unironically trust the experts

[Anonymous No.14555452]

I mean, how else are we supposed to act on issues involving complicated scientific matters? Most subjects regarding science require extreme specialization, while the general public is simply unable to understand scientific methodology, let alone identify and understand important papers for knowing a subject in depth. Not to mention that most people simply don't have the time. Yeah, the experts may be wrong, but their chances of being wrong are a lot lower than someone with no background in it. This is not an authority appeal fallacy, this is just how things are.

[Anonymous No.14555466]

The point is that even so-called experts (by whom? themselves? the media?) can be wrong. Being more knowledgeable than the average layman does not mean that person is always correct. They may be unintentionally wrong, or may want to push a certain agenda. Do not put blind faith on talking heads. Science is the process, not the scientist.

[Anonymous No.14555489]

>>14555452
Logic defeats dogma. I'm not a helicopter pilot, but if the motherfucker is upside down in a tree, I know something is wrong; despite the pilot saying it's fine. Fuck the 'experts'. No one should ever cede their use of reason because someone "looks official". Seethe, naive retard.

[Anonymous No.14555499]

For a midwit this is good advice. A midwit barely has the intellectual capacity to specialize in one area. As a genius however I cannot do this. I have the intrinsic desire to know everything. I want to become the expert myself. In doing so I often find how shortsighted and intentionally ignorant the so called experts are. They are often midwits themselves, blinded by ideology, and unwilling to challenge whatever narrow world view they cultivated for decades. They do not have the cognitive flexibility that comes with truly high IQ. And that's why I could never trust them.

[Anonymous No.14555508]

>>14555452
>I mean, how else are we supposed to act on issues involving complicated scientific matters?
We're not. Keep science out of politics to keep politics out of science.

[Anonymous No.14555545]

>>14555452
> we
fuck you, unironically

[Anonymous No.14555555]

>>14555452
Okay, which experts should I trust?

[Anonymous No.14555557]

>>14555555
Bros, I'm sorry for wasting this get. I don't know why, but kek has blessed many of my posts. I've gotten two of the previous quints and ten previous quads within the past month

[Anonymous No.14555565]

>>14555555
this ain't complicated anon. If something like 90% of people with a PhD on a certain specific field regard agree on some topic pertaining to that field, this is a pretty good indicator.

[Anonymous No.14555568]

>>14555565
Why 90%? Why not 80%? Why not 95%?

[Anonymous No.14555582]

>>14555568
Its not a binary threshold, its a continuum of increasing likelihood, and anything above 50% is at least slightly better than nothing really. It seems obvious to me that 90% is a big number considering the size of the world-wide scientific community.

[Anonymous No.14555587]

>>14555582
90% is literally less than two standard deviations. It's a shit confidence interval.

[Anonymous No.14555602]

>>14555587
Reality isn't randomly distributed.

[Anonymous No.14555620]

>>14555587
how are you modeling the problem? whats the gaussian distribution here representing exactly?

anyway, I'm not proposing some statistic analysis. For me its just straight up common sense that 9 scientists of background X and position A are a lot less likely to be mistaken than 1 of of also background X and position B.

[Anonymous No.14555663]

>>14555565
>what is phlogiston
>what is luminiferous aether
>what is caloric
>what is geocentrism
>what is heliocentrism
>what is global cooling
Just because "muh experts" agree on something doesn't mean it can't be utterly and hilariously wrong. Replacing skepticism and scientific inquiry with the word of "experts" is the hallmark of a retard who thinks he's smart.

[Anonymous No.14555984]

>>14555663
why is the concept of probability so hard to grasp

[Anonymous No.14556001]

>>14555984
Conditional probability.

[Anonymous No.14556023]

>>14556001
No, its just plain probability for the anon I replied. Somehow in anon's mind the existence of a few false occurrences of scientific consensus refutes my point about the low chances of they occurring.

[Anonymous No.14556032]

>>14556023
Because they aren't low, the fuck is wrong with you?

Cite literally any study, essay, media bullshit, or any fucking thing you just made up to suggest it is low at even one point in any history, including fictional sci-fi worlds.

[Anonymous No.14556218]

>>14555452
Specialization leads to braindead scientific assembly line worker with focus of a needle because nothing else he can understand/do, or general manager who only cares about schedule of funding and meeting. A good scientist always desire more ability, knowledge domains and the fuller picture.
And in the end it is a political problem of demanding absolute trust, thus dictating one's life. Since when advices are commands? Research is now used to justify the elimination of community and individual's autonomy.

[Anonymous No.14557005]

>>14555452

[Anonymous No.14557015]

>>14555452
do experts trust experts? all of them?

[Anonymous No.14557017]

You shouldn't trust anyone. If the experts cannot sensibly explain how they arrived at their conclusions, they cannot be trusted.

[Anonymous No.14557025]

>>14555452
year like 1600 AD, unironically trust priests

[Anonymous No.14557034]

>>14555466
Underrated.

[Anonymous No.14557042]

>>14555568
You're not as smart as you think you're being

[Anonymous No.14557054]

>>14555452
>identify and understand important papers for knowing a subject in depth
Except for mathematics, you can't know a subject "in-depth" just by reading papers. You gotta have actual experience in the field. If you just read papers you're relying on other experts and you're not yourself an expert.
Also, as this guy >>14555489 said, logic trumps dogma. Trusting "experts" unconditionally makes you no better than some illiterate medieval peasant who believes everything the priest says, even when the priest contradicts himself.
And if Pfizer were trustworthy and had nothing to hide they would have made their vaccine trial documents publicly available. Why would you trust opaque organizations just because they claim "expertise"?

[Anonymous No.14557056]

>>14555499
>As a genius

[Anonymous No.14557061]

>>14555620
>For me its just straight up common sense that 9 scientists of background X and position A are a lot less likely to be mistaken than 1 of of also background X and position B.
You know Einstein and Darwin were in the position B camp, right?

[Anonymous No.14557072]

>>14556218
This.
Crazy people like Bertrand Russell made it clear that it is their intention to curtail or abolish democracy thanks to a growing scientific bureaucracy.
The idea that political problems have scientific solutions makes moot any pretense of democratic institutions that we still have.

[Anonymous No.14557074]

>>14555452
Humanity has been around for 200,000 years without needing "science experts" to tell people how to run their societies. If it is true that our modern mode of existence can't continue without an unaccountable cabal of "experts" dictating the course of society, and that the vast majority of the population is simply too incompetent to govern itself or even to validate its decisionmakers, then this mode of existence should not continue, and those who wish to continue it need to be silenced or executed.

[Anonymous No.14557076]

>>14555489
I agree with this actually. But useing your analogy: if you wanted to get somewhere by helicopter, would you fly it, or would you ask the licensed helicopter pilot to fly you there?
Don't trust the experts blindly, trust them critically.

[Anonymous No.14557080]

>>14557076
>if you wanted to get somewhere by helicopter
What do you need a helicopter for?
Electric motor airships are the future anyway.