The thing with the things we don't know

[WhenArguing]

We rely on expert opinion from day one. Quite literally, if we think that none of us actually "knows" when he or she has been born, but rather "trusts the (written) word of the ones that were there". We do this all the time. Every time we Google something. And sometimes it's the right thing to do; it simply cannot be altogether fallacious to listen to experts. In fact, if we give the word "expert" a large enough definition, it could be made to comprise anything that is not an immediate experience. However, some experts are good and some experts are bad. Some experts are appropriate for our inquiry, some are not. Some may be sincere, some may be not. Some may be plain-speaking yet unaware of their lack of skill or knowledge. So there certainly is an ideal of reasonableness which some appeals to expert opinion observe, some others don't. The question of how to sketch such an ideal is not the concern of this topic.

The point I want to raise regards the laypersons' "tactics" of assessing expert opinions. How do we know, in real-life circumstances, that the expert is knowledgeable, sincere, legitimate or trustworthy? I think it is rather obvious that a straightforward answer such as "logic" simply won't do. We may be professors of predicate logic and take the wrong medications prescribed by an irresponsible doctor. We may be entrepreneurs hiring an expert firm which does not get the job right and so on. How do we choose which experts to credit, the unbiased and righteous ones? But more importantly, how could we assess this choice and improve it?

The thing is, we don't. As strange as it sounds, in reality we do not assess our experts. We do not "verify" the day we were born (at least not farther than other reports, or reports about reports), just as we do not usually assess the logic of doctors (as experts in logic as we may ourselves be). Being laypersons in that particular field in which we need an expert's opinion, all we are left with it's tactics. Little things that help us examine credibility generally. For instance we can look for common-sense indicators, or insofar as our ability to understand permits, try to pose critical questions. Some other tactics are available. For example, we can create a bond between us and the experts, offering them incentives to fulfil their task. We can appeal to third parties or see the expert's past records.

The question is which one is the most efficient? Since we usually trust experts on significant problems such as medical or legal problems, how should we behave in such instances? How is one being skeptical around experts?

PS: I thought of these things while writing this

[Drop Bear]

My position is that of the Greek sceptics.IE: We can never truly 'know' anything. Hence it was said of classical sceptics;

In classical philosophy, skepticism (or scepticism) is the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scepticism

I accept many things as implicitly true,in the sense of they make sense to me and seem to work as claimed; EG gravity, electricity,radio and TV, germ theory,the micro chip,the internet.

An atheist as well as a skeptic,I have no problem admitting I don't know the answer to most questions. Whether I even try to find an answer depends on interest,impact on my life and what if anything I can reasonably do with the information.

Of course there are exceptions; areas of scholarly interest,such as Social Anthropology,history,and politics-and a love a discourse.

[Janot]

I think you have identified a real problem in society, a problem which is made far worse by the internet. I have only recently realised that most people take all information to have the same value, with no assessment of the quality of the source. The opinion of a bloke met in the pub who has a brother with similar symptoms to theirs has exactly the same value as an opinion information given by an experienced doctor. The internet levels the value of a source so that everybody' opinion looks to have the same weight. How can you assess the source?

[Harryprice]

In my early life I believed stuff I found in books and newspapers pretty much without question, which is what most people appear to do. However, experience has led me to question those sources. Now I try to verify anything crucial to me with multiple sources. The internet certainly helps with this.

The rule seems to be, if a subject attracts controversial ideas then DON'T go for the most popular books or the top of the search list on Google. You'll need to do your own research and dig up hard evidence, ideally from credible sources (like scientific research).

[Croydon Bob]

In my early life I believed stuff I found in books and newspapers pretty much without question, which is what most people appear to do.

Yup. that's how I acquired my interest in UFOs, ghosts, etc. But like most of us on this forum I grew out treating everything with equal weight.

One of the interesting things about the people who seem to treat all info equally is that they often don't do it when things get serious. A friend-of-a-friend that I used to know didn't "believe" in conventional medicine, she believed that you could cure yourself with positive thinking, etc, blah. When she broke her arm she dialed 999 and went off to A&E without even realising the contradiction. I find it fascinating that their default instinctive position is actually more logical and sceptical than their everyday position.

