Valuing scientific expertise

This is the second of two posts that go hand-in-hand. The first post is a brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. This second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know".  

You are not an expert (and neither am I) 

As Socrates is said to have said, wisdom is knowing that you don't know. A big part of critical thinking is intellectual humility. While it is possible to become an expert at something, it takes years and years of training in a discipline. Think about something that for you this applies to. Think about all the time, hard work, practice and dedication that it took to earn that expertise. Think about all the mistakes you learned from and the pitfalls you now know how to avoid, On that one thing you're probably pretty safe talking at length about all that you know. And when you meet other experts, they can easily recognise you know what you're doing or talking about. 

Now think about non-experts and novices trying to talk to you about it. How much credit do you give their views? Well, that's you (and me) when it comes to every other field of human endeavour. It's the ultimate form of arrogant overconfidence to assume your opinion on a subject that you don’t have expertise in has much, if any, merit. And when you dismiss expert consensus out-of-hand, by definition, your dismissal of something you know nothing about is worthless. In fact, it says everything about you and nothing about the experts or their view(s). Imagine a non-expert novice dismissing your views out of hand when discussing a subject you are an expert in? 

Scientific (and expert) consensus

A scientific consensus is more than scientists within a field being surveyed for their beliefs or tallying their views in research papers. It relates to what the researchers in a field are interested in studying and why. When there is a question to be answered or a problem to be solved, they'll be researching it and arguing about it; i.e. doing science. But when a question is answered to sufficient satisfaction, e.g. anthropogenic climate change, evolution by natural selection or the second law of thermodynamics, there is little or no incentive to keep researching this question — it's done. Scientists operate within well-established paradigms for a reason — they're well established based on the convergence of theory with data.

Thinking about thinking

This is the first of a planned two posts that I've been mulling over and sporadically writing notes to myself about over the last year or so. This first post is a very brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. The second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know". Both include a lot of links to further reading and learning if you're so inclined.  

Why?

Since the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the White House, and now with the coronavirus pandemic, I've noticed a lot of weird beliefs and thinking take hold across social media. Common to these groups is the idea that "the media" and other non-specific all-powerful groups or people (the "deep state", Bill Gates) are manipulating us with their "fake news", false narratives and sinister motives; that scientists and so-called "experts" can't be trusted. Unlike me, this new group of free and critical thinking peoples see the truth; the scales have fallen from their eyes (not that they are being manipulated by an authoritarian dictator and a disinformation campaign). I, on the other hand, as someone who tends to take experts and journalists who have a proven track record at face value, am one of the “sheeple”.

Arguing with people who have fallen down the YouTube and Facebook rabbit hole about their specific beliefs and claims is exhausting and likely to backfire. As such, I thought I'd take a different tack and discuss how I think about critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking, and the importance of valuing expertise. 

If I have sent you a link to this post, it's because I know I won't convince you about whatever it is we're disagreeing about. I'm not even going to try. Forget about whatever it was we were discussing as it’s not specific to what follows. What I hope to do is to show how I think about any claim, how I try to reflect on my own thinking (I'm not always successful), and in another post, why I think we should all value and respect expertise. 

Critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking

First, I think it's important to distinguish between the three different modes of thinking that to some degree we all use to come to a point of view — critical thinking, non-critical thinking (see Kahneman's slow and fast thinking) and pseudo-critical thinking.

Steven Novella on moon hoax conspiracy theorists

Steven Novella of SGU fame has a good post on the simple minded certitude of moon hoax conspiracy nuts and the predictability of their goalpost moving in light of the recent NASA images.

Million Dollar Challenge

No - not "the million dollar challenge". This is an "all kinds of crazy million dollar challenge:

"A man has stepped forward with a $1million reward in gold to challenge vaccine supporters, CDC and the government to justify promotion of vaccines over natural immunization by Bionaid™ & ZeoHeal™."

... The reward has been on the internet for almost a year, but vaccine and drug supporters have neglected to register for the million dollar reward being offered in raw gold. The gold is secreted away in several locations underground with billions of dollars in precious metals.

"...with billions of dollars..." Hmmm, I'm a little skeptical. You sound like a crazy person.

I can't believe I've never come across "Natural News" before. Wow...

Bimbos discuss the moon landing

I think this is called a "Google FAIL". A quick google would have answered Whoopi's ignorant questions.

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 20: Burden of Proof

The Burden of Proof fallacy is the entire "argument" employed in the advocacy of intelligent design - which is the first example we look at. I interview Sandra Quincey about her win in the retraction of the "Sex Magnet". How did she do this? By correctly employing the burden of proof. We also start a semi-new segment "spot that fallacy", based on the non sequiturist Jeni Barnett.

or listen

Powered by Podbean.com

The clip on Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity is from Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Sandra Quincey had a win over Century Mail and their "Sex Magnet".
















And here's the retraction they had to make.












Sandra did this through the Therapeutic Products Advertising Complaints Resolution Panel. Aussies aren't normally whingers, but this is certainly a noble exception! Here's Harriet Hall, the Skep Doc, on it.

Here's a link to a post on Bad Science that gives you links to the whole Jeni Barnett fiasco, our endless supply of humbug for "spot the fallacy".

Spooked911 moon landings not faked after all! But there is a secret moon base!

Readers of this blog may remember a few posts I did in 2006 on 9-11 conspiracy nut "Spooked911". Well, I thought I'd check up on him. One other "proof" he offers, that 9-11 was faked and is a government conspiracy, is based around his "challenge" to prove it's possible to fly a Boeing 767 into a building with no prior flight training in one. From the anti-conspiracy blog Screw Loose Change:

1) Obtain the Microsoft Flight Simulator Software and install it.

