|
Post by Glom on Jun 8, 2005 19:44:32 GMT -4
We know that people toffed up to the nines with relevent credentials can talk crap, while people who are not officially qualified can be very intelligent and insightful of technical issues. Official expertise doesn't make someone an expert. Knowledge and understanding. I've been having problems on another forum with perceived expertise. The specific discussion is here and the big stuff begins around reply 70. I attempted to present evidence to this Joni character disputing the global warming paradigm. A few issues were chewed over in detail, but other were ignored and Joni seems to have taken to dismissing me on the basis of not being a practising climatologist myself. But the evidence I present is sourced from people more expert than me. If my ignorance and inexperience has gotten the better of me, then it should be easy to present arguments that demonstrate that. The attempts at flaunting credentials rather than evidence seems like argument by intimidation. I should believe him because the alleged majority say so and not because they can present a convincing case to me. I should essentially fall into line. My dilemma is this. It has made me observe in certain discussions with HBers, a tendency to flaunt credentials and that smacks of this same argument by intimidation. Of course, the HBer arguments are indeed false, and I can clearly see that, but it strikes me that the refutation should be made by showing that the argument is false through fact and reason rather than saying that they should fall in line because they are outgunned. Of course, fact and reason are used, but this of course renders the flaunting of credentials somewhat redundant. So, apart from it being invalid, there is little purpose in doing it. So, we really shouldn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 8, 2005 19:58:11 GMT -4
In discussions involving specialized knowledge, the question often arises, "How do you know that?" I know about certain principles of science and engineering because it's my job to do that. These are not commonly-known principles.
Expertise is not the trump card, especially when a factual argument can be made. But expertise is nevertheless occasionally the only card that can be played. How do I know about tooling in aerospace? Because that's part of my job. Someone who says it's "suspicious" that we can't immediately push a button and roll off another Saturn V is making an appeal to expertise, whether he realizes it or not. We can certainly offer factual responses detailing the conventions of aerospace manufacturing, but that is an expression of expertise. How do I know that? Because it's my job. That's how I know the conventions of aerospace manufacturing don't make it "suspicious" not to be able to immediately resurrect old designs.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jun 8, 2005 20:41:08 GMT -4
I guess after some rather insulting brush offs by Joni, I'm questioning certain things. I suppose the problem isn't really with the arguments made here, but whether or not I'm acting like the HBer. I think what I need to know is am I wrong to maintain my argument, which is based on factual data and the work of real experts, in the face of Joni's insistence that today's statement by various institutions (which don't represent unanimity BTW) should be enough to convince me of the legitimacy of the paradigm and to fall in line despite not having the specific issues addressed?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 9, 2005 5:33:23 GMT -4
You could ask this Joni how these institutions reached their conclusions, and remind that scientific facts are not determined by popularity or fashion, but by repeated testing. Is there any valid reason to doubt the expertise or the conclusion of the people you refer to? You should insist that he provide references to the relevant source he uses to support his position, so that you -- and other -- can check them out.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jun 9, 2005 10:40:16 GMT -4
Joni is appearing less lucid now. What started as relatively subtle has become a much more focused and open attempt to dismiss all opponents because they are apparently all greedy oil barons etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 9, 2005 13:07:19 GMT -4
We know that people toffed up to the nines with relevent credentials can talk crap...
Last week I interviewed an individual for a job. He passed our recruiter's initial screening. His cover letter said he was almost finished with his PhD work at a well-known university.
In the interview, however, I struggled to find a relevant subtopic on which this candidate could express any actual expertise. In terms of actually useful knowledge, this candidate was empty. We parted cordially, but I was less cordial with the recruiter.
...while people who are not officially qualified can be very intelligent and insightful of technical issues.
Again from personal experience: the head of mechanical engineering in my own company. He does not have a degree in mechanical engineering, yet he understands it at an expert level. In addition to engineering our products and earning patents, he spends his free time building NASCAR racers. Building racing powerplants and drivelines requires a fair amount of engineering skill.
