Why we should be sceptical about experts

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > Last >>

Badger11 Beckenham 20 Sep 23 9.07am
Some people seem to have a lot of faith in experts others see conspiracy everywhere. On balance I think it is right to have a healthy scepticism about so called expert views. Exhibit 1 This is from the Mail but the BBC carried the story as well. [Link] So according to the experts connected to the now discredited Tavistock Clinic children who took puberty blockers did not suffer any significant mental health issues. Only the same data has since been reviewed and apparently they did. Exhibit 2 (no link) On LBC before Brexit Nick Ferrari interviewed an economics expert who had just published research that "proved" wages in this country had not been adversely impacted by large scale unskilled immigration. At the time the report was in all the papers and the expert on air told Nick that the idea that wages had been cut was just a myth. Nick was sceptical and started to question his methodology pointed out that he had spoken to lots of ordinary people on his show who disagreed with that POV. Nick felt the most obvious sector of the economy adversely impacted was construction* so how did that square with the experts findings. It turned out that the expert had not included construction in his model as he didn't feel it was relevant. Nick was flabbergasted and mentioned others areas which he felt had also been hit and lo the expert had not included those in his research either. Nick rightly got angry and accused the guy of selectively ignoring sectors of the economy most likely to be hit by large influxes of unskilled labour something the expert denied. Bottom line this research was at best naive at worst skewed to produce a predetermined outcome. *My mates who are builders were moaning to me about how their wages had been cut and jobs were going to Poles. Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 9.09am) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 20 Sep 23 9.07am

Some people seem to have a lot of faith in experts others see conspiracy everywhere.

On balance I think it is right to have a healthy scepticism about so called expert views.

Exhibit 1

This is from the Mail but the BBC carried the story as well.

[Link]

So according to the experts connected to the now discredited Tavistock Clinic children who took puberty blockers did not suffer any significant mental health issues.

Only the same data has since been reviewed and apparently they did.

Exhibit 2 (no link)

On LBC before Brexit Nick Ferrari interviewed an economics expert who had just published research that "proved" wages in this country had not been adversely impacted by large scale unskilled immigration. At the time the report was in all the papers and the expert on air told Nick that the idea that wages had been cut was just a myth.

Nick was sceptical and started to question his methodology pointed out that he had spoken to lots of ordinary people on his show who disagreed with that POV.

Nick felt the most obvious sector of the economy adversely impacted was construction* so how did that square with the experts findings.

It turned out that the expert had not included construction in his model as he didn't feel it was relevant. Nick was flabbergasted and mentioned others areas which he felt had also been hit and lo the expert had not included those in his research either.

Nick rightly got angry and accused the guy of selectively ignoring sectors of the economy most likely to be hit by large influxes of unskilled labour something the expert denied.

Bottom line this research was at best naive at worst skewed to produce a predetermined outcome.

*My mates who are builders were moaning to me about how their wages had been cut and jobs were going to Poles.

Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 9.09am)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 9.29am
What deserves scepticism is the use of the term “expert”! Some claim to be but without any justification other than their personal opinions. Others claim to be in areas where a great deal of controversy and no settled opinion on anything exists. Someone, or indeed everyone, is going to be wrong in such circumstances. There are though experts that have received training in well understood disciplines where generally settled opinions exists. These you can trust. You trust your doctor to do their best, given the existing knowledge. Knowledge that can always be updated after extensive research and peer review. You cannot trust quack doctors practicing pseudo science. They aren’t experts, though they might claim to be. Exactly the same applies in other areas. So there is danger in just being sceptical about experts because it encourages too much trust in non experts. It’s more nuanced than that. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Online

Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 9.29am

What deserves scepticism is the use of the term “expert”!

Some claim to be but without any justification other than their personal opinions.

Others claim to be in areas where a great deal of controversy and no settled opinion on anything exists. Someone, or indeed everyone, is going to be wrong in such circumstances.