2) Learn to fly a Cessna 172 prop plane (if you already are a pilot, you can skip this).

3) Download and install the Boeing 767 plug-in, and take-off from Boston Logan airport.

4) Navigate to Manhattan as fast and efficiently as possible, then accelerate to 540 mph-- and on your FIRST ATTEMPT, fly perfectly through the middle of lower Manhattan, where the WTC used to be.

5) Let me know if you succeed.

If you DO succeed, also try a run taking off from Washington Dulles with a Boeing 757, going west for an hour, then turn around, and navigate to the Pentagon and try the "Hani Hanjour maneuver" (a 270 degree turn at 500 mph, then level off and approach the Pentagon on a flat approach, only a few feet off the ground.

Yet more ingenious WTF? logic from Spooked911. As per usual, he is an inspiration. I decided it is fair game to apply his reasoning to the faked Apollo moon landings (again). I couldn't believe it. I managed to land on the moon!

This was my first attempt too. Imagine how good I'd be if I trained for all the years the astronauts had. So contrary to my first experiment on landing on the moon, I've now realised it is possible to land on the moon. After all, a computer simulation is just like real life!
I then discovered there is a secret base on the moon! There is a cover-up after all! The beings that set it up must be alien; they were gibbering at me in some form of "alienease".

As far as the base goes - bloody goofy aliens. How the hell is anyone going to live in that? There's no furniture or anything!
I did manage to communicate in the end however, though it was still mostly pointless gibbering:

I also discovered that although the astronauts claim to have driven on the moon, I couldn't navigate my way over or around even the smallest crater in this tank.

Perhaps the aliens were controlling my mind and making me crash? After all, I wasn't wearing my ice cream container...

9-11 Conspiracy theorist - Part 2

I've already posted on 911 in Plane Site, but it's pure gold for a "fallacy finder" such as myself. In response to a review of the show by Gordon Farrer of The Age, the conspiracy theorist and delusional paranoid (note my continued Personal Abuse) Dave "The Dirty One" von Kleist, motivated, only by an insatiable need to become a famous country singer (note that I am Impugning his Motives) serves up a few more:

On our radio program, we have interviewed a two-star General, an Air Force Colonel (with 30 yrs. identifying aircraft ant aircraft parts), an Army Major, Air Force Major, a 33 yr. veteran of the DoD in missile defense systems, numerous Airline pilots including an instructor, and the United Airlines pilot who flew Flight 175 up to two months before 9/11 when he retired. They agree that a 757 could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon and that the planes that hit the towers could not have been commercial aircraft. That is their opinion not mine.

Now, how many of these "experts" have seen a 757 fly into a building before or after 9-11? None I'll wager. Yet somehow, by merely looking at photos, they can tell that it's impossible that a plane caused the damage? "Attributing Authority" to these people is fallacious for two reasons. False Attribution - as the sources The Dirty One cites aren't "experts" in the correct field, they are made up of people who are irrelevant (at best marginally relevant), unqualified, and unidentified (and for all we know - non-existent). (The correct "experts" I assume, would be from the fields of engineering, ballistics and demolition.) And two, Appeal to Authority - Dave does not explain why they hold this view, but merely presupposes their "eminence" will suffice as an argument.

The Dirty One continues:

What "experts" can you bring forth to support or justify your condemnation of the hard photographic evidence presented in the film? I would be most interested as to what your explanation would be in regard to the "pod" and the "flash" is. How do you explain the Pentagon photos and footage taken before the collapse of the "E" ring? I noticed (and so did many of your readers) that you didn't address any of these issues. In fact, you didn't address one issue, not one. I would challenge you to do so however, coward "journalists" usually throw their rocks, shoot their arrows and then run and hide. Prove me wrong.

Ah, the Burden of Proof fallacy. One of my "favs". Dave has no actual evidence for his case (like footage of a missile or eyewitness accounts), he merely makes spurious claims with selective use of videos and photos. So instead of making his own case with actual evidence, he says: "If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right." Well, lots of people have "proved you wrong".

The above link serves to demonstrate The Dirty One's Deck Stacking. All his claims are bogus. One example of a bogus claim is when Dave argues: "If it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, where's the wreckage?" To which he shows photos where wreckage can't be seen (and implies he has looked at all the photos there are). Well, here's one Dave! Oh, I see, you have seen it. Of course! The wreckage was planted… and the photo only came about months later? Question! Why would "they" wait to release a photo of "planted" evidence Dave?

I know a little physics, and I vaguely recall some terms - work and energy. Reminded of this I thought to myself, in order for a plane travelling at a high velocity (large Kinetic Energy) to come to a halt, something would have to do work on it (apply a force over a distance). If the force was relatively small (like the resistance from brakes and air), the distance would be quite large (say, at least the distance of a runway). With a bigger force (perhaps resistance from a building), the distance would be smaller (say, the distance to travel completely inside the aforementioned building). Given the plane travels inside the building, it's hardly a surprise that the wreckage of the plane is also in the building (for where else could it be?) which then, due to loss of structural integrity, collapses on top of the wreckage.

Dodgy Dave, in his "documentary", also likes to use eyewitness accounts. He only uses a couple to help his cause, but fails to quote the hundreds of other eyewitnesses. Yet more Stacking the Deck.

If you need any more evidence that Dave "The Dirty One" von Kleist is a liar - re-examine the photo of him. It was taken after a questioner asked Dave if he was taking any of these. Dave initially responded "No", but when he realised his "tell" (Pinocchio Syndrome) had given him away, he got all grumpy.

Update: Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths