From pandemic missteps to economic forecasts gone wrong, the public’s trust in experts is crumbling. But the term ‘expert’ itself may lead to unearned trust.
It seems me that these definitions could be honed further. For instance, during my 25-year career in Internet technology, I collaborated with many people who had expertise in, say, data encryption or software release processes. They weren't interacting with the physical world, but they were definitely practitioners whose output was a solved problem, not some kind of theory, recommendation, or report. Indeed, a lot of what I did was write protocol specifications (see https://stpeter.im/tech/ for examples), which programmers used to write conformant code that solved a problem - I was still acting as an expert, but not exactly as a practitioner in some senses of the word...
Trying to persuade vs trying to control (violence).
An airline pilot is using his expertise to persuade me to fly his airline, which I can freely choose whether or not I want to do.
A public health official in trying to force me to remain at home, close my school, be fired if I don't get a vaccine, etc.
Since they are using control (violence) the bar for evidence is really really high. Much higher than it is for persuasion.
Using control (violence) is usually a sign of being an activist rather than an analyst, but in both cases the evidence involved usually doesn't reach the level of certainty necessary to justify control.
Moreover, models don't have values. A model might (highly imperfectly) determine if school closures might save lives, but it doesn't tell us if it's WORTH closing schools to save lives. "Trust the experts" people don't just want us to trust their models, but accept their values.
Thanks for this helpful analysis. (h/t Arnold Kling at https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/economists-and-dentists btw)
thanks for sharing that...it was a great read!
It seems me that these definitions could be honed further. For instance, during my 25-year career in Internet technology, I collaborated with many people who had expertise in, say, data encryption or software release processes. They weren't interacting with the physical world, but they were definitely practitioners whose output was a solved problem, not some kind of theory, recommendation, or report. Indeed, a lot of what I did was write protocol specifications (see https://stpeter.im/tech/ for examples), which programmers used to write conformant code that solved a problem - I was still acting as an expert, but not exactly as a practitioner in some senses of the word...
Thanks, Mark, for another compelling story.
Mark Burgess
Trying to persuade vs trying to control (violence).
An airline pilot is using his expertise to persuade me to fly his airline, which I can freely choose whether or not I want to do.
A public health official in trying to force me to remain at home, close my school, be fired if I don't get a vaccine, etc.
Since they are using control (violence) the bar for evidence is really really high. Much higher than it is for persuasion.
Using control (violence) is usually a sign of being an activist rather than an analyst, but in both cases the evidence involved usually doesn't reach the level of certainty necessary to justify control.
Moreover, models don't have values. A model might (highly imperfectly) determine if school closures might save lives, but it doesn't tell us if it's WORTH closing schools to save lives. "Trust the experts" people don't just want us to trust their models, but accept their values.