There are though experts that have received training in well understood disciplines where generally settled opinions exists. These you can trust. You trust your doctor to do their best, given the existing knowledge. Knowledge that can always be updated after extensive research and peer review. You cannot trust quack doctors practicing pseudo science. They aren’t experts, though they might claim to be.

Exactly the same applies in other areas.

So there is danger in just being sceptical about experts because it encourages too much trust in non experts. It’s more nuanced than that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Sep 23 9.33am
Originally posted by Badger11 Some people seem to have a lot of faith in experts others see conspiracy everywhere. On balance I think it is right to have a healthy scepticism about so called expert views. Exhibit 1 This is from the Mail but the BBC carried the story as well. [Link] So according to the experts connected to the now discredited Tavistock Clinic children who took puberty blockers did not suffer any significant mental health issues. Only the same data has since been reviewed and apparently they did. Exhibit 2 (no link) On LBC before Brexit Nick Ferrari interviewed an economics expert who had just published research that "proved" wages in this country had not been adversely impacted by large scale unskilled immigration. At the time the report was in all the papers and the expert on air told Nick that the idea that wages had been cut was just a myth. Nick was sceptical and started to question his methodology pointed out that he had spoken to lots of ordinary people on his show who disagreed with that POV. Nick felt the most obvious sector of the economy adversely impacted was construction* so how did that square with the experts findings. It turned out that the expert had not included construction in his model as he didn't feel it was relevant. Nick was flabbergasted and mentioned others areas which he felt had also been hit and lo the expert had not included those in his research either. Nick rightly got angry and accused the guy of selectively ignoring sectors of the economy most likely to be hit by large influxes of unskilled labour something the expert denied. Bottom line this research was at best naive at worst skewed to produce a predetermined outcome. *My mates who are builders were moaning to me about how their wages had been cut and jobs were going to Poles. Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 9.09am) Really? My experience of tradesman over the last few years is that they charge far too much, often do shabby work and don't even turn up half the time after they have quoted a price because they have found a better job. They all seem extremely busy all the time, so they shouldn't complain too much.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Sep 23 9.33am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Badger11

Some people seem to have a lot of faith in experts others see conspiracy everywhere.

On balance I think it is right to have a healthy scepticism about so called expert views.

Exhibit 1

This is from the Mail but the BBC carried the story as well.

[Link]

So according to the experts connected to the now discredited Tavistock Clinic children who took puberty blockers did not suffer any significant mental health issues.

Only the same data has since been reviewed and apparently they did.

Exhibit 2 (no link)

Nick was sceptical and started to question his methodology pointed out that he had spoken to lots of ordinary people on his show who disagreed with that POV.

Nick felt the most obvious sector of the economy adversely impacted was construction* so how did that square with the experts findings.

Nick rightly got angry and accused the guy of selectively ignoring sectors of the economy most likely to be hit by large influxes of unskilled labour something the expert denied.

Bottom line this research was at best naive at worst skewed to produce a predetermined outcome.

*My mates who are builders were moaning to me about how their wages had been cut and jobs were going to Poles.

Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 9.09am)

Really?

My experience of tradesman over the last few years is that they charge far too much, often do shabby work and don't even turn up half the time after they have quoted a price because they have found a better job.
They all seem extremely busy all the time, so they shouldn't complain too much.

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 20 Sep 23 9.57am
To give testimony in court as an expert, you really have to have a CV as long as a book, pier accreditation, senior membership of X Y and Z professional bodies and generally be the world's most informed (and dullest) person on the subject of your choice. Your credentials will be extensively challenged on cross examination and your opinion will be picked apart to weaken your credibility. If there are any gaps or you are not the right fit for the subject matter, your opponent's expert will be preferred and your reputation and use as an expert thereafter diminished. The media do not apply such a rigorous test and frankly can't. They lack the resources, the expertise themselves or the adversarial system where one side has an expert who can undermine the other. However, if you listen to the Today Program, I don't recall anyone being selected to opine on a subject that did not appear to know their onions. The BBC are very careful. BTW, the spell checker on this site is bl00dy awful. Does anyone else have an issue or do you never make mistakes?
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 20 Sep 23 9.57am

To give testimony in court as an expert, you really have to have a CV as long as a book, pier accreditation, senior membership of X Y and Z professional bodies and generally be the world's most informed (and dullest) person on the subject of your choice.

