OhMyYoureSexxy
116612
3294
55
Experts
Jul 19, 2021 7:00 AM
OhMyYoureSexxy
116612
3294
55
Denim777
i mean, i have tried to understand the foundations of religion in itself, without ever reading the babble or the karen. you'd be surprised.
Insomnia297
Hold your opinions loosely, folks. We only pretend to know that we actually exist just to make it through the day.
LollipopKid
I don't think the issue is people think they know more but that they distrust experts.
ConnectToReality
Do 1: I digest new information and grow as a person (hard), or 2: feel insulted by having my ignorance exposed (easy)?
LaffertyDanie1
Pluto's a fucking planet bitch
WebElite
Those people wouldn't even understand this sentence ..
Urgalicity
What if they can't explain why they agree?
RideTheStimutacs
If your theory isn't peer-reviewed, it's probably bullshit.
VagisilToothpaste
Yeah, I get that, but the ppl this is aimed at don't know what common sense and/or reason is.
PulpyOJ
SteveTheEgg
I personally do my own research, but trying directly to disprove my own belief, I have yet to be right about anything nonfood related.
hotdoginathermos
bigby4sheriff
Dunning Krueger effect en masse
ruferto
that said, if you're an expert - by all means, get your work peer reviewed and published
AJ2071
This assumes the person it's aimed at isn't stupid and has a mental capacity bigger than a bag of sand though.
jackhunterjones4
IWasACatAllAlong
But... I still want the nano machines in my vaccine. What if i choose to believe?
Shoutrr
that require intelligence to do
Sinfel69
It basically comes down to trust in authority figures being at an all time low.
ToonamiT0M
But that would hurt the fragile feelings of snowflake conservatives.
thedrpriest
Experts once said there was nothing wrong with smoking, even though they new it would kill you. Experts said there’s no global warming.
IOnlyNeedOneBall
The shit you don't know could fill books others have ACTUALLY read.
stickywiggit
Note: DO NOT TRUST NEWS AGENCIES TO GIVE ACCURATE SCIENCE. They are not scientists and the headline is nearly always clickbait garbage.
stickywiggit
One local news quoted a quack Dr instead of scientists bc what he had to say was more interesting. Dead wrong, but they got more clicks.
stickywiggit
Story got picked up by other news agencies and it was a stupid circus. I was on the "expert" side and I'm still really salty about it.
warrenwoodworks8888
Please pick experts that actually having education, training, and experience in whatever topic is being discussed. Not tv personalities...
AtLeastOneKeeshondPictureEveryWeek
Yep. Look up the CRAP test.
OlderWiser
Xenarion
Well, those aren't experts.
otamolot
They're paid actors from Hollywood, of course they're experts.
ShutUpAndLurk
And remember that Donald Trump is a tv personality first and foremost
kmikl
He's a real estate scammer. Remember he refused to rent to jews, blacks, hispanics, and evicted grannies in rent-control apts in the 80's?
aflarge
You shouldn't be receiving your opinions directly from experts, you should be listening to them so you understand what they're talking about
Xenarion
That too, but most people won't fully understand the complex parts.
aflarge
They shouldn't be encouraged to agree with ANYONE until they do understand. That's how you get shit like antivaxers and climate deniers.
aflarge
If anyone "agrees" with something they know they don't understand, they're a liar as far as I'm concerned.
aflarge
Even if the person they agreed with turned out to be right. Their accuracy was IRRELEVANT to the agreement and they get no points for luck.
ThatRaccoonGuy
To be fair, the experts used to regard homosexuality as a terrible mental illness to be cured. But note: Science accepts new info over time.
Copperbrat
This. For decades fossil fuel industry-employed scientists were the go-to "experts" on climate change. A consensus should include a wide 1/
Copperbrat
range of actual experts. Not just those hired to pump the propaganda machine. 2/2
cheesedogs
It's like watching a NFL quarterback throw an interception. It's a mistake, bit it doesn't mean we replace him with a bus driver.
seedye
The important part: experts in the field did the work to prove themselves wrong and changed the consensus. It wasn’t armchair scientists.