Despite his lack of formal credentials, I would have no problem regarding him as a highly-qualified expert in mechanical engineering.
My theater is now the proud owner of a fly rig (a contraption used to hoist actors over the performance area to simulate flight or levitation) that was conceived, designed, built, and tested by our own scenic designer. It is a masterpiece of engineering, built by someone who does not have an engineering degree.
I have no formal qualifications in music or theater or film. That doesn't stop me from having played the Mormon Tabernacle organ, or from having conducted several local choirs and orchestras, or from having performed on nearly every stage in the three counties comprising my metropolitan area, etc. The proof of expertise is in the demonstration of it, which is why poor Vittorio won't ever have the credibility he seems to want.
Granted, a degree or a license or a certification is supposed to be an attestation of having made a certain demonstration according to objective standards. Unfortunately I've seen people sneak through college, getting the diploma and little else. I tend to regard professional certifications as somewhat more rigorous. I have yet to see someone fake his way through the professional engineer certification exams.
But the evidence I present is sourced from people more expert than me.
As is proper. We all require the expertise of others in order to live our lives.
If my ignorance and inexperience has gotten the better of me, then it should be easy to present arguments that demonstrate that.
Exactly. An expert ought to be able to explain why others are wrong rather than simply to express an opinion that they are. Even laymen can be given some impression or insight of any legitimate difference of opinion that rages within some discipline. Or if a layman has erred in interpreting expert discussion, a factual correction can be offered.
...it strikes me that the refutation should be made by showing that the argument is false through fact and reason rather than saying that they should fall in line because they are outgunned.
That's certainly what I try to do. Or even by counterexample.
Consider Dr. John Costella's old argument that the shadow of Armstrong in the photos he took from the rim of West Crater can't possibly have been created by natural geometry and standard optics. His argument was simply that he was a professor of physics and that his word should be sufficient on that point.
Ironically this would be considered misapplied expertise, because the strength of expertise in physics lies in the ability to construct an objective proof. We can grant, say, to historians or to other professions in which objective proof is elusive, the privilege of standing on their laurels. But there is a natural limit to the strength of any conclusion that can be drawn in those fields. However in physics, where correlation to the natural world is a matter of rigor, an objective proof ought to be possible.
Our approach could be one of three.
First, we can simply produce an expert who disagrees. This is the typical means of refuting expert testimony. In court, the plaintiff's expert testifies and then the defendant's expert testifies. Presumably they reach different conclusions, and the jury is asked to decide which of the two is more credible. I don't happen to hold a PhD in physics, although I certainly know a fair amount about it.
That leads us to the second approach. Present a well-reasoned objective argument that shows the "expert" at least to appear to be in error. Unfortunately -- especially in the case of pretended or misapplied expertise -- the expert's response is typically to "dig in". That takes several forms. He can either dismiss the proof as not having come from an expert (regardless of its correctness). This is what Costella did. Or he can offer a handwaving explanation, or a "snow job" of irrelevant but impressive-sounding crap. He can soften his position just enough to seem to allow for the rebuttal without materially changing his mind.
Thus often the third approach is the best: provide a counterexample. This is essentially an objective proof as described above provided with evidence of the proof''s correctness. At the very least it shows that the expert's assertion must have exceptions. And this is what we did with Costella. Any yutz with a camera can duplicate the photo Costella says is impossible, and his degrees do not alter that fact.
Of course, fact and reason are used, but this of course renders the flaunting of credentials somewhat redundant.
But as I said before, the employment of fact and reason in a specialized debate is often, or can often be, made subordinate to expertise (pretended or real). One who constructs a proof in, say, climatology, can be said to have constructed it improperly because he is not a climatologist. Whether that objection is true is less relevant than whether it is credible. It often is.
David Percy is a photographer. But I am also a photographer. When I say that the reseau fiducials are bled away, I do that from a sound empirical standpoint -- I did the experiment myself. But I also say it from a sound theoretical standpoint in that I understand the photochemistry of photography and how that translates to the behavior of film under exposure to light.