Your credentials will be extensively challenged on cross examination and your opinion will be picked apart to weaken your credibility. If there are any gaps or you are not the right fit for the subject matter, your opponent's expert will be preferred and your reputation and use as an expert thereafter diminished.

The media do not apply such a rigorous test and frankly can't. They lack the resources, the expertise themselves or the adversarial system where one side has an expert who can undermine the other. However, if you listen to the Today Program, I don't recall anyone being selected to opine on a subject that did not appear to know their onions. The BBC are very careful.

BTW, the spell checker on this site is bl00dy awful. Does anyone else have an issue or do you never make mistakes?

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 20 Sep 23 10.01am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Really? My experience of tradesman over the last few years is that they charge far too much, often do shabby work and don't even turn up half the time after they have quoted a price because they have found a better job. They all seem extremely busy all the time, so they shouldn't complain too much. ...and if our builders provided a service like the Poles, they could charge more. People go to the Poles not just for the quality, but because they know they will start the job and - believe it or not - work till it is finished.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 20 Sep 23 10.01am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

...and if our builders provided a service like the Poles, they could charge more. People go to the Poles not just for the quality, but because they know they will start the job and - believe it or not - work till it is finished.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Sep 23 10.31am
Originally posted by silvertop ...and if our builders provided a service like the Poles, they could charge more. People go to the Poles not just for the quality, but because they know they will start the job and - believe it or not - work till it is finished. I had one Polish guy turn up for refurbishing our en suites and he didn't even bother to quote. Part of the problem is that a lot of these guys do a lot of work on large building sites these days, and that is generally done to a lower standard than you would expect as a private customer. They carry those bad habits with them. They also keep a few potential jobs handy for when they have an unexpected break in their schedule and keep you hanging with a load of excuses. I have not had any work done by Poles as yet, but I've never had a job done by anyone that I was entirely satisfied with. Plastering seems to be a dying art, and using tape measures and spirit level seems to be too much like hard work for some of them. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (20 Sep 2023 10.32am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Sep 23 10.31am

Originally posted by silvertop

I had one Polish guy turn up for refurbishing our en suites and he didn't even bother to quote.
Part of the problem is that a lot of these guys do a lot of work on large building sites these days, and that is generally done to a lower standard than you would expect as a private customer. They carry those bad habits with them.
They also keep a few potential jobs handy for when they have an unexpected break in their schedule and keep you hanging with a load of excuses.

I have not had any work done by Poles as yet, but I've never had a job done by anyone that I was entirely satisfied with.
Plastering seems to be a dying art, and using tape measures and spirit level seems to be too much like hard work for some of them.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (20 Sep 2023 10.32am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Sep 23 10.41am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle What deserves scepticism is the use of the term “expert”! Some claim to be but without any justification other than their personal opinions. Others claim to be in areas where a great deal of controversy and no settled opinion on anything exists. Someone, or indeed everyone, is going to be wrong in such circumstances. There are though experts that have received training in well understood disciplines where generally settled opinions exists. These you can trust. You trust your doctor to do their best, given the existing knowledge. Knowledge that can always be updated after extensive research and peer review. You cannot trust quack doctors practicing pseudo science. They aren’t experts, though they might claim to be. Exactly the same applies in other areas. So there is danger in just being sceptical about experts because it encourages too much trust in non experts. It’s more nuanced than that. I think the point is that the word 'expert' is used too loosely these days. The internet is full of 'experts' who talk nonsense. In the case of scientists, they do tend to follow trends and don't tend to be too enthusiastic about going against the grain. As usual, money talks the loudest. It is typically old school to believe in authority and anyone with a white lab coat on. Although it would be foolish not to listen to the learned, it would be equally foolish to accept everything they say as gospel. It has been shown too many times that science and authority cannot be entirely trusted.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Sep 23 10.41am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

What deserves scepticism is the use of the term “expert”!

