"Trust the Experts"

[Hektor]

Let's not have this thread devolve into a discussion about every controversial topic under the sun. Use the PM function for that.

Webmaster

OK, this can easily lead to far. The essence is that you can't simply believe something is true just because 'the experts reached consensus'-canard.
You need to look at the evidence and mode of proof being provided for a claim. That can be labor some... Especially when the lingo is a bit cryptic.

[Lamprecht]

OK, this can easily lead to far. The essence is that you can't simply believe something is true just because 'the experts reached consensus'-canard.
You need to look at the evidence and mode of proof being provided for a claim. That can be labor some... Especially when the lingo is a bit cryptic.

I'll so far enough to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with assuming the experts are correct without doing research, so long as you don't adopt that as indisputable reality.
I don't know much of anything about automobile mechanics. If my car had an issue and I took it to 3 different mechanics and they all said the same thing was wrong with it, I'd assume they were probably correct. But if another mechanic checked it out and said those 3 were wrong and it was an entirely different problem, I would be skeptical but not necessarily declare him an evil liar outright. It might be "safer" to assume the other 3 were correct and this guy is just trying to get my money, but it could go either way.

There's no way 1 person can be knowledgeable about everything in the world. Usually, an "expert" (however you define that) is only very knowledgeable about 1 topic, or a few maximum. One thing I have noticed a lot with these subjects mentioned (Holocaust, climate change, Covid-19, race differences) is that people accept that they are not experts and cannot make a reasonable case, but DEMAND you believe who they consider to be experts, or you're evil. I find this position to be even more harmful than a person that thinks they're well-read on the topic and has a different position than you.
This is most notable in the climate change and Covid-19 debate, because with race and the H they will just declare you a "Nazi" that is trying to trick people into hating specific groups for no reason.
With climate change, they can't really make the case that I'm paid off by oil companies, so they'll claim I'm tricked by people that are. They will nearly always try to change the debate into whether or not there's a consensus. If you show them that there isn't one, they'll resort to trying to show that the majority of so-called "Experts" agree with them, so it becomes an appeal to popularity debate. Something like:
"Ok maybe it's not 97%, but 70%. If 70% of the experts agree with my position, that means my position is more popular so it's more likely that I'm correct."
I don't have to explain how this is moronic.
When I try to discuss the details with these sorts of people, they do not want to do it. They'll often tell me to either go publish research that proves the [alleged] consensus wrong or to stop talking about it entirely.
I do have opinions on all of these 4 controversial topics I mentioned because I've researched them over the course of many years. There are other controversial topics, like "the Big Bang Theory" that people disagree with and debate on. Or maybe the existence of "Black holes" in outer space is a better example; some people do claim they are fake.
I haven't researched it much, so I have no strong opinion either way. I don't understand how someone could have a strong opinion on a subject they have not researched.
So I'm not going to say someone is always a fool if they just assume the experts are correct about a topic. But in such a case, the response to hearing another opinion should as a rule be:
"I recognize that you have a different opinion about this topic. However, I simply do not care enough about this subject to spend any time researching different positions. So I will assume the mainstream consensus is most likely correct and remain agnostic on the issue, but I will not get upset at you for not agreeing with me."

A lot of people probably are like this by default, but the emotionally-charged nature of the controversial topics in question prevents them from thinking rationally about it.

[Hektor]

OK, this can easily lead to far. The essence is that you can't simply believe something is true just because 'the experts reached consensus'-canard.
You need to look at the evidence and mode of proof being provided for a claim. That can be labor some... Especially when the lingo is a bit cryptic.

I'll so far enough to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with assuming the experts are correct without doing research, so long as you don't adopt that as indisputable reality.
I don't know much of anything about automobile mechanics. If my car had an issue and I took it to 3 different mechanics and they all said the same thing was wrong with it, I'd assume they were probably correct. But if another mechanic checked it out and said those 3 were wrong and it was an entirely different problem, I would be skeptical but not necessarily declare him an evil liar outright. It might be "safer" to assume the other 3 were correct and this guy is just trying to get my money, but it could go either way.

There's no way 1 person can be knowledgeable about everything in the world. Usually, an "expert" (however you define that) is only very knowledgeable about 1 topic, or a few maximum. One thing I have noticed a lot with these subjects mentioned (Holocaust, climate change, Covid-19, race differences) is that people accept that they are not experts and cannot make a reasonable case, but DEMAND you believe who they consider to be experts, or you're evil. I find this position to be even more harmful than a person that thinks they're well-read on the topic and has a different position than you......

