as a layperson, under what circumstances might it be reasonable to be skeptical about the claims of a majority of experts on a subject?
when the incentive structure in that domain is broken
when the incentive structure in that domain is broken
when the 'consensus view' is the product of social engineering; expert dissenters institutionally excluded for plausibly political reasons
when continued gov funding and/or career opportunity looks like it depends on having advanced the 'consensus view'
when continued gov funding and/or career opportunity looks like it depends on having advanced the 'consensus view'
when you notice that counter-evidence is reflexively dismissed; institutional messaging pretends it doesn't exist. uncertainties not acknowledged.
when expert dissenters' objections aren't adequately addressed by adherents to the dominant narrative
related "[The experts'] areas of specialty & years of experience made no difference. When experts declared that events were nearly impossible, 15 percent of them occurred nonetheless. When they declared events to be a sure thing >25% failed to transpire
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
when you have low confidence that there even *is* a majority agreement (has every expert been polled?) ie. the claim of majority consensus is itself suspect
when powerful interests would see their power enlarged to the extent that action followed the alleged consensus
the more of the above criteria fit, the better the grounds for being suspicious of the claimed consensus view
(what proportion of those prominently making the claim are actually mouthpieces, propagandists rather than experts?
what proportion of the experts have independently looked at the question rather than automatically accepted the apparent consensus opinion of their peers?)
what proportion of the experts have independently looked at the question rather than automatically accepted the apparent consensus opinion of their peers?)
even if you're an expert whose independent opinion would be valuable there are cases, I reckon, where it can be professionally expedient not to look very closely at a hot issue
when the dissenters seem to do a better job of steelmanning the case for the consensus view than vice-versa
when the institutions claiming to represent majority expert opinion already made confident claims that turned out to be false
one of the replies was 'well experts were right ~75% of the time!'
no though. if a predicted event happens, that doesn't validate your claim that it was a 'sure thing'
"it's certain that the coin will land on heads"
experts claims weren't *clearly falsified* ~75% of the time
no though. if a predicted event happens, that doesn't validate your claim that it was a 'sure thing'
"it's certain that the coin will land on heads"
experts claims weren't *clearly falsified* ~75% of the time
simpler way to make the same point: i say it's impossible that the coin will land on heads. the flipped coin lands on tails. we don't take this to mean I was correct about a heads result being impossible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