Some claim to be but without any justification other than their personal opinions.

Others claim to be in areas where a great deal of controversy and no settled opinion on anything exists. Someone, or indeed everyone, is going to be wrong in such circumstances.

Exactly the same applies in other areas.

So there is danger in just being sceptical about experts because it encourages too much trust in non experts. It’s more nuanced than that.

I think the point is that the word 'expert' is used too loosely these days. The internet is full of 'experts' who talk nonsense.

In the case of scientists, they do tend to follow trends and don't tend to be too enthusiastic about going against the grain.

As usual, money talks the loudest.

It is typically old school to believe in authority and anyone with a white lab coat on.
Although it would be foolish not to listen to the learned, it would be equally foolish to accept everything they say as gospel.

It has been shown too many times that science and authority cannot be entirely trusted.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 20 Sep 23 10.55am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Really? My experience of tradesman over the last few years is that they charge far too much, often do shabby work and don't even turn up half the time after they have quoted a price because they have found a better job. They all seem extremely busy all the time, so they shouldn't complain too much. This was pre 2016, the Olympics was built by the Poles I didn't know a single construction worker who worked on it even though my mates were based in the Lewisham area a short journey from Greenwich and Stratford. I agree today is probably a different matter. Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 10.55am) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 20 Sep 23 10.55am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This was pre 2016, the Olympics was built by the Poles I didn't know a single construction worker who worked on it even though my mates were based in the Lewisham area a short journey from Greenwich and Stratford.

I agree today is probably a different matter.

Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 10.55am)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Sep 23 11.07am
Originally posted by silvertop To give testimony in court as an expert, you really have to have a CV as long as a book, pier accreditation, senior membership of X Y and Z professional bodies and generally be the world's most informed (and dullest) person on the subject of your choice. Your credentials will be extensively challenged on cross examination and your opinion will be picked apart to weaken your credibility. If there are any gaps or you are not the right fit for the subject matter, your opponent's expert will be preferred and your reputation and use as an expert thereafter diminished. The media do not apply such a rigorous test and frankly can't. They lack the resources, the expertise themselves or the adversarial system where one side has an expert who can undermine the other. However, if you listen to the Today Program, I don't recall anyone being selected to opine on a subject that did not appear to know their onions. The BBC are very careful. BTW, the spell checker on this site is bl00dy awful. Does anyone else have an issue or do you never make mistakes? The problem is with the word, 'expert' and with what people imbue the word with. It implies the person is going to be correct about what they are talking about. People are desperate for certainty and this often leads to an assumption that an 'expert' will be correct. Problem being that it's far easier to be an expert on a topic that involves no subjectivity like it is with the practical steps of fixing a problem with a car engine than it is on topics that involve impressions or interpretation of data. Your court case point shows up the inherent flaw here. History is replete with many cases where 'experts' are called from both sides of a contention.....'Experts' can often disagree. Not only does it show the reality that datasets can be viewed differently by highly experienced 'experts', but it also suggests the rather more unsettling reality that they can be bought as well. In the mainstream you only hear from the 'experts' that those owning the media outlets want you to hear from. Brand and others would point this out often. History is littered with wrong 'experts'. You can get people regarded as minnows whose contentions went against the grain of what was viewed as consensus being correct: Einstein for example. History is also littered with 'experts' who will bat for whatever regime is in place.....because it gains them status and income. It happened in Nazi Germany and it's also happening now....one example being the sexual mutilation of children who have gender dysphoria and/or autism. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 11.17am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Sep 23 11.07am

Originally posted by silvertop

BTW, the spell checker on this site is bl00dy awful. Does anyone else have an issue or do you never make mistakes?

