The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
GST about experts and nonexperts in Internet discussions
Feral
ＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤinterior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
ＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤinterior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
GST is short for Goddamn Separate Thread. Or Explosive Ordinance Disposal. Take your pick.
This is branched off of the following exchange in the humanist/nihilist thread:
The crux of the matter: how should experts and nonexperts treat each other in a discussion within the relevant realm of expertise?
Should nonexperts defer to the authority of experts?
Should experts act as ambassadors and teachers, or do they have license to tell non experts 'STFU and read a book'?
Should I have to talk to a scientist? All they do is lie and get me pissed.
I share some of Tycho's frustration in the prior post. Education does not necessarily make your opinions right; and lack of it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. But, at the very least, a minimal background in the topic at hand allows us to avoid rehashing long-buried arguments. It allows us to share terminology: for instance in that thread, the OP started with a definition of 'humanism' that is nonstandard. What he called 'humanism' is pretty close to what philosophers call 'moral realism.' Some humanists are moral realists, but not all, and vice versa. (Sorry to pick on you, zakkiel.) Zakkiel minimized the inconvenience of that by clearly defining his terms (which is a good habit anyway), but let's be honest... We can't define every term in every discussion. Ain't nobody got time for that. Some undefined terms will always slip through. Having a preestablished vocabulary lets us efficiently identify our positions... Sometimes labels are useful! Finally, it makes sure we've got some common foundational principles. I can't really argue vaccines with somebody who has never heard of germ theory. Some positions are not even wrong.
On the other hand, nobody is an expert in everything (except me), so eventually even experts will end up on the nonexpert side of the exchange. This, combined with the first law of the forums ("Don't be a dick"), imply that experts should at least be polite to the unwashed rabble. Besides, this is actually a really awesome place to learn things: I have learned more about philosophy or economics here than I ever did in college, and I'd like to think that I've written some pretty enlightening introductions to psychology and human sexuality. If we aren't teaching each other new and interesting things, then this forum is just rhetorical swordfighting (in the urbandictionary phallic sense of the term). I certainly don't want that.
On the third hand (bear with me, this post is going to have a lot of hands), the wisest man is the one who is aware of the breadth of his own ignorance. If you are a nonexpert in a disagreement with an expert, you should at least accept that you are in the subordinate position. While you are not necessarily wrong, have a little humility. Ask more questions, make fewer authoritative declarations. If something doesn't make sense, assume you misunderstand it before deciding that it is wrong. Rockrnger was exemplary in this regard in that thread.
Sometimes the right answer is to refer to external sources. I don't expect So It Goes to summarize all the volumes of Blackstone's compendium of English law, nor ronya to fill in all the blanks between Adam Smith and Greg Mankiw. Sometimes - not often, but once in a while - the right answer is 'STFU and read a book' (though, hopefully, phrased more nicely than that.)
This is branched off of the following exchange in the humanist/nihilist thread:
TychoCelchuuu wrote: »I don't think disagreement in this thread implies incompetence. I think it implies ignorance. With the exception of @Rizichard Rizorty nobody who has argued against moral realism in t his thread has struck me as even knowing what they are talking about, let alone making competent arguments. It seems like if this were a science thread with some scientists in here saying "yo you guys don't understand wtf you're talking about," everyone would be focusing on figuring out what the scientist is saying before jumping the gun and making up their minds. There's something about the sorts of people who hang out online in places like this that make them think philosophy is something they can decide on without knowing anything, whereas science isn't, even though I suspect they would criticize people for making the reverse assumption. I've never been sure what that is or why people act this way so eventually I get around to bringing it up. If that's trolling I guess I'm trolling?Also, your concern trolling about this thread not living up the quality of philosophy you demand (chiefly it seems by failing to agree with you) is pompous and unproductive. It also gives the impression that you think any disagreement implies incompetence.
I don't think anyone in here is thinking that they are going to set the philosophical world on fire, you know what I mean? We are just have fun and learning stuff.
Like, here's a thought. Maybe it would be interesting and cool if you could explain some specific error theory or part of error theory that you find compelling or at least hard to argue against.
The crux of the matter: how should experts and nonexperts treat each other in a discussion within the relevant realm of expertise?
Should nonexperts defer to the authority of experts?
