Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Death Of Expertise

thefederalist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#61

Post by johnminter »

Informed analyses are the goal, and extensive study in an area is a benefit. That said, "experts" can and do have bias and conflicts of interest (funding, prestige, acquiring tenure...) so their analyses require scrutiny as well. I would note that inappropriate appeal to authority is recognized as a logical fallacy. I would also note that we live at a time when there is unprecedented access to informations, so credentials alone are not the best measure of an argument.

I think we benefit most from scholarly debate of different models/analysis where the different sides adjust their position based on the criticism. I would also note that both credentialed and non credentialed people can be stubborn...

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#62

Post by Niten »

na85 wrote: post #17

The claim that "expertise" is going by the wayside is absurd. What's gone by the wayside is the automatic acceptance of anything a self-proclaimed expert says as fact. Yes, wide access to Google and Wikipedia have aided this trend, and raised the layperson's knowledge level. These things have also raised the burden of proof of expertise. I've never even heard of Tom Nichols; I'm not apt to take what he says as fact j…

Apologies, but you're displaying precisely the kind of aggressive and arrogant ignorance that this article highlights.

You trust Bruce Schneier because he's a popular figure. You said it yourself: "Tom Nichols is a nobody" due to a fatal lack of PageRank not helped by a non-unique name. While I admire Schneier greatly and am thankful that there is somebody like him working to popularize cryptography, computer security, and related social issues, there are countless others equally or better qualified to speak out on topics of cryptographic theory whom you (and I) wouldn't recognize at all – but actual domain experts would.

I hope I do not really need to spell out why popularity contests in the court of public opinion are not a reliable avenue for deriving knowledge.

As for Tom Nichols?

> Thomas M. Nichols is a professor of national security affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department, where is also the Course Director for Security, Strategy, and Forces. A former Secretary of the Navy Fellow at the Naval War College, he previously taught international relations and Soviet/Russian affairs at Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. He is a former chairman of the Strategy and Policy Department at the Naval War College, for which he was awarded the Navy Civilian Meritorious Service Medal in 2005. He holds a PhD from Georgetown, an MA from Columbia University, the Certificate of the Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union at Columbia, and a BA from Boston University.

- http://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Thomas-M--Nichols,-Ph...

- http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/1818/thomas_m_ni...

But hey, what worth is the combined judgment of the peers who bestowed these positions and honors upon Nichols, against the opinion of one armchair epistemologist on Hacker News who makes astute verdicts based upon the appearance of one's blog and how well one ranks on Google...

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#63

Post by tikhonj »

Sure, you're an expert.

Which means you should have sound reasoning behind your position. And you should be able to explain your reasoning to somebody else. If you can't really explain your reasoning, it's likely that you did not think everything through--and if you did not think everything through, being an expert does not mean you're right!

I think of this just in terms of myself. If I hold a position but I can't explain it, it means I need to rethink it. If I've put some thought into a position--which is my goal for everything important--then explaining myself is just a matter of voicing my existing rationale.

So I think you should never be offended at having to explain something: at the very least, it's a way to clarify your own thinking and highlight assumptions. And if you're making good decisions anyway, it's easy!

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#64

Post by na85 »

DenisM wrote: post #58
na85 wrote: post #17

The claim that "expertise" is going by the wayside is absurd. What's gone by the wayside is the automatic acceptance of anything a self-proclaimed expert says as fact. Yes, wide access to Google and Wikipedia have aided this trend, and raised the layperson's knowledge level. These things have also raised the burden of proof of expertise. I've never even heard of Tom Nichols; I'm not apt to take what he says as fact j…

I think you're confusing a celebrity and an expert. Your primary care physician is an expert, but not a celebrity. We know that much because he is credentialed by a fairly reliable system. Celebrity status is simply one different way to ascertain expertise, and it's not that reliable - there are plenty of famous shamans, such as that guy with the debunked autism-vaccination link study.

That's apples to oranges. A physician goes through a rigorous training and licensing process before they can practice medicine. There's a base level of proficiency and ongoing continuing education requirements to be a physician. There is no such process for the nebulous and ill-defined field of "public policy" which could be stretched to cover just about any facet of daily life.

I therefore can only judge a self-proclaimed public policy expert based on what I can find about them. My cursory google search revealed no interesting papers written or talks given. Only a bunch of short, shallow blog posts.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#65

Post by nlew »

SiVal wrote: post #53

Death of expertise? Not of real expertise. This author intentionally conflates his expertise in "public policy" with expertise in other fields such as science, and concludes that a failure to acknowledge his authority is no different from rejecting the authority of a real scientist. Like the proof that 0 = 1 by including a step where you divide by zero, his argument relies on the fallacy that expertise is all the sam…

When you refuse to acknowledge the value of expertise in a field, you are effectively discrediting the entire field. You really think you know just as much as someone who has studied it for their entire adult life? The only way that can possibly be is if there's nothing to be learned about it.

