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
Posts
Do you _J_? Do you???
All joking aside, the parent post of this quote is very nearly what I was trying to congeal. I have some more thoughts about how we tend to view Science as like, an institution (especially in regards to current pop culture) but I need more time to process them and organize them.
Basically a lot of thoughts about this quote
I think this has a lot of implications for both layperson interpretation of "softer" "sciences" as well as layperson interpretation of Science with a capital S.
But I also think it is a useful thing to consider, and germane to the points made about the distinctions between soft and harder sciences, all the way down the line to things like literary criticism.
I'm kind of spinning again, sorry
Damn. Damn.
This is a hell of a postulate. In a good way, I mean. It really appeals to me personally and academically insofar as the current discussion is concerned.
English professors are wasting their time for reasons completely divorced from this discussion.
You know what I'm saying tho.
Everybody is going to have experts they disagree with just as a fact of having believed anything at all.
Take the law. Scalia has study the law his whole life. I would even say that he is much, much smarter than I am but I got no problem saying he is wrong about citizens united.
That...is a very good example. Imma borrow that. It is familiar, so students can relate to it. But it also illustrates one of the points of the moral / ethics expertise argument. Laypeople are very good at emoting. They are less equipped to articulate an argument to defend their position.
It also helps to explain the hard / soft science dilemma. Folks can emote about Psychology. It is much more difficult to emote about Engineering.
I was with you on this, because it is possible for interpretation to be wrong for the country but right as far as legality due to the way the rules are currently written. Most every non-corporation person thinks Citizens United was a really stupid decision as far as the ripple effects, but most lawyers I've met agree that it was the correct (or at very least valid) decision in the field of law.
This is where experts and non-experts draw lines though. It's easy to see when something is wrong or bad or otherwise flawed, that's something anyone can do. To untangle generations of jurisprudence leading to the environment where that decision passes requires greater knowledge and specialization. It's the same with things like the bank bailouts and other corporate welfare, easy to see it as wrong from the layman view but when you are looking at it from a long term international finance perspective it starts to make quite a bit of sense (even though it was both tragically avoidable and completely predictable to those who were paying any bit of attention).
I think the lay conception of science, and especially lay disdain for the softer sciences, is a product of a misunderstanding of the history of science. Science has not progressed by being unfailingly rigorous, because it couldn't--the problem is that we don't, in advance of actually stumbling around in the dark, have an understanding of what a well-formulated question is or what would count as a rigorous answer to one. Getting to the point where you can even pose a rigorous question or check for its answer is half the battle.
For just one example, itself from the paradigm 'hard science,' the development of physics from the 17th to 19th centuries relied heavily on infinitary mathematics. But infinitary mathematics was not rigorously formulated until the 20th century. In the early development of infinitary mathematics, inconsistent results were generated by seemingly equally-attractive 'proof' methods, and it required something like nebulous expert judgment to try to divine what was an 'acceptable' way to reason about e.g. infinite series. Nowadays, of course, we have first-order logic, set theory, and real analysis. But that only happened after three centuries of scientific progress in which we didn't.
So yeah, it's true in 'softer' science people have varying degrees of confusion about what their central concepts even are--what's a 'unit of selection?' --what's a 'cognitive process?' But so? That's part of the point. We need to work it out.
Hey, it's that thing I said people do.
...ok?
Much of what you're saying here reminds me of the discussion in the basilisk thread. You seemed to feel it was evident that severing the corpus callosum resulted in two minds, each hemisphere (roughly speaking) equivalent to a person who lost one hemisphere.
It is possible that I did not phrase my requests for edification on this point correctly, but your responses did not actually show (to me, anyway; it is also possible that I am missing something) that such an operation actually results in two minds.
You seemed, however, very certain that was the result, to the point where it felt like much of your views were based on the idea that a mind is divisible, not just malleable.
If you feel that your responses were sufficient to the point where I should have deferred to your expertise on the subject, all I can say is that from my perspective, you presented enough to show that it could be the case and then stated that it was the case.
I bring this up here because I really wasn't looking to "debate" this point; it seems not obvious to me, and I don't know how to go about verifying it. Did my posts about it come off as combative? Would additional requests for clarification on that certainty have been successful? Was I not communicating my request well? Am I lacking some other understanding of the subject that makes the point in question obvious?