Should experts act as ambassadors and teachers, or do they have license to tell non experts 'STFU and read a book'?
Should I have to talk to a scientist? All they do is lie and get me pissed.
I share some of Tycho's frustration in the prior post. Education does not necessarily make your opinions right; and lack of it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. But, at the very least, a minimal background in the topic at hand allows us to avoid rehashing long-buried arguments. It allows us to share terminology: for instance in that thread, the OP started with a definition of 'humanism' that is nonstandard. What he called 'humanism' is pretty close to what philosophers call 'moral realism.' Some humanists are moral realists, but not all, and vice versa. (Sorry to pick on you, zakkiel.) Zakkiel minimized the inconvenience of that by clearly defining his terms (which is a good habit anyway), but let's be honest... We can't define every term in every discussion. Ain't nobody got time for that. Some undefined terms will always slip through. Having a preestablished vocabulary lets us efficiently identify our positions... Sometimes labels are useful! Finally, it makes sure we've got some common foundational principles. I can't really argue vaccines with somebody who has never heard of germ theory. Some positions are not even wrong.
On the other hand, nobody is an expert in everything (except me), so eventually even experts will end up on the nonexpert side of the exchange. This, combined with the first law of the forums ("Don't be a dick"), imply that experts should at least be polite to the unwashed rabble. Besides, this is actually a really awesome place to learn things: I have learned more about philosophy or economics here than I ever did in college, and I'd like to think that I've written some pretty enlightening introductions to psychology and human sexuality. If we aren't teaching each other new and interesting things, then this forum is just rhetorical swordfighting (in the urbandictionary phallic sense of the term). I certainly don't want that.
On the third hand (bear with me, this post is going to have a lot of hands), the wisest man is the one who is aware of the breadth of his own ignorance. If you are a nonexpert in a disagreement with an expert, you should at least accept that you are in the subordinate position. While you are not necessarily wrong, have a little humility. Ask more questions, make fewer authoritative declarations. If something doesn't make sense, assume you misunderstand it before deciding that it is wrong. Rockrnger was exemplary in this regard in that thread.
Sometimes the right answer is to refer to external sources. I don't expect So It Goes to summarize all the volumes of Blackstone's compendium of English law, nor ronya to fill in all the blanks between Adam Smith and Greg Mankiw. Sometimes - not often, but once in a while - the right answer is 'STFU and read a book' (though, hopefully, phrased more nicely than that.)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Feral on
+14
Posts
I think most trouble goes away if all participants argue in good faith and recognize their own capacity for error. Eventually, though, you will get people not arguing in good faith, or who are unfamiliar with the idea that they might be wrong. Ideally, the other people ignore that person until they go away.
I do think that discussion between subject experts and non experts is good for both sides, as it opens up new perspectives. Even an expert stands to see something in a slightly different way and gain new insights.
Though yes, it is irritating when a bunch of biologists are discussing evolution and someone comes in with HAY I AM NOT A BIOLOGIST LOL BUT DOESN'T EVOLUTION VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMOPYLAE OR WHATEVS.
Second, you're pretty much spot on. Expertise is important, and dismissing it is how you end up in bad places; but at the same time, experts are FAR from infallible. The problem is finding that sweet spot between those two poles.
Or maybe we don't.
If we can have this discussion about internet discussions without being experts on internet discussions, then that answers the OP. But maybe as non-experts on internet discussions we would reach a fallacious conclusion due to our lack of expertise?
Too much self reference!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That sort of implies a superior overriding force on the third hand, despite possible lack of subtlety or 'aesthetic' appeal.
A sort of, as nice those other things are, this is what will determine the result.
'Cause motes.
I mostly agree with what's been posted.
One thing that causes a lot of friction, *especially* in sociology related threads but sometimes in bio threads too, is the terminology level everyone is operating on.
If you're using a term in its academic sense, and the thread is full of non experts, it's probably a good idea to note that you're NOT using the colloquial definition. Otherwise we spend a page arguing definitions.
The biggies for this are "theory" and "racism" but a whole host of things cause this issue.
But the Dunning-Kruger effect is in force something fierce on the internets. For example, I've studied quite a lot about the ancient near east, and the bible in particular, compared to most people. But I would not consider myself an expert. At the very least an expert would need to be able to read the languages of the primary sources involved.
