Expert opinion can be a starting point when one tries to figure out the truth but definitely not the last word on a topic.
Prediction markets, rationalists, and generally people with skin in the game are all better sources of truth than experts.
Prediction markets, rationalists, and generally people with skin in the game are all better sources of truth than experts.
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1340542071942373379
How to weigh expert opinion:
- Large penalty if the topic is politicized.
- Medium/large penalty if it pertains soft sciences.
- Medium penalty if the opinion seems to be in conflict with more fundamental principles.
- Small/medium penalty if it involves financial incentives.
- Large penalty if the topic is politicized.
- Medium/large penalty if it pertains soft sciences.
- Medium penalty if the opinion seems to be in conflict with more fundamental principles.
- Small/medium penalty if it involves financial incentives.
The classic example of what I mean by being "in conflict with more fundamental principles" is the perpetual motion machine.
But it can also be more subtle like claiming that border closure won't slow down a pandemic when it obviously does in the limiting case.
But it can also be more subtle like claiming that border closure won't slow down a pandemic when it obviously does in the limiting case.
A more contentious example (because the topic is politicized) is the existence of cognitive differences between human populations. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that such differences do not exist because it contradicts the more fundamental principle of evolution.
Financial incentives can be particularly relevant in medicine. Is that medical intervention really necessary or do they earn a lot from doing it? theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
"If downstream care declines during the pandemic without a significant impact on hospitalization and death rates, then researchers will have strong evidence that those procedures aren’t worthwhile and should be limited."
https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1337829292554727425
On The Exciting Subject Of Earwax And Unsupported Medical Arguments residentcontrarian.substack.com/p/on-the-excit…
I'd go as far as saying that having too much truth into expert consensus is a catastrophic risk: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Sem… 
This thread makes a good point about the dangers of too much deference to expert consensus and how its main purpose is to protect elites and the status quo:
https://twitter.com/Chanand1erB0ng5/status/1327089499386638336
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