I am curious as to how you would, I dunno, grade/critique that particular interaction based on your comments in this thread.
I don't know if it is that easy to see when something is wrong or bad or flawed. It may be easier than articulating exactly why it is wrong or bad or flawed, but spotting that shit in the first place might not be as easy as you seem to suggest.
Edit: Though on the other hand in ethics the undesirability of a theory is frequently attributed to how it doesn't line up with our intuitions on certain questions. But that is not about wrongness or badness since it could easily be that our intuitions are flawed.
Of course since I'm a mechanic I have to say that it's possible to have opinions about engineering without being
But even to take this view you are going to have to disagree with an expert, you know what I mean.
I guess that is the biggest thing when we are talking about differing to experts. When is it appropriate? (caus no one thinks it is always). Appropriate in a science thread? What if an ID guy came in, appropriate then? Or a movie thread? If someone started throwing around a degree in a book thread I would think them a jackass but why is it at all different?
I just don't know it there is a consistent way to do it other than be nice to everyone and enjoy yourself.
You're emoting without being able to actually provide a good justification.
It's not a compliment.
Also, I could not disagree more. People frequently can't see when something is bad or otherwise flawed. That's the problem. Being able to recognize when something is wrong doesn't require no training. It turns out to require a huge amount of education and training.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Of course, I think I'm right about all the stuff I said in that thread, and I stand by all the arguments I made, and it's true that there's more I could have said to you to try to convince you, but I didn't fail to do that simply because I think you ought to have deferred to me.
The main reason I didn't say enough to convince you is that it's very hard to talk about that topic: there's a sense in which I do think there are "two minds," according to the normal understanding of minds, but as I also pointed out in that thread, I don't think talking about "minds" or things like that in terms of things that can be counted makes sense. A more careful statement of my position is that there are no numbers of minds, just psychological states related in certain ways, some of which matter to us in certain ways. I think when the corpus callosum is severed there are psychological states related in different ways than before, because they sometimes cannot directly communicate, and that the practical implications of this are such that it makes sense (in an inaccurate, casual way) to talk about there being "two minds" sometimes.
But that's all sort of a side issue. The main point is that yeah, in that thread I was not an expert. That thread is irrelevant to what is going on in this thread and in the morality thread. Your posts did not come off as combative, additional requests for clarification would have been successful, you were communicating fine, and although I think you're lacking understanding, it's not understanding that makes the point obvious and it's also not understanding that it's easy to communicate or anything like that, and most importantly it's certainly not understanding I think you ought to have deferred to me about. It's understanding that, if anything, would come from the Nagel paper and from other psychological and philosophical sources. I'm not an expert to defer to on that topic. That thread was totally fine in every possible way, and with respect to the topic we are discussing in this thread it was A-OK. Nobody in that thread was failing to defer to expertise in ways that I think are helpful should someone desire to learn.
My mistake, you kept quoting me when you said stuff so I kinda felt like it was directed at me.
And again, anything you think I could do better at don't hesitate to say so. Always looking for tips.
When you clip out the context of the post, sure.
Else? Nah. Anyone can tell if something is wrong because they think it's wrong from their frame of reference. As mentioned in my post, that doesn't mean they are correct in terms of the technical details (which someone who is an expert could then explain). Most everyone thinks citizen's united is a bad ruling. Common feeling on the topic, even if misunderstanding the scope, purpose, and scale of the case, isn't invalidated by lack of information. If anything it is a stronger sign that there is something fundamentally unacceptable about the case to the lay public (in this case the perception of granting corporations "personhood" despite this distinction having been around since the early 1800s, but more specifically with the overall public perception of powerlessness compared to the corporate elite).
Lay opinions are entirely worth their weight in gold, if used in context. If I'm building a bridge I don't want to draft it up so based upon a survey of perceptions on what a bridge should look like, but I should pay attention if there are an overwhelming amount of lay opinions thinking the design of the bridge is wrong, unsafe, or otherwise unsatisfactory. Even if they are wrong on the technical details (say the bridge is totally sound structurally), the fact perception shows it as risky or dangerous tells you something is wrong with the design of the bridge concerning usability and understanding the target client.
Tis a great postulate that does an absurd amount of work. The question I have is why we maintain the idea. As good post-Darwin secularists, we have no God who built morality into the Natural Law. Humans do not come pre-loaded with a faculty of moral judgement, since we're all the retarded babies of some monkeys who had buttsex with retarded fish frog squirrels.