GabbiTheSwedishNerdGirl
Depending on the experts. Look at what Hirschfeld was doing in the early 20th century.
bacter
Yeah, this statement is incomplete. If you're an outsider disagreeing with the entire establishment, GET MORE PROOF. Not everybody will
bacter
accept it, even in science, even with overwhelming evidence, but you get evidence on your side, and you'll get experts agreeing with you.
SmolTenk
Its so weird reading about the political backlash to that scientific stance a few decades ago. Things never truly change.
Crazycoke1994
I mean by that logic religious zealots believed science was witch craft and was against God's teachings... times change.
Akurei00
Exactly. There was a lot of science that was eventually proven wrong. Bloodletting. Lobotomy. Frenology. Peer review is important.
Metalbawkses
Unlike my aunt jennifer
FarkasMacTavish
*cough*Freud*cough*
AmArschdieRaeuber
Freud never tested his theories empirically, so respected scientists today are way more trustworthy.
KonamiHatchiborii
An even simpler example, read about Joseph Lister
erischilde
The only surgery with a 300 percent mortality rate?
justarocknroller
The problem is that as with any conspiracy devotee, they've usually got a delusional answer for that, too
Saker82
Normally it's just "So they got to you too." or "THEY are covering up the evidence."
Solonariwan
Yes, I've found that they are so enamored with their idea of a conspiracy that they just won't listen to silly things like facts and reason
justarocknroller
What amuses me most is when they claim their bullshit is "science"
MadHakon
Two problems with this meme. Ignorant people often assume the experts DO know better, but they are corrupt, lying for some personal gain.
wiilyc22
2 ex: eggs, plastic, recycling, etc. Now people don’t trust anyone. Because of the money train. Time and time again it’s happened.
wiilyc22
1 “Ignorant”- you are negating the growing body of evidence of experts from the 70’s- 90’s that spread mass i formation for personal gain
wiilyc22
3 Doesn’t make it right, but it’s a problem that continues.
MadHakon
And the second is that an appeal to authority argument isn't a great argument without any substance as evidence from that authority.
LordNergal
Also... Sometimes, the people who are not experts are actually right. It's incredibly rare, though.
morelikeconsham
An appeal to authority is only a fallacy in the strong sense (vaccines are good for you because my doctor says so) - an appeal to a
morelikeconsham
(Relevant) authority is a sound argument when used in the weak sense (I should get a vaccine because my doctor says they are good for me).
morelikeconsham
You are *not* supposed to have an educated opinion in all matters. That is impossible and defies the very purpose of the division of labor.
LordNergal
You also need just enough education to realize when the experts are just talking out their ass. For example, my doctor actually opposed 1/
MadHakon
Your reading comprehension sucks. What does evidence from that authority mean? Explain it out to me.
morelikeconsham
My reading comprehension apparently does suck, as your question is so illegible I am not sure how to answer it.
morelikeconsham
That said, to take a shot in the dark at answering it, only an idiot demands evidence from their doctor to prove vaccines are safe.
MadHakon
Well here, let me explain it out to you. If my original comment is "authority cannot be used as a sound argument without evidence that...
LonSuder
Everyone's the hero of their own personal narrative. As such, I can understand why people think that. I just don't understand the hubris.
starhewn
Yeah, it's a weird power fantasy thing, centering them as the plucky heroes fighting the 'system'. I hope someone studies this 'thing' more.
paintingagency
Once I realized I'm pretty much nobody, it was liberating.
LonSuder
Right?! People talk about feeling overwhelming nihilism when faced with an uncaring universe. I feel relief!
Voojagig
DonnerVarg
I need a number and it would be nice if you just included the alt text
kmikl
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=XKCD+fire+insurance
Kamishiro
https://xkcd.com/1494/
KismetCrew
In response to the alt text, I've had to show ID at several airports and have it verified against the airline tags on the luggage.
