Accepting experts conclusions on faith

[progressiveman1]

First, I want to point out that I don't want to be intellectually lazy, but I also acknowledge that I can't be an expert in a lot of fields. I spend almost all my energy focusing on my CPL, which leaves very minimal energy to advance my knowledge in other subjects.

The main question of this thread is: Without knowledge on a topic, is it sometimes useful to accept experts on faith? When I say "experts" I mean personally known people that have proven in the past that they are rational. For an example, I will use Objectivists as the "experts" and global warming as the topic. Personally, I have very mininal knowledge on the topic of global warming, but I know from several previous topics that Objectivists are consistently rational with their conclusions. I know that the Objectivist position on global warming is that humans don't significantly contribute to this event. I don't know the details on why they have come to this conclusion though.

Is it dangerous to oneself if he accepts conclusions from experts in this fashion? Is there a better way to figure out the truth that doesn't involve a highly developed amount of knowledge on a topic?

[DavidOdden]

The main question of this thread is: Without knowledge on a topic, is it sometimes useful to accept experts on faith?

No, given what that means. It means that you "just do", and don't have a reason. It is okay to accept an opinion for a reason, but not "just because".

When I say "experts" I mean personally known people that have proven in the past that they are rational.

Well, that's not faith, that's a reason. Although I could quibble with you on whether it's a good enough reason. For example, it is well known that I am extremely rational; but I am not thereby an expert on the Qin dynasty. Being an expert in an area also requires having specialized knowledge in the area.

For an example, I will use Objectivists as the "experts" and global warming as the topic.

You shouldn't rely on Objectivists as experts on global warming just because of their adherence to Objectivism. If you want an expert on fungal stuff, ask Monica; if you want an expert in IP law, ask Adam Mosoff. I can testify on matters regarding Bantu tone. The fundamental question that you should ask is, is this person objectively integrating the facts, and considering all of the relevant facts, to reach a conclusion? Or (1) are they ignorant of significant facts or (2) are their conclusions suspect because they have a political prejudice that prejudices them to overstate the importance of supporting data and understate the problem of counterexamples?

Unfortunately, there is no independent board that certifies people as non-whacko. Global warming is the worst, because the scientific foundation for drawing any conclusions one way or the other is thin (note the typical disparity between projected weather for the day and the actual weather). If you have an opportunity to interact with the expert and ask questions, the answers that you get can often tell you whether the dude is an idealogue.

[noumenalself]

On a separate thread, I recently addressed the same issue you raise here. In short, reliable testimony is simply not the same thing as faith. See here.

Now as regards global warming. First of all, I take issue with your point about the "Objectivist position" on global warming. There is no Objectivist position on global warming. It is a scientific, not a philosophic issue. True, many Objectivists are skeptical about global warming claims, and perhaps they have good reason for this. However I hope that their skepticism issues from a.) expertise of their own concerning climate science, or b.) reliance on the testimony of experts on climate science.

I myself think that aspects of the global warming hypothesis are harder to dismiss than some Objectivists seem to think. The fact that said warming exists, for instance. The question of its cause is obviously more contentious. On the question of whether it exists, I think this is something we can reasonably defer to the judgment of the scientific consensus, as it is less likely to be influenced by ideological biases than, say, questions about the causes of GW and questions about solutions to it.

Edited March 11, 2008 by noumenalself

[progressiveman1]

The fundamental question that you should ask is, is this person objectively integrating the facts, and considering all of the relevant facts, to reach a conclusion? Or (1) are they ignorant of significant facts

How do I determine if the expert is objectively integrating all of the relevant facts with his conclusion? Doesn't that require a substantial amount of knowledge from me on the topic?

[DavidOdden]

How do I determine if the expert is objectively integrating all of the relevant facts with his conclusion? Doesn't that require a substantial amount of knowledge from me on the topic?

I understand that you're looking for a user's guide. There is no magic bullet or secret handshake or other method for separating the wheat from the chaff. In certain areas that I know well, I have a substantive reason to accept the statements of X, Y and Z and be skeptical about P and Q. In some new area of inquiry, I will have to develop that ability to evaluate. What persuades me more than anything else is a demonstrated skill at reducing the question to unquestionable concretes. I don't think you need a substantial amount of knowledge on the specific topic, but you do need an ability to dissect a question, and yuo have to ask about counterexamples.

On the global warming question, to pick a concrete example, I would suggest simply trying to determine whether there is global warming (and totally ignoring the question of why it happens if it does). Before you can do that, you have actually figure out what that means. As a matter of fact, there has been global cooling, not global warming -- if you pick the right time window. Ask your global-warming expert to simply define what "global warming" means, and then ask him to explain why he thinks it's a fact. The answer is not "It's a self-evident scientific fact" or "Studies have shown...". (You will recall an exchange regarding cholesterol back when there was that NYT article on cascade effects in science reporting, a few months ago. I demanded that you find actual studies and evaluate the science). His responses should be full of concrete factual information about how one goes about determining this fact, if it is one. This will probably involve a study in Journal of Geophysical Research (doi:10.1029/2005JD006548, 2006). My non-expert opinion is that it establishes a real trend of increasing temperature over the past century, that is, it isn't just measurement errors. I don't think that article is super-difficult (I admit that so far I've just skimmed through it) and it's not obvious quackery. You expert ought to be able to explain in detail what this study says (if they have the patience to give you a free tutorial).

But basically, in order to evaluate a caim, you have to have knowledge. If you don't have the time or inclination to get that knowledge, then you should remain agnostic.

[progressiveman1]

Yeah, you may be right that a person can't be completely ignorant on the topic to determine who is a legit expert. But let me clarify how the "Objectivist position" can be useful to a layman just looking for a general answer, and let me know if you see a problem with this method. And when I say the "Objectivist position" I am referring to the top Objectivists(at the ARI) because the ARI wouldn't allow an unskilled Objectivist to go on record for them.

When an Objectivist tries to figure out the truth, he understands that evidence is the necessary componet of an argument. And since I understand that Objectivists at the ARI approach arguments in this way, I figure they will do as good of a job as me on topics that they cover. So when it's an accepted position at the ARI that humans don't contribute significantly to global warming then I take that to mean they extensively researched the topic and applied their skilled ability to logic to their conclusion. And this is why I think the "Objectivist position" can be a very useful tool to a layman; because their job and developed skill deals with reason and logic. But, of course, the ARI doesn't investigate every topic, so the method you describe above would be useful at that point.

(You will recall an exchange regarding cholesterol back when there was that NYT article on cascade effects in science reporting, a few months ago. I demanded that you find actual studies and evaluate the science).

Yes, that was a very important lesson you taught me.