We abandoned the thing that guaranteed universal moral expertise, and yet we maintain the notion of universal moral expertise.
So, that's weird.
Must remain on topic. Gah losing control.
Edit: maybe we need a Protestant theology expert.
And once again, I and Socrates both think philosophy is a duty, an essential part of life. How can you tell me not to partake of it?
I understand his argument to be not "do not partake" but rather "recognize when your interlocutor has partaken more than you".
You seem to have a disdain for philosophy for not being science. Am I wrong? You understand the philosopher's stone was supposed to be a physical object, a scientific goal like cold fusion, despite the name?
Anyway, deciding falsifiability is important is a philosophical act.
As @_J_ points out, I also never said you ought not to partake of philosophy unless you can be an expert. I can't even figure out which of my posts gave you that impression, so probably it makes more sense for you to quote the thing that gave you the impression before I respond in any detail, because I'm not sure what form my response should take.
My rejoinder would he 'recognize when your interlocutor has partaken more ably than you.' Which applies, for example, to MrMr but not every philosophy related poster here.
And secondly that recognizing this doesn't mean I don't disagree with MrMr when I think he's wrong.
What is the use of deferring to authority, for me? What do I gain from it? I learn from disagreement. I didn't use to believe in utilitarianism and objective morality. Now I do. That is a direct result of arguing with him about it. I would have learned nothing by leaving my shitty arguments unsaid.
That only works if you've seen a point mass on a frictionless plane kind of object before.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I'm not sure what your point is then.
You asked why it is seen differently from science. I tried to answer that.
Maybe we have lost the wood in all these trees.
What is your question or postulate then?
This is how I would say what I think Tycho is saying: Be Charitable to 'experts'.
Disagreement is fine. Questions are fine. Arguing is fine. Assuming the 'expert' spouts nonsense is not fine.
When an 'expert' says something that does not make sense, assume the flaw is in yourself, rather than in what the 'expert' says. This is how discussion ought to occur anyway, regardless of who is the expert.
My question was why, when a scientist tells someone "it would help if you understood more about the theory you are attacking before attacking it, because right now your lack of understanding is causing you to provide bad objections that aren't helping you learn, whereas you would do better if you first focused on understanding the theory by asking questions that aren't overtly designed to attack the theory" do people tend to say "OK" whereas when a philosopher says it, literally anything else happens.
Your response is "scientists have instruments I don't have." This strikes me as kind of a bad response, because the sorts of things we are talking about are not based on experiments the scientists themselves have carried out. A scientist carries out a very limited number of experiments in their lifetime. The vast majority of what we know about science, and what you will learn by talking to a scientist, comes not from that scientist's own experiments but from something they read in a journal article once.
It seems to me to make little sense to trust a scientist about what is likely going to help you learn simply because they've read a journal article, and simultaneously mistrust a philosopher about what is likely going to help you learn simply because they've read a journal article.
That's a really neat fact, but I think that has more to do with the fact that almost all of Wikipedia will eventually all link to something else in Wikipedia. If I used your argument and I show a link between Philosophy and Anime, I could then claim that 94% of Wikipedia is based on Anime. An obviously disputable fact.
This is a tautological statement. Philosophy is defined as:
Which is such a broad definition as to be useless. It means everything is philosophy. You have to break things down into topics like "Philosophy of Science" or "Philosophy of Knowledge" in the same way that we have a "US Congress" thread and not just a "Government" or "People" thread. If you're too vague or overarching in your topic, you make it very difficult to have meaningful discussions.
There are a lot of reasons. This is the internet, nobody knows who is really an 'expert' and even what expert really means. We talked about the issue with 'professional philosopher' before.
Secondly science has a higher social status. Like it or lump it, that's going to affect discourse generally.
Thirdly, the definition of philosophy is contested. How much of a role does historical knowledge play compared to simple reasoning?
Fourthly, tone. The way you have talked about these issues of authority has been unappealing to me, personally.