ThatCynicalHandsomeGuy
Friend does mortgages. The number of people who ask him if they can just change crucial details on their applications to get better terms...
ThatCynicalHandsomeGuy
"What if I just say it's my primary residence, then?" That's a crime, Bob, so please don't. "I make a lot more than I declare on taxes" uhhh
chunkypoultry
Serious question: What if the experts disagree?
VaultGirl69
This is generally rare, especially with things the public is interested in. Experts disagree on archaeology frequently. No one cares.
KidKarless
Have an opinion, admit its just an opinion, and be ready to potentially change it once experts reach agreement. Maybe even help research it!
KidKarless
You can study sciences, help fund research, help raise awareness, or reseach it yourself. Ametures have made scientific breakthroughs before
UnitConversionBotButTerrible
Consider who is funding those experts.
morelikeconsham
Then you have no hope of having an intelligent opinion on the matter
DeltaLaw
More research is then needed. This is an important point because idiots will say scientists were wrong about x or y. Scientists never
DeltaLaw
Said they knew x or y, they said "hey look this indicates that x is true within this study let's look at it further."
bochikiniki
They find exactly where or why they disagree, clarify what evidence there is to support their point, and agree to disagree till new evidence
bochikiniki
It happens more often than not in medicine, but, from my experience, it's usually a disagree on how to value each risk and each reward
aflarge
Hear them out and see what makes the most sense. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.
aflarge
The value of an expert is not "they tell me what to believe so I will", it's "they should know this shit well enough to explain it"
TheWorldAccordingToAtlas
Side with the cute one.
celtspartan
Congrats, you're wrong in multiple different ways.
mobius100
Sometimes it's fair to pick a side, but a good rule of thumb is three (or more) credible sources agreeing
Jarilye
You'll find there's usually a clear majority, with a small number of vocal outliers with something to gain by their stance. Be critical.
ministerm
Then you get a super smackdown fight like the Bone Wars. Great for the spectator!
IronChefBoyardee
This makes me wonder (legitimately curious): Are there any scientific questions/issues are there where experts are close to 50/50 split?
roblewisjr101
Examine the raw data.
DrKonrad
Then even more the reason for not believing whatever side you prefer
MiHaleEsSuHale
Than look for a majority consensus.
JustAnotherVictimOfAmbientMorality
Usually, responsible experts will mention that currently there is no consensus. But "insufficient data" still =/= "my brainfart is true"
eggmuffin
Then this applies doubly. If not even the professionals know, then some yahoo isn't likely to have sofa—pondered their way to the truth.
mcharend
Absolutely-this should have gotten way more upvotes.
saboten13
Then you’re still fucking wrong because you’re not an expert and they all know various things you don’t lol
Christonabike101
First discard the experts who work for BP, Exxon, Mobil, tobacco companies and the GOP.
PiercingSight
And the DNC because ANY political backing is a massive conflict of interests.
GrosseChung
Look up "the scientific method", when experts follow this process it usually will promote the best or most correct ideas
PragmaticPrimate
Always check who is called an expert. Science is highly specialized . E.g. an engineers opinion on climate science is completely useless
PragmaticPrimate
... even someone with a degree in medicine might not know much about the spread of viruses if that's not his speciality
kmikl
A doctor of biology will likely not be a useful source when the topic of discussion is virology or epidemiology.
retrogradebrain
Depends on what the disagreement is. "Scientists disagree on climate change" is TECHNICALLY true. But the disagreement is a matter of 1/
retrogradebrain
Fractions of degrees at what time, not the underlying cause or ultimate outcome if nothing changes. Pop press rarely expresses that.
michaeloberg
"we are now confused at a different level about more important things"
JesusStoleMyWeed
Happens all the time. That's what science is, proving which theory is right
MattJeffery
every time we hear about an alleged "expert" spouting bullshit they turn out to be idiots, paid shills, frauds, or simply projecting their
MattJeffery
personal expertise where it does not belong, like an osteopath injecting desperate cancer patients with bleach. or they're just plain wrong.
