meet a professor who doesn’t live up to the hype, so to speak. Also, law school provides another example of the expert problem.
Law professors are supposed to be experts in the law. And yet if 90% of law professors said “the law should be X,” should one accept it? I myself am skeptical. Among other things, law professors need to be socially accepted by other law professors. Further, law professors got where they are by being the sort of person who is socially accepted by other law professors. It seems to me these factors probably inform their thinking, especially on politically charged issues.
So does that mean that the argument that a majority of people believe in a deity is a good one? (if inconclusive) That the argument that they all believe in different contradictory deities is a bad argument?
My comment, and most of your post, was on the majority of experts. I would say that if the majority of “experts on the cause of the world” believed in a deity, that would be a good argument. But in fact it is not very clear who the experts are in this case. So the argument is merely a general majoritarian argument and not an argument from the experts. Still, as I’ve said in the past, I think such a general majoritarian argument is a good argument—just not a very strong one.
The argument that they believe in contradictory deities is a good argument in the sense that it greatly weakens the majoritarian argument: if the majority all believed in the same deity, and for the same reasons, their position would be much stronger. The argument about contradictory deities however is not good if it is intended to be a positive argument for atheism (except in the general sense that weakening arguments for a a deity is automatically increasing the probability of atheism.)
In this case, intuition should be recognized as valid source of evidence, and experts should be able to agree on that, studying these intuitions directly, instead of poisoning the signal and diverting the attention with rationalization.
Yes, if people are giving opposing arguments for the same position, it is a sign that someone is rationalizing a position.
However, the reason someone rationalizes a position is because his intuition favors that position. If two thirds of the experts favor a position based on their intuitions, but give opposing arguments for it, there is still no reason for me to think that my intuition in favor of the minority position is better than their intuition.
And since people’s intuitions are affected, presumably on average in a good way, by the study of a topic, it is reasonable to give some weight to such a majority position, certainly more weight than to my own intuitions on the matter.
You think that we can trust people to form judgments which are good, that they nonetheless can’t explain properly? I agree, a little, but I wouldn’t want to build anything on evidence of such low quality. Maybe I can accept it for things I don’t care about, where understanding the primary evidence is too much effort, but I feel like I’m almost better off ignoring it entirely.
Wasn’t the book Blink all about this phenomenon?
Apparently—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)* - although I hadn’t heard of it until now. I’m not sure it’s an idea that justifies an entire book!
anyone know how to quote this url properly using the [ ] ( ) markup?
\ before )
So: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book) )
You can escape special characters with a backslash, use \) for a literal )
I’m not saying that it would be impossible for us to form a better judgment in principle. I am saying that if almost all the experts can’t explain the matter properly, there is no reason to think I can do so myself—I am better off trusting their low quality judgments.
If it’s a widely studied matter (just not by me, yet) and truly ALL experts don’t seem to be able to transmit their reasons for believing things to me, then I’m going to be very skeptical that there’s anything in the field of study to learn at all, unless there’s a good argument that I should expect the field to be so enigmatic. I think I’m better off believing nothing about the topic if it’s so immune to communication.
It’s only when experts agree, and when it seems like I can in principle follow their work and understand the primary evidence, e.g. any advanced science or engineering discipline, that I can trust experts even though they’ve failed to present an easily digestible course for me to follow.
In the situation under discussion, most experts agree on a conclusion, and disagree about the argument.
It is possible (but not necessary) that this means that nothing can be known about the subject. However, if this is the case, then much less is it the case that I personally can know the opposite, namely by agreeing with the minority.
I agree. It seems to me the world is full of charlatans and fools who pretend to be experts. And many of them will go to great lengths to signal their ersatz-experthood.
I think that there are only two checks on this problem: First, if the expert can justify his beliefs to intelligent but skeptical laypeople. Second, if the expert can consistently make accurate and interesting predictions. Ideally, the expert should be able to do both.
If not, there is a serious risk that the expert and his comrades will drift into charlatanhood.
Where you say “pretend to be experts”, do you include those credentialled as experts by accredited institutions? If so, this is the “theologist problem” and your analysis needs I think to cut a little deeper.
Absolutely. For example, as an attorney, I have met attorneys who are pretty much incompetent but who put on airs, throw around fancy lingo, and succeed in convincing a lot of people they know what they are doing.
I met one guy who is listed in “Best Lawyers in America” for his so-called area of expertise; teaches a class in that area at a top law school; and pulls down a big fat salary. And yet he is an idiot who just acts confident.
Perhaps this is less of a problem in the law since there are judges and juries to provide some kind of reality check now and then.
As a current law student, I’m curious about this. Who is he and what does he teach? How do you tell whether someone is actually qualified? How did he get to this position without having any expertise, given that universities, firms, and clients are usually pretty picky and careful about who they hire? (Feel free to private message me if you need to.)
Is this just political disagreement? People often call intelligent, controversial politicians and judges (Bush, Obama, Scalia, Thomas) “idiots” when they usually mean they disagree with the person in question.
Obviously I’m not going to name names. But actually, that’s part of the problem: Once somebody has a reputation or credential of being an expert, people are hesitant to publicly question that person’s qualifications for fear of damaging themselves. So it can lead to a kind of groupthink.
Anyway, I worked with this guy on a project or two and it quickly became clear he was pretty much clueless. Or at least wildly less qualified than one would think given his credentials. I had a good time laughing about it (in private) with other junior attorneys.
And no, it’s not a political disagreement. I have no idea what this guy’s politics are like. (Except of course for guesses based on his social class and millieu). But I do agree with you that a lot of people are biased in this way. I myself am regularly accused of being stupid or of being a paid shill during internet debates on politically charged issues and I agree 100% with whomever said that politics is the mindkiller.
Anyway, since you are a law student there is a decent chance you will meet a professor who doesn’t live up to the hype, so to speak. Also, law school provides another example of the expert problem.
Law professors are supposed to be experts in the law. And yet if 90% of law professors said “the law should be X,” should one accept it? I myself am skeptical. Among other things, law professors need to be socially accepted by other law professors. Further, law professors got where they are by being the sort of person who is socially accepted by other law professors. It seems to me these factors probably inform their thinking, especially on politically charged issues.
So does that mean that the argument that a majority of people believe in a deity is a good one? (if inconclusive) That the argument that they all believe in different contradictory deities is a bad argument?
My comment, and most of your post, was on the majority of experts. I would say that if the majority of “experts on the cause of the world” believed in a deity, that would be a good argument. But in fact it is not very clear who the experts are in this case. So the argument is merely a general majoritarian argument and not an argument from the experts. Still, as I’ve said in the past, I think such a general majoritarian argument is a good argument—just not a very strong one.
The argument that they believe in contradictory deities is a good argument in the sense that it greatly weakens the majoritarian argument: if the majority all believed in the same deity, and for the same reasons, their position would be much stronger. The argument about contradictory deities however is not good if it is intended to be a positive argument for atheism (except in the general sense that weakening arguments for a a deity is automatically increasing the probability of atheism.)
In this case, intuition should be recognized as valid source of evidence, and experts should be able to agree on that, studying these intuitions directly, instead of poisoning the signal and diverting the attention with rationalization.
This is assuming intuition actually tells you what you want to know, in which case you probably need subjects and not experts.