You may think you understand a topic, but you really have a narrow view of it. You understand your own point of view, but not necessarily others. Or the breadth and depth of consequences to a decision. How can you expect equally valid results through a narrower lens?

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#66

Post by blumkvist »

EvanMiller wrote: post #18

I think what the author misses is the large institutional structure that restricts the supply of experts and (as a result) enhances their prestige. These days, with the growing availability of technical information, existing systems of licensure, credentialing, and professionalization are breeding resentment on both sides of the lectern. The author's focus in the article is on the layman's resentment for the expert.…

I think this article is about laymen's tendency to overestimate their own knowledge of a particular subject (typically every subject), thus resisting the opinion of people with formal (or non) authority.

I, for one, share the author's view on this phenomenon. In my opinion it is a wide spread issue, maybe even pandemic in proportions. When was the last time you heard somebody not having an opinion on a particular subject? Everybody has opinion on everything. In the overwhelming percentage of cases, a very misinformed one. And when an expert comes and tells them how misinformed they are, laymen turn to the dark side and start spewing hatred.

Your example serves only to show that either you didn't understand the article, or you are one of those people. The programming guild seems to have a hell lot of people that state their (misinformed) opinions as facts and participate in big, heated arguments very boldly.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#67

Post by nlew »

gcb0 wrote: post #51

"people who want to punish Congress for this or that law can’t name their own member of the House." If he really was an expert, he would see the underlining problem in this, instead of hatting the consequences of that problem. Maybe if he was an expert in any engineering field he would know how to identify a problem instead of generating bigotry on the consequences.

He's not generating bigotry. He is saying that people who are uneducated in politics on a fundamental level are trying to make the rules that govern us all. Not that they are valueless, or are in any way worse; just that they have no idea what they're talking about.

You wouldn't ask a 6 year old how the government ought to be run. Why should you value the opinion of a 30 year old who hasn't actually learned any more about the topic in the intervening 24 years?

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#68

Post by DenisM »

PeterWhittaker wrote: post #36

This recalls a recent article that made the rounds of various news sites: A 1929 book perfectly captures the distrust of authority, the distrust of elites we so clearly see in our modern, digital society. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/05/the-smartes...

It's a great article, thanks for that. The book itself can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007SXHWKI

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#69

Post by nickff »

walshemj wrote: post #50
nickff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please post a citation for this? I do not know if you are right or wrong, and it is not something I have considered before, but I would appreciate the opportunity to learn what arguments were made at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/chang... Or any general history text from say the last few hundred years. There was also a lot of opposition to translating the Bible into vulgar language as opposed to having a Latin speaking elite interpret it for the peasants and yeomen

Interesting article, but it does not make any argument with respect to expertise; that BBC article talks about 'skin in the game'.

>only people with "a stake in the country", that is people who paid taxes and held property, should take part in politics

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#70

Post by na85 »

Niten wrote: post #62
na85 wrote: post #17

The claim that "expertise" is going by the wayside is absurd. What's gone by the wayside is the automatic acceptance of anything a self-proclaimed expert says as fact. Yes, wide access to Google and Wikipedia have aided this trend, and raised the layperson's knowledge level. These things have also raised the burden of proof of expertise. I've never even heard of Tom Nichols; I'm not apt to take what he says as fact j…

Apologies, but you're displaying precisely the kind of aggressive and arrogant ignorance that this article highlights. You trust Bruce Schneier because he's a popular figure. You said it yourself: "Tom Nichols is a nobody" due to a fatal lack of PageRank not helped by a non-unique name. While I admire Schneier greatly and am thankful that there is somebody like him working to popularize cryptography, computer securit…

Bruce Schneier is more than a celebrity (though I did use him as an example because he's somewhat famous). He consults for Congress and is the author of multiple widely-used cryptographic algorithms (thinking here of Blow/twofish). He's an expert who also happens to be a celebrity, but I can still cite him as an expert without conflating the two.

>there are countless others equally or better qualified to speak out on topics of cryptographic theory whom you (and I) wouldn't recognize at all – but actual domain experts would.

If that's true, then I ought to be able to find talks these people have given, or papers they've written. Based on a quick google search, I concluded the author of this blog post appears to only write short, shallow blog posts.

Now, that might not be the case. You obviously dug a little deeper and found some more info. But that simply goes back to what I was saying in my previous comment. There is an increased burden of proof in a world where anyone can say anything on the internet. Nichols wrote a blog post claiming to be an expert? Okay, why is there no quick link to a summary of his qualifications in direct support of the article's central premise?

Who knows, maybe he's a public policy expert but a lousy writer.

Either way, my argument stands: On the internet, if you don't have name recognition and want to be taken seriously you have to demonstrate your expertise, because any layperson can quote a wiki article. It takes more than simply saying "I am an expert".

Post reply on HN