SheepySleepySmuggler
Find out what they disagree on - often they agree broadly on the evidence but disagree on the response. As the responses have...
SheepySleepySmuggler
... different social/economic/environmental/human costs, differing groups support each response. But the underlying science is....
SheepySleepySmuggler
...widely accepted. I.e. climate change
JackalopeElope
Look for conflicting interest. If the author of "Too Many Vaccines at Once" just happens to be selling individual vaccines: well that's sus.
FBKatB3tadotcom1
Also look for paid studys. Research funded by the corp or manufacturer giving skewed results.
Lynkfox
Lack teaching cursive stunts education study was funded by the pencil industry, for exanple... sus.
Youhavinagiraffe
Not a great example since Mr Andrew Wakefield was never even an expert in vaccination. He was a gut surgeon going against the experts
Eli93
And yet he managed to do more harm than should be possible. I partially blame the journal for allowing that garbage "study" at all.
Kamishiro
Journals rarely, if ever, screen studies/papers before publishing. Publishing is just part of the process. After publication, peer review »
Kamishiro
« begins. The bigger problem is the media scooping newly-published studies, and creating eye-catching headlines before peer reviews can »
Youhavinagiraffe
The majority of the blame should go to news media rather than the journal itself. As an exploratory study it was fine (until it was later...
Youhavinagiraffe
...discovered to be largely fabricated obviously) but it was journalist's credulity and blind repetition of the speculative parts...
JackalopeElope
Also remember that 24hour news has a bad history of putting experts and dumbasses on equal footing. Screentime=/=credentials.
greentights
A lot of them are ads. You can literally pay a few thousand to be on air, get the tape, & replay that everywhere. John Oliver did one recent
Eldibs
Also, make sure their expertise is in a relevant field. An expert in quantum physics is not the person to ask about virology.
SmellingMistake
Plus a lot of the time their "experts" aren't really experts on the subjects being discussed.
CulturallyEmbiggened
Yeah. And never underestimate how many people actually watch poison like Doctor Oz for "expert analysis" on many Science topics.
GooseWhoGames
So like. Dr ooze? Poisonous dr oz
xjsxjs
Seriously. Check credentials. “I’m a medical professional” does not mean anything. People that change bedpans at a retirement say that.
xjsxjs
*retirement home
stickywiggit
Look for the core people, the ones who are true specialists. Some might be stuck on a pet idea but most know the topic best. 1/2
stickywiggit
Also pay close attention to who funds their research. Science isn't perfectly impartial when money is involved. Govt research is good 2/2
stickywiggit
Govt research has it's problems but commercial research is ultimately about selling a product. At least the govt has to share all docs.
stickywiggit
Academic research is also usually good but some people have massive egos and push theories they should have dropped. Still worth trusting.
TheRealBrebby
I mean Bill Nye and Ken Ham disagree with each other. They're both experts technically. Ken Ham is still fuckin stupid tho
TheMouseOfMadness
nullbr
I never laughed at Bozo the clown
JCBalance
But it's Bozo's job to be laughed at. It's hard to come up with a good example for his point because those kinds of people are forgettable.
m4dm4n
They laughed at me. And sure enough, I fucked it all up.
Ajax1184
He should have switched Bozo in Columbus, Columbus was a real idiot.
Kuvajainen
Big difference if they're laughing about new ideas or about nonsense proven wrong. Also, fuck Columbus, he should just be forgotten!
TheArrestingAbhorrentArrantAbominableAlliterator
Remember, Columbus wasn't made a national hero because of his exploits. It was done to stem anti-Italian racism in the 19th century.
Kuvajainen
For example: Anti-vaxxers won't prove to be secret geniuses even if they're laughed at!
