ryan on Nostr: npub1ks4j7…dx88p determining who has great insight is only possible by other ...
npub1ks4j70qusuv7hnaqcrr3azks95fxjpz4sx29sy9h35z3vltwaunsmdx88p (npub1ks4…x88p)
determining who has great insight is only possible by other experts in the field.
This is wrong, and dangerously so. It is the antithesis of the scientific method. The kind of gatekeeping you imply here enables cancel culture, facilitates propaganda, and decreases the overall level of advancement in a society.
By deciding that knowledge in a field must be gatekept through recognized “experts”, you are detaching the merit of an idea from its scientific rigor, and instead attaching it to the set of credentials held by a human. No more is an idea evaluated by whether it is logically consistent or holds up under repeatable experimental conditions. Instead, the idea is evaluated only by whether “experts agree”. Experts who are human, and therefore fallible.
This alone represents a devastating blow to the truth, once you force science to be filtered through a lens of human biases, prejudices, and motives. But you’re also granting an extraordinary amount of power to whomever makes the decision as to who can or can’t be an “expert”.
A nefarious actor who wishes to co-opt an entire field of experts for their own personal propaganda machine needs only install their own puppets to the accreditation board. They can then grant or remove credentials based on ideology rather than science. Anyone who doesn’t get with the program finds their credentials stripped, along with their livelihoods. In short order, the entire field of experts is with the program.
Don’t believe this could happen? It has happened to multiple fields. In University teaching, Virolology (even drug dealing Medicine in general), and especially in Climatology. See also the large number of former “experts” in these fields who speak out only after they’ve retired, and no longer need bow to the accreditation board for their jobs.
It is largely for this reason that I am distrustful of the “experts” in many co-opted fields, and I am skeptical of any “expert” that comes from a field with a centralized accreditation system.
determining who has great insight is only possible by other experts in the field.
WRONG. All that is necessary is critical thinking skills, and enough knowledge to follow the logic and reproduce the procedure (that study did publish its full procedure, didn’t it?). Science is not a popularity contest. The truth is arrived at by logic, reason, and experimentation, not by consensus.
The scientific method continues to be the best tool we have for finding truth, and the very first step in that method is to QUESTION things. The moment you tell someone they are not allowed to question something (such as when you say something idiotic like “trust the experts”), you are not practicing science, but religion.
You often ascribe simplistic motivations to people you disagree with. “You believe this because Trump said it.” “You distrust this expert because you disagree with them”. I assume this is a coping mechanism for your cognitive dissonance, being on the wrong side of the Marxist Cult War.
My motivation is only the truth. I trust ideas that can be traced back to it. I distrust ideas that can be traced back to human ulterior motives. It is my superpower that I can see the difference, and my cross to bear that lesser minds think I’m crazy for doing so.
determining who has great insight is only possible by other experts in the field.
This is wrong, and dangerously so. It is the antithesis of the scientific method. The kind of gatekeeping you imply here enables cancel culture, facilitates propaganda, and decreases the overall level of advancement in a society.
By deciding that knowledge in a field must be gatekept through recognized “experts”, you are detaching the merit of an idea from its scientific rigor, and instead attaching it to the set of credentials held by a human. No more is an idea evaluated by whether it is logically consistent or holds up under repeatable experimental conditions. Instead, the idea is evaluated only by whether “experts agree”. Experts who are human, and therefore fallible.
This alone represents a devastating blow to the truth, once you force science to be filtered through a lens of human biases, prejudices, and motives. But you’re also granting an extraordinary amount of power to whomever makes the decision as to who can or can’t be an “expert”.
A nefarious actor who wishes to co-opt an entire field of experts for their own personal propaganda machine needs only install their own puppets to the accreditation board. They can then grant or remove credentials based on ideology rather than science. Anyone who doesn’t get with the program finds their credentials stripped, along with their livelihoods. In short order, the entire field of experts is with the program.
Don’t believe this could happen? It has happened to multiple fields. In University teaching, Virolology (even drug dealing Medicine in general), and especially in Climatology. See also the large number of former “experts” in these fields who speak out only after they’ve retired, and no longer need bow to the accreditation board for their jobs.
It is largely for this reason that I am distrustful of the “experts” in many co-opted fields, and I am skeptical of any “expert” that comes from a field with a centralized accreditation system.
determining who has great insight is only possible by other experts in the field.
WRONG. All that is necessary is critical thinking skills, and enough knowledge to follow the logic and reproduce the procedure (that study did publish its full procedure, didn’t it?). Science is not a popularity contest. The truth is arrived at by logic, reason, and experimentation, not by consensus.
The scientific method continues to be the best tool we have for finding truth, and the very first step in that method is to QUESTION things. The moment you tell someone they are not allowed to question something (such as when you say something idiotic like “trust the experts”), you are not practicing science, but religion.
You often ascribe simplistic motivations to people you disagree with. “You believe this because Trump said it.” “You distrust this expert because you disagree with them”. I assume this is a coping mechanism for your cognitive dissonance, being on the wrong side of the Marxist Cult War.
My motivation is only the truth. I trust ideas that can be traced back to it. I distrust ideas that can be traced back to human ulterior motives. It is my superpower that I can see the difference, and my cross to bear that lesser minds think I’m crazy for doing so.