The issue is less about whether the experts are 'right or not'. The issue is that people think that citing experts and their statements and bringing credentials into a scientific question is somehow a concise logical or scientific argument. It simply isn't. In true Logic/Science the status of a person, it's credentials, etc. are irrelevant plain and simple.

It's of course a bit different, when somebody has to be appointed for a position e.g. as a doctor, engineer etc. You'll check the CV. and make a guess how likely it is, that this person will be able to fulfill the requirements for working in that positions. It isn't a guarantee, though... Just an educated guess. Science is however about "Discovery" of truth, not about Decision making itself. Science only ask can you measure it? Can you control for all factors of influence? Are the conclusions logical? And well, can you document it in an understandable manner. The Scientific Method has been used to discover a lot in terms of physical law as well as nature in general (which is partially only data collecting and not science of course. Documenting and mapping how a new island looks like isn't science... It's geography. You don't learn anything about causal relationships between dependent and independent variables there.). Based on this lots of new and useful technology was developed. This increased the standard of living of people tremendously. And that resulted in "Science" being held in high regard by people. The problem is that not all that is called science is science. As indicated science is a method... It isn't a institution. Hence it is about whether the work. research etc. being done was performed methodological correct or not. It's completely irrelevant whether those doing the work have degrees, work for reputable institutions or look credible. But that is how people tend to think... They look onto how a person is dressed, how he speaks, whether he is respected, what position he had, whether he has a degree... etc. It's simply a habit of the mind, because usually it has some value in decision making as a short cut.... Meaning you don't have to replicate expensive and time-consuming research, given that some credible person has already done that. And since people with science degrees including professors and Nobel price winners also think like this at times (after all they are humane and too lazy to think more thoroughly), people imagine that this is how "science works". They think it's logical to think that what an authority figure says must be right, while what an outsider says can't be right (fallacy of relevance). It may indeed be plausible and 'humane' to do so, but it isn't logical.

Since it is plausible... one rather wants to be assisted by a reputable mechanic, than by a fly by night person. But what gets your car repaired... is still subject to requirements of reality and logic. Ask yourself what a fraudster will try to do... He will try to gain the outer appearance of 'being trustworthy'. So he may indeed have a degree, talk with a technical lingo, etc... Doesn't mean he is right though. There the conclusions need to be following logically from the real facts of the matter.
If you claim that "the Nazis gassed six million Jews", you will have to be able to show me at least one Jew was killed using toxic gas and give evidence thereof. No appeals to authority allowed here. Passing people dying from disease as evidence for homicidal gassing is fraud. Plain and simple. People that do that are fraudsters (or idiots, which is far more common). Passing people dying from common diseases or toxic treatments as proof for a new virus is fraud as well. Citing doctors saying "He died of COVID" is stupid and actually it violates the plausibility argument... Since no doctor was even trained to diagnose this (prior to 2020). If you look at research papers on viruses, they are riddled with methodological issues, yet this isn't challenged by the 'experts', reason being that their own 'research' got similar issues and one crow doesn't hack another one into the eye. If you have spent 10, 20 or more years studying and building a career in that field, you aren't likely to challenge the academic foundations of that field. That is ideal for pseudoscientific frauds becoming self-sustaining. It persists, because 99% of people aren't even able to discern what is scientific method and what isn't. Hell, most academics think methodology is just a fancy word for method and not an actual field of study (like logic or grammar). The problem is that Methodology is one of the more abstract fields of study. You need to be quite capable to think abstract, if you want to master that field. Copy and paste and emulating procedure isn't enough (even if that enables you to pass the exams).
"Climate Change" is a bait and switch again. Nobody is disputing that the climate may be changing. What is in dispute is the claim that this is somehow caused by humans producing CO2 (through burning, breathing, etc.). So pointing to a hot summer, drought or flood is NO evidence for that hypothesis to be true. Yet it is used to buffalo people into that direction. The more elaborate trick is to draw up huge "scientific models" to show that more CO2 = more heat on Earth. It's theoretical model, but it isn't science, given that no empirical experiments, hence hypothesis testing can be done. If you can design the model yourself, you can do that in a way that your model will deliver you the results you want. There is zero evidence that any of those models is indeed a true reflection on how the Earth (and climate) is working... Now quickly invoke your "climate science" degree and point out that I'm a laymen (who involuntarily finances your research, but rather not go there). Well, your utilization of your credentials is proof enough to me that you, sir, are a fraud.