ErectileFunction
Depends on how many disagree. Big difference between 1% and 50%.
mercyPandaRunner
Another common mistake (looking at you climate change deniers) is the difference between 97% of scientists and 97% of research results - >
mercyPandaRunner
being in agreement. People often claim that 97% of scientists agree. Really it's 97% of published papers on the topic conclude that - >
mercyPandaRunner
anthropogenic climate change is real. Opinions=/=data based research results.
Excludos
"experts disagree", yes, one out of every 100. Very much disagreement
kakivara
That was the climate change debate, but Fox would have still 2 people debate the issue.
Excludos
Yepp! Exactly the core issue of it
mercyPandaRunner
Also a difference between "Experts agree to 99%" and "research results agree 99%". The disagreeing "experts" often have little to back it up
SmolTenk
quick onset gender dysphoria anyone?
TheMouseOfMadness
Yeah the thing they always fuck up with that is just because *you're* finding out about it now doesn't mean it's not been there for years
ErectileFunction
What
HiddenSanity
It's a scientific paper that didn't hold up to peer review but did hold up to transphobe review. It talks about how many people were 1/
HiddenSanity
'suddenly trans', but it doesn't actually look at trans people, just asks their parents and relations if they saw any signs and takes 2/
SmolTenk
Its a scientific paper that often gets held up as "proof" that experts dont agree on trans children. Ignoring that its a single paper, >
SmolTenk
supported by a single researcher, which was absolutely trashed in peer review over how badly done the research was. Pointing that out >
Insomnia297
People often claim "experts disagree" when they really don't. For example, 98% of scientists in a related field agree that climate change is
Insomnia297
occuring and caused by humans. It would be absurd to include materials scientists or microbiologists in that count because their field is
Insomnia297
totally unrelated, but many people who want to make a point are often willing to twist the truth to accomplish that goal.
munchmunchmunch
I rarely see them disagree to extremes, just understanding that there is a certain level of certainty in science. Some scientists are more
munchmunchmunch
conservative than others (“out of an abundance of caution jargon) because nothing can be proved with absolute certainty when it’s new.
munchmunchmunch
Certain level of uncertainty** in science
Sidewaysgts
If they disagree, is it really a consensus?
Sidewaysgts
The answer is no. A consensus by definition IS a general agreement. If experts are still arguing/disagreeing- a consensus hasnt been reached
TheArrestingAbhorrentArrantAbominableAlliterator
Most experts will highlight the disagreement saying something like "There is insufficient evidence to..." Fake experts will say (1/2)
TheArrestingAbhorrentArrantAbominableAlliterator
"Since there is diasagreement, it is possible that I'm equally as right." One acknowledges the gap in evidence. The other uses it.
Sidewaysgts
I agree. But. If there’s a large disagreement, then there isn’t a “consensus”. A consensus, by definition, is a general agreement.
TheArrestingAbhorrentArrantAbominableAlliterator
There is a quantative difference between "if they disagree" and "a large disagreement". Feels like you're intentionally moving goal posts
Sidewaysgts
Moving goal posts? We’re talking about the literal definition of “consensus”. A consensus by nature implies that they largely agree.
Kuvajainen
Then you look for biases in their work. It should always be peer-reviewed research without a corporate funding and self interests. If the/
tehStickMan
Ah, yes, so an armchair non-expert just needs to check technical literature to assess if experts have biases.
Kuvajainen
Source criticism should indeed be part of the skillset of every single adult who knows how to read, yes. No way around it.
Kuvajainen
Research is paid by some big corporation and it favours the corporation and benefits it it's very likely biased and untrustworthy source/
Kuvajainen
Material. If the expert is a strong advocate of some belief and does a research paper about an issue in favour of that belief it's likely/
Kuvajainen
Biased and peer review will deem it worthless. These kind of papers usually use faulty methods like cherry picking the data in favour of/
Kuvajainen
Supporting the wanted hypothesis or over exaggerating the correlation or simply just falsified data. Always look for possible biases!