Ultimately if people hear something coming from an expert, they want to hear a refutation coming from someone with equal or greater expertise. Otherwise there's always the nagging doubt that "somehow" the layman got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jun 9, 2005 20:00:41 GMT -4
Alas it's over now. The thread has been locked. I really dug myself in deep there. It's made me question a lots about the legitimacy of my position. There is no questioning that Joni didn't provide any refutation of the scientific arguments I made. There was some discussion about some points (mostly models) but I didn't feel that they properly addressed the issue.
But it has made me wonder if I'm being an HBer. While theoretically, the presence of a perceived consensus (real or imagined) does not invalidate my points, I have to wonder about the veracity of my points. They are based on the reading of work of climate sceptics, which Joni alleges are crackpots who can only post stuff on the internet and not get their work published in prestigious journals. Theoretically, that doesn't make them wrong of course, but I have ask if maybe he has a point that if they were more credible, they'd get more recognition.
I started this thread to discuss argument by intimidation, which Joni obviously attempted to use. Am I bowing in the face of intimidation like a weak kneed fool or was I foolish HBer in the first place to listen to claims of scientists who the media and political classes have attempted to marginalise?
BTW, I think the fact that I ask these questions at least shows that I try to be open minded about when I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 9, 2005 22:33:38 GMT -4
But it has made me wonder if I'm being an HBer.
One aspect of your argument that I suspected was not going to be easily received was the aspect that served to cast doubt on global warming theories by pointing out ambiguities, inconsistencies, and procedural errors. That is not necessarily your fault. That very well may be the state of those theories as they presently stand. But an argument that muddies the waters will not be as convincing as one that strives to clear them.
We see HBers muddy the waters all the time. The latest classic example is from star who, in effect, says: "One guy says the earth is the center of the solar system; another guy says the sun is." Star's agenda is not to offer a theory that better sheds light on a matter, but to swiftly clear away the objections raised here so that his beliefs can stand by default: "Therefore, I am going to dismiss all of science with the wave of my hand and let the geniuses Jack White and Sam Colby stand as my intellectual masters."
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jun 11, 2005 2:00:16 GMT -4
Looking at JayUtah's example, we then get situations where, for say paranoia from company laywers, people who know the job and are just as experienced as JayUtah's head of mechanical engineering, are given the bullet or denied promotion because they do not have the right piece of paper. After all, someone with a degree must be better because they have a degree, and we want to say our [insert job title] has a [insert piece of paper] so we must be OK The UK Civil Service is like this, as far as I can tell, because they have a Fast Stream, career path for Honours Graduates. This means a University kid who got say a 2:1 can become the boss over someone like JayUtah's Looking at JayUtah's example, we then get situations where, for say paranoia from company laywers, people who know the job and are just as experienced as JayUtah's head of mechanical engineering.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jun 18, 2005 21:19:08 GMT -4
But it has made me wonder if I'm being an HBer.One aspect of your argument that I suspected was not going to be easily received was the aspect that served to cast doubt on global warming theories by pointing out ambiguities, inconsistencies, and procedural errors. That is not necessarily your fault. That very well may be the state of those theories as they presently stand. But an argument that muddies the waters will not be as convincing as one that strives to clear them. We see HBers muddy the waters all the time. The latest classic example is from star who, in effect, says: "One guy says the earth is the center of the solar system; another guy says the sun is." Star's agenda is not to offer a theory that better sheds light on a matter, but to swiftly clear away the objections raised here so that his beliefs can stand by default: "Therefore, I am going to dismiss all of science with the wave of my hand and let the geniuses Jack White and Sam Colby stand as my intellectual masters." It's not necessary to prove a converse to disprove a proposition. If we find serious problems with a proposition, we can logically say that there is not sufficient grounds to consider the proposition proved, especially to a point where we apparently need to take urgent action.
|
|