There are more, but those are some answers to your questions.
so, do all "experts" agree on their specific area of expertise?
because if not, "i'm an expert" (regardless of topic of discussion) is essentially meaningless without further explanation.
ultimately, i don't care if you say you're an expert. i expect you to show me you're an expert.
edit:
some cases in point - @ronya laying the smack down in econ 101 type threads, or @MrMister posting in philosophy related discussions (even though i disagree with some of his points). these are folks who have built up a body of work, so if they come in and say: "ummm, no?" they're going to get a ton more credence than someone with whom i've had limited interaction (or someone with whom i've had plenty of interaction - and can reliably assume are talking out of their ass).
edit 2
and if you can't be bothered to show me you're an expert, or you don't have the time, etc...that's fine - but i'm going to be far more likely to assume you are an "internet expert" if that's the case.
If jumping in with two feet means 'not reading the thread'... go read the thread.
ehhh. you're right. this is all rehash of stuff others have posted.
Yes, I'm aware of that. As others noticed a was making a reference to how one of the greatest minds of any particular generation you think to name spent a very large chunk of his time running down a blind alley in a fever dream founded in over exposure to religion and mercury vapor.
The extent to which I look down on philosophy, is largely driven by my exposure to it here. Logical internally consistent arguments rigorously examined seems like a great thing to base things on.
The rapidity at which discussion, based in simple enough concepts seeking answers about say how one should behave, go off the rails into well the deeper reach of... and become so seemingly unable to generate an applicable result.
It deters one from giving much of a damn. This is too harsh though, and a reaction which is likely in no small part based in the reality of those arguing, 'shut up and get a masters in philosophy'(again harsh).
Largely I was attempting to comment on why many would find appeals to knowingly and infinity fallible scientific authority over philosophical points and authorities which have stood up to scrutiny no less severe for upwards of centuries and millennia(not to imply that it is a dead field, fields, bulk of meaning full human endeavor depending of how broadly you want to stretch definitions or anything).
Also Tycho gets up my craw a bit.
While we're at it, this democracy thing is also pretty weird. I say we give it the old heave-ho and try Plato's republic. Who's with me?
Actually, that link says 94% of articles lead back to philosophy when you repeatedly click on the first link in an article, so it is only true for philosophy (and reality, and existence, and awareness, and consciousness, and quality (philosophy), and then you loop back to philosophy).
As it turns out, even the most popular of all principles - falsifiability - doesn't really work all that well (in that the any particular test relies on bundles of auxiliary hypotheses and is radically incomplete (in that it lets huge amounts of things we don't like into the mix).
This leads to constuctivist theories of science which are universally awful. Which leads to the interesting question of how we appropriately deal with experts in say the SSK (Strong Sociology of Knowledge), deconstructionists and the rest of their ilk...
There are however two factors that I think need to be examined - the first is the "naive reading" which usually refers to commonly held beliefs or common reactions to particular problems. Usually, the naive reading captures a lot of interesting things about assumptions and what we want to preserve in some particular issue - but inevitably generates further problems or inconsistencies to be solved. They're the starting point for other more developed answers to particular issues. Most of the arguments rehearsed within the thread were naive readings of the issue of moral realism (or anti-realism) and the standard responses and criticisms to these naive positions. It is all too often the case within the forums (and life in general) that we're unwilling to retreat from some position and go back a step to earlier principles and define that of which we are talking or establish other factors - which I think was needed in this particular case (and probably, many others, it is my stalking horse). The arguments given against the anti-realist arguments were decisive but given we were not arguing from the same foundation it may not have been apparent - I find there's an unwillingness in everyone to stop asserting their position and to go back a level to establish a common foundation and that's something everyone needs to be willing to do - especially experts if they wish to have productive interactions with non-experts.
Secondly, I think there's often an under-appreciation for philosophical questions - both in terms of the "issues" and in terms of how particular arguments are constructed in order to interrogate particular factors. I've often watched in dismay as @_J_ carefully constructs an argument to interrogate some particular issue only to have it dismissed as "philosophical bullshit" or have objections on other terms. Or a hypothetical scenario being answered by disputing the hypothetical ("Imagine a machine that could perfectly predict X..." -> "There's no way that a machine could do that so...". This one is a lot harder to articulate a solution for, except for a willingness for all parties to slow down a thread and get to grips with exactly what the argument actually is.
tl;dr - We should (usually) defer to experts when they say
which is fine, really, given that we don't exactly have a profusion of experts on the philosophy of mind and identity to weigh in. reading in between the lines of snark, the thread was really about yudkowsky's motivations and political ethic so it made more sense to maek poast about that instead