OhMyYoureSexxy
Then they gather more data until they reach a consensus.
RetroRicki
*Serious question: So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light?
Bridgiebird
Yes! Thank you someone with an actual procedure of how to process data and come to a conclusion based on evidence.
ForgeGoremann
Are there 10 dimensions or 11? The debate goes on, where do you stand?
OhMyYoureSexxy
The fifth dimension
awesomespeler
Those scientist bastards disrespected Pluto with alll of their “con”sens”us”
Nizox
Consensus... A rare thing to find these days sadly. ?
ArtisZ
In society that's always been true, however in science we are knowledgeable than ever.
danielsjack4227
Well ackchually...
Brettkeen
And science progresses
NorthmanoftheNorth
And most importantly, the losing argument is discarded.
Neoeon
*Recorded so we know A. What's wrong, and B. A conclusion that was made and that people may not know is wrong.
NorthmanoftheNorth
Yes, what I meant was that the losing argument isn't seen as a valid explanation of what is really going on. Where's the edit button?
ifoundthelight
The cool thing about consensus is it could be wrong and you could be right. Such as the early days of smoking is safe, or the earth is flat.
User3rr0r37
Exactly! Consensus doesn't mean correct.
valinnut
That has been the problem with issues like the pandemic - there is no time. We needed to make decisions fast and side with one or the other.
IronicDancing
No, we don't need to "side with one or the other", that mentality is why American politics is in shambles. Err on the side of caution 1/2
IronicDancing
until you have a convincing reason to believe you're being excessive. CoVID would be dealt with by now if people hadn't taken sides. 2/2
derekjohn
A key piece of advice: 'The ideal is the enemy of the good'. A good solution now, is much more useful than ideal one that doesn't arrive.
threepotatoesinatrenchcoat
Or somewhere in between. I wish there were longitudinal studies on vaccine effects, but went ahead and got the shot despite misgivings.
SuperIncoherentRantingMan
Under that example, sure, but plenty of other science can easily get the time they need for proper research.
KuldFyt
Most of these cases in the pandemic were easily sorted by precautionary principal- i.e. there was expert disagreement on the efficacy 1/
KuldFyt
of x, but no real experts arguing that x did harm, and doing x turned out to be sensible. In cases where experts were warning that x did 2/
KuldFyt
cause harm (like bleach injections), doing x turned out to be a bad plan. While the research side was definitely in a scramble from the 3/
MiHaleEsSuHale
Not really though, public health has been politicized to the point that running on a platform of misinformstion and fringe opinion as means
MiHaleEsSuHale
Of rallying constituents. No true expert in the field is pushing against the majority without an agenda.
MiHaleEsSuHale
I'll also add that not a single one of the most qualified experts ON THE PLANET thinks that basic precautions like mask wearing and 1/2
SheepySleepySmuggler
I think we need to distinguish between the "right answer" and best possible answer at the time. During this pandemic we...
SheepySleepySmuggler
... haven't necessarily had the "right answers" and likely still do not, but we have had adequate answers that quickly....
SheepySleepySmuggler
... improve with more information. I.e. pandemics spread via social interaction and minimising this slows the pandemic.
valinnut
That said there has never been a inject bleach side.
Kuvajainen
And the anti-masker and anti-vaxxer side is not that much of a scientific side.
AManisNotACamel
In this case, It’s morons vs science.
imgal76
Also, review and evaluate the research. Rely more on research using rigorous methodology. Consider the funding.
LordNergal
Also, if it's quoted by a news agency, hunt down the paper itself and read the bias testing and conclusion. If you do this enough, you'll 1/
LordNergal
quickly notice there are some serious societal problems that we have no reliable data on at all because the studies keep failing bias 2/
LordNergal
testing. It's rather eye-opening. 3/3