The Death Of Expertise • Hacker News Board

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#161

Post by 3pt14159 » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 2:42 PM UTC

rglovejoy wrote: post #140

3pt14159 wrote: post #12

> Second-guessing their doctors and refusing to vaccinate their kids after reading stuff written by people who know exactly zip about medicine. This claim was originally by an expert doctor. > Which is why articles and books are subjected to “peer review” and not to “everyone review,” Peer review struggles to correct inaccuracies and by failing to share the underlying data behind the assertions made, and especially i…

>> Second-guessing their doctors and refusing to vaccinate their kids after reading stuff written by people who know exactly zip about medicine. >This claim was originally by an expert doctor. Andrew Wakefield was no expert. He was found guilty of research fraud and is no longer allowed to practice medicine.

Right, with hindsight we can clearly see that he wasn't an expert, just like all experts that turn out to be wrong.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#162

Post by yetanotherphd » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 4:36 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #151

yetanotherphd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard of cost-push inflation before, and I didn't specialize in macro-economics. Who discredited this theory? The Wikipedia article says that according to Keynsians (and most modern economists are neo-Keynsians who beleive in sticky prices), prices are sticky downwards and so a supply shock to a single good would cause inflation. This seems to be an issue that could be resolved empirically. Are you familiar…

> I hadn't heard of cost-push inflation before, and I didn't specialize in macro-economics. Who discredited this theory? Cost-push is described in Reisman's tome "Capitalism" and is shown why it is a false theory starting on pg. 907. > perhaps your professor meant that he believed in free enterprise, but wanted to use the taxation system to make post-tax income much more equal? If so, there is no contradiction. I quo…

>Cost-push is described in Reisman's tome "Capitalism" and is shown why it is a false theory starting on pg. 907.

I couldn't understand that. One difficulty is that not only do Austrian economists use a different language to describe things, but it seems to be arguing against a traditional Keynesian viewpoint. Right now PhD programs don't teach any traditional Keynsian econ, (undergrad programs teach a bit), they skip straight to neo-Keynsianism, which only keeps a few ideas from the original Keynes (e.g. sticky prices). So I don't really understand what the article is arguing against.

I already gave a description of what I thought the sticky-prices based argument for cost-push inflation was. Can you explain in your own words how this particular argument is refuted?

Re the professor, I guess I'll just chalk that up to a bad professor.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#163

Post by drdeadringer » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

vilhelm_s wrote: post #98

drdeadringer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I resent the fact that I have to pay a lot of money to sit in a chair in a dark room and wait for The Expert to deliver his Opinion about whether I need the -4.5's or -5's. In this example, is this not why you pay this expert? I appreciate eyeware that enables me to see; front row and I still can't read the chalkboard? Money is worth this. Once I get the numbers I can get the hardware for cheaper online. There are…

I guess the complaint here is that you can't choose what you will pay for. By law you need to renew your prescription regularly (typically yearly), even if you want to continue to buy the same type of lens. (The rationale is that the eye doctor prescribing the lens will check your eyes for contact-lens related diseases).

> By law you need to renew your prescription regularly

I did not know this.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#164

Post by gcb0 » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

nlew wrote: post #67

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…

because it will govern him.

comparing a 30 yr old that will be subject to the laws to a kid that can't even wipe properly is idiotic. Just because you can't afford to be dedicated to the law does that mean your opinion should be excluded?

I take it that you are a fascist then?