For our purposes, I think it is safe to say that if you do not have a graduate degree in a topic or teach college-level classes, you are not an expert.
If you have substantial professional experience in a field, that might be sufficient, depending on what you did. The IT guy for a law firm is not an expert in law.
There is a separate question regarding how we identify if other people are experts, but that is less of an issue, in my perception.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We don't tend to have it happen here but "evolution" is another member of that list.
I've read a lot of philosophy, but without somebody challenging me on what I've read, I cannot know if I have a good grasp of the material. I might think I understand it, but my understanding could be flawed without my knowledge.
Self-guided education runs a large risk of blind spots and gaps. I might have read 99 books on philosophy, but if one of the ones I haven't read and understood is WVO Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," then I am effectively over a half-century behind the field at large.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I feel that "show, don't tell" might be a good practice to lean toward, and that when a communication or education barrier arises that cannot be reconciled, simply acknowledging that and moving on works wonders. Knowing one's own limits keeps our blood pressure down. Providing links is great parting gesture, and I applaud how often it is used here.
In an example like the thread mentioned above, it might behoove an expert to simply make a post identifying the current popular expert opinion, against which the plebs can contrast their own stances.
TL DR: argue better
Part of the problem that seems to crop up with this idea is the relative ease in arguing the expert side versus the laymen side. Basically it comes down to the fact that a great deal of background knowledge goes into the formed opinion of an expert, but perhaps more importantly, it's knowledge that is not easily compressed or quickly expressed. Contrast that with the "one-liner" knowledge of the layman who is spouting simple axioms that sound catchy but are not at all tested. With the added aspect that, a fair amount of the time, the truth is counter-intuitive.
It leads to a very frustrating position for experts in this type of debate, where their answers are long winded, with a myriad of tangents, and not very convincing without direct evidence (since they are often counter-intuitive), which is time consuming to provide. Where as the layman is under no such constraints and has arguments that are much easier to follow. There is a very high temptation to simply state that the layman does not know what they are talking about, as a shortcut to catching everyone up on the entire academic background of the subject under debate.
On the other side, there's an issue of trust, in that you can say "i'm totes an expert, you're wrong, I'm right, end of debate" but that doesn't make it true. That's generally not as big of an issue on these forums, but in general I have a very high distrust of a self proclaimed expert on the internet.
For my own 2 cents, I don't mind a general call to authority (such as proclaiming that a certain position is not widely held among experts in the field), but I mostly take it as an indication that neither of us will change our mind without a larger time investment. A sort of agree to disagree with a nod towards the side claiming to have more knowledge.
I find myself in a similar place. I enjoyed Philosophy classes a lot in college, so much so that if my school had given minors, I'd probably have qualified. However, I'm no where near current.
I also have a bias now, that in my Senior year, I just got sick of the whole field. Too many problems seemed to be either language or label problems, which weren't interesting at all. I remember discussing Qualia and just not caring about such a concept. Now I discount the field altogether, perhaps unfairly. I'm much more interested in what neurology and artificial intelligence might have to say about perception or Searle's Chinese Room rather than philosophers themselves.
After all, people have managed to get past label, language, and philosophical questions despite being embedded in a system that appears in every way to be reductionist and deterministic, with plenty of evidence that such things aren't actually problems. And I doubt that a logical and philosophical argument could be convincing to people, people don't seem so exactingly rational.
And of course, I think the redefining and lack of clarity in terms contribute to plain confusion.
I mean, I can't reasonably expect people to understand the technical details of my career, and it's not really fair to get angry at people who claim a game needs a better GPU to run well because their ping time sucks whenever they're on wifi. They don't know... it's on me to be gracious in my explanations.
I feel like, if you're an expert participating in a conversation populated mostly by laypeople, and covering old ground is super frustrating to you, maybe it's not the place you should be trying to engage with people about your area of expertise.
As an expert on pedantics,
There are limits to this ideal though. I can think of many things that took me months, if not years, to really grasp conceptually. In an argument on such topics it is not really feasible for me to compress that learning schedule. The best explanations I could possibly provide will never be enough to convince someone who doesn't commit a vastly larger amount of time than is reasonable for such a debate. This doesn't change the fact that I know I have experimental validation and a general scientific consensus on my side. It's not exactly clear what the best way forward is in such cases.