The problem is with the word, 'expert' and with what people imbue the word with.

It implies the person is going to be correct about what they are talking about. People are desperate for certainty and this often leads to an assumption that an 'expert' will be correct.

Problem being that it's far easier to be an expert on a topic that involves no subjectivity like it is with the practical steps of fixing a problem with a car engine than it is on topics that involve impressions or interpretation of data.

Your court case point shows up the inherent flaw here. History is replete with many cases where 'experts' are called from both sides of a contention.....'Experts' can often disagree.

Not only does it show the reality that datasets can be viewed differently by highly experienced 'experts', but it also suggests the rather more unsettling reality that they can be bought as well.

In the mainstream you only hear from the 'experts' that those owning the media outlets want you to hear from. Brand and others would point this out often.

History is littered with wrong 'experts'. You can get people regarded as minnows whose contentions went against the grain of what was viewed as consensus being correct: Einstein for example.

History is also littered with 'experts' who will bat for whatever regime is in place.....because it gains them status and income. It happened in Nazi Germany and it's also happening now....one example being the sexual mutilation of children who have gender dysphoria and/or autism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 11.17am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 20 Sep 23 11.46am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The problem is with the word, 'expert' and with what people imbue the word with. It implies the person is going to be correct about what they are talking about. People are desperate for certainty and this often leads to an assumption that an 'expert' will be correct. Problem being that it's far easier to be an expert on a topic that involves no subjectivity like it is with the practical steps of fixing a problem with a car engine than it is on topics that involve impressions or interpretation of data. Your court case point shows up the inherent flaw here. History is replete with many cases where 'experts' are called from both sides of a contention.....'Experts' can often disagree. Not only does it show the reality that datasets can be viewed differently by highly experienced 'experts', but it also suggests the rather more unsettling reality that they can be bought as well. In the mainstream you only hear from the 'experts' that those owning the media outlets want you to hear from. Brand and others would point this out often. History is littered with wrong 'experts'. You can get people regarded as minnows whose contentions went against the grain of what was viewed as consensus being correct: Einstein for example. History is also littered with 'experts' who will bat for whatever regime is in place.....because it gains them status and income. It happened in Nazi Germany and it's also happening now....one example being the sexual mutilation of children who have gender dysphoria and/or autism. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 11.17am) Exactly. We had forensic experts in the seventies and eighties and based on their testimony people were wrongly convicted. Doctors in the seventies were removing kids tonsils as this was the establishment group think. I was the only one in my primary school class who still had theirs. A healthy dose of scepticism is not a bad thing. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 20 Sep 23 11.46am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The problem is with the word, 'expert' and with what people imbue the word with.

It implies the person is going to be correct about what they are talking about. People are desperate for certainty and this often leads to an assumption that an 'expert' will be correct.

Your court case point shows up the inherent flaw here. History is replete with many cases where 'experts' are called from both sides of a contention.....'Experts' can often disagree.

Not only does it show the reality that datasets can be viewed differently by highly experienced 'experts', but it also suggests the rather more unsettling reality that they can be bought as well.

In the mainstream you only hear from the 'experts' that those owning the media outlets want you to hear from. Brand and others would point this out often.

History is littered with wrong 'experts'. You can get people regarded as minnows whose contentions went against the grain of what was viewed as consensus being correct: Einstein for example.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 11.17am)

Exactly. We had forensic experts in the seventies and eighties and based on their testimony people were wrongly convicted.

Doctors in the seventies were removing kids tonsils as this was the establishment group think. I was the only one in my primary school class who still had theirs.

A healthy dose of scepticism is not a bad thing.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov Online 20 Sep 23 9.12pm
Economists are my bestest 'Experts'. Better off going to a fun-fair and crossing some old Hedgehog eaters palm with silver than listen to that bunch of charlatans. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov Online

20 Sep 23 9.12pm