This was pretty ramble-y and pulled in some pretty unrelated examples. * We never get a clear answer for why the Civic Center Engineers got the inputs wrong, so we can't conclude that it was because of their expertise. * With the firefighters, there's a pretty easy proximal explanation, which again is not their expertise misleading them: panic. If anything, the solution to the problem shows that expertise was the sol…
You are entirely missing the point in your first two points: * The issue here isn't that the inputs were wrong, it's that the experts could not (or would not, if you don't want to be generous) accept that the structure was under-strength in spite of multiple reports; the believed their calculations rather than their lying eyes. * There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did,…
How does this support the conclusion that they were misled by their expertise? There are many possible explanations here.
> There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did, though, they did what their training led them to believe was their only choice: keep their equipment and try to reach the top of the ridge. The foreman was the only one to realize either that the training wasn't going to work or that they had another option.
There is no particular evidence that the firefighters were misled by their expertise, either.
If anything wasn't the foreman's realization arguably due to his superior expertise?
> Do you have a great deal of expertise in this area?
In the area of basic logic, such as figuring out whether evidence supports conclusions? I suppose you could say I do, although I wouldn't claim anything special.