And think themselves experts due to their theoretical knowledge.
Probably the most annoying thing when I read these forums.
Even if the person knows the right answer, they flub the details or flub the methodology, because they have zero experience actually doing it. But they pretend otherwise, failing to recognize the difference between theory and practice.
I see this happen with pretty much every topic, even topics that should be uncontroversial.
Can you not link to said experimental validation and scientific consensus?
This does not seem to be a problem other people run in to.
I'm going to need an example. Most of the topics that come up here are pretty much entirely theoretical. I'm not even sure there is a reasonable difference between theoretical and practical knowledge in fields like economics or sociology. Theories are built from the study of things that actually happen.
I, too, absolutely love this.
Yeah I very much agree with this.
Not to mention that in many fields trying to rely on life experience is a downright disadvantage. EG: pure mathematics, physics
Even if we indulge in the polite fiction that we cannot question someones lived experience that does not grant social immunity to the conclusions and inferences they draw from that experience.
eg: "I saw lights in the sky moving in a strange way" = lived experience. "and those lights were an alien spacecraft" = inference.
Rarely are we discussing something so narrow as to have a single experiment that validates it. Think climate change. There is an overwhelming scientific concensus at this point, and there are a great many papers/models/predictions that inform that consensus, but there is no single thing you can point to that definitely proves the idea. Although climate change does have that massive IPCC study which is a far better position that many topics.
edit - Also scientific consensus is a somewhat nebulous idea. Rarely do you have a specific place where all participants in a field get together and jot down the things they agree on. Usually such a consensus is just an overlap in the ideas that are being published which you can only really appreciate if you read a ton of literature from that field. Again something that is not so easy to convey directly without relying on some form of "trust me".
I've seen plenty of people link to peer reviewed papers citing multiple experiments or stats that demonstrate what they say is true. And you don't need every single scientist ever to confirm agreement either. The one out of a hundred scientists arguing against climate change really only help the credibility of the other 99.
Hey.
I think this is generally reasonable advice. Explaining something you are an expert at to a non-expert audience is usually extremely difficult and time-consuming (aka, teaching is a real job). That's true even when the people are actual students, who show up paying serious money for the privilege and ostensibly committed to listening hard. Threads aren't really like that, so I think it makes sense not to set that as your ambition.
I think more difficult cases are ones where there are several parallel conversations going on at different levels of understanding within a single thread. Then it can be frustrating to people at one level when they get crowded out, or perhaps harangued, by people at another. I'm not sure how to best handle that, aside from the rather bland idea that it's good to try to be permissive of what other people are up to.
I didn't mean to imply that it's a universal problem. Certainly there are many occasions where a fairly straight forward answer can be given in terms of a review paper or book chapter. But I think you starting from a position that arguments are generally about a single issue which seems unlikely to have an unanswerable solution.
Instead, I would argue there exists the additional problem that quite often in order to understand why one position is wrong and another is correct you need a bunch of background information/understanding. All of that background information then brings up further arguments since each time you assert a new fact/position it can be refuted. To the extent that it becomes fairly difficult to get back to your original point because you become bogged down in the details of trying to teach the entire history of a field, which can encompass many topics that are counter-intuitive. In a way, you can think of entire educations as one long argument with students on how/why things are the way the are.
Climate change was probably a poor choice in that it has seen so much scrutiny by layman it has necessitated large efforts to summarize/condense the general understanding of experts in the field. This is a rare case.
If the experts disagree, and the topic is approachable for the lay person, I see nothing wrong with the lay person debating an expert. That's the fastest way to learn more about it. Usual rules apply: try to practice humility and tolerance and be willing to change your mind. And know as the lay person you will sometimes say stupid things. Credit the expert with having thought about your objections before.
If the experts disagree and the topic is totally abstruse, it's probably not a discussion we should have on a forum of generalists. But we will anyway. In that case, good luck to all involved.
I also agree with Feral's definition of expert. There's a huge temptation on the internet to inflate your credentials. The undergraduate level is probably the point in life where you are most convinced you know more or less everything worth knowing about things you care about. Resist that conviction! One of the most important things about going to grad school isn't to know more, it's to realize how impossibly little you can ever know.
Man, writing this post has made me resolve to be a better human.