The question is which one is the most efficient? Since we usually trust experts on significant problems such as medical or legal problems, how should we behave in such instances? How is one being skeptical around experts?

I'm sceptical of expert opinions, but am I going to do better on average if I listen to my doctor and follow her advice? Or if I ignore the medical expert and drink some magic water instead? My inability to assess the merits of advice given by an expert doesn't mean that I've abandoned scepticism, just that I can only use it to a limited degree.

If my lawyer tells me I need to sign certain documents I will look at them first and consider the information available to me. He made be a crook who is misleading me but the odds are against that and there would be measures that can be taken later to redress the situation.

If I have been lied to about my date of birth, does it really matter? It's possible but unlikely and makes no real difference to me.

[Janot]

In my early life I believed stuff I found in books and newspapers pretty much without question, which is what most people appear to do.

So did I, in fact the printed word was The Truth. Until one day, when I was around 10, the local newspaper ran a headline article about our family about being marooned in snowdrifts and starving to death, and it was all sensationalist b*ll*xs. Books were different, well, you would not write a book if you weren't an expert, would you? Wrong again.

[Admin]

There is a sort of hierarchy of trustworthiness when it comes to the source of information: from scientific consensus through to 'the bloke in the pub'. Of course, no source of information can be considered 100% foolproof.

However, I have noticed (mainly on the internet) that there is indeed a 'don't trust' or 'question' all authority attitude. Skeptics may find that refreshing but the solutions people come up with aren't (IMO).

The attitude seems to be: don't trust what you're told by anyone. Instead, find out for yourself.

Fair enough, I think most skeptics would say that's a good idea but skeptics would then be in search of the best evidence available from a scientific source (if possible).

What others tend to do, however, with this 'find out for yourself' idea is that they read around until they find something that suits what they want to believe and then consider it as authoritative.

There's also a sort of 'appeal to vanity' with this idea of 'find out for yourself' as it casts the individual as someone who can know better than the experts and sift through evidence accepting or rejecting whatever they want based on what they want to find. It's like, "Ignore the evidence and think for yourself (even though you have no expertise whatsoever)." i.e. if you want to know whether homeopathy really works, forget Cochrane reviews and the science and try it for yourself - if you conclude it works then science is obviously wrong.

So if we think of skepticism as 'doubt and inquiry' then many people are good at the 'doubt' bit but the crucial component of inquiry is where people lack real skepticism.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

We rely on expert opinion from day one. Quite literally, if we think that none of us actually "knows" when he or she has been born, but rather "trusts the (written) word of the ones that were there".

I wonder whether this example is well chosen. The information on your birth certificate is trustworthy to the extent that the non-experts concerned can be trusted to have followed well-established procedures. The midwife may be expert, but there's no great skill to noting a birth and passing the information on.

[Jules]

Recently my stepfather had a medical problem which his doctor was having trouble diagnosing. After various tests drew a blank, he resorted to reading medical articles on the web and was able to identify the symptoms as being associated with an under-active thyroid, which was later confirmed by his doctor.

In this internet age it's very easy to get a second opinion. You still don't know whether the experts have got it right, but surely it's easier to decide if there are a number of opinions to choose from and broad consensus (meaning a weight of evidence).

Of course, it means that critical thinking is more important than ever. 30 years ago we were much more limited in our access to specialised knowledge, now it's just a click away. If you haven't learned how to discriminate, or assess what counts as evidence and what doesn't, if you think that "all opinions are equal", then this plethora of experts could be more of a burden than an opportunity.

[smudge]

So did I, in fact the printed word was The Truth. Until one day, when I was around 10, the local newspaper ran a headline article about our family about being marooned in snowdrifts and starving to death, and it was all sensationalist b*ll*xs. Books were different, well, you would not write a book if you weren't an expert, would you? Wrong again.

Me too. Two things contributed to a change in my thinking. One was being written about in the local rag, no truth was included. The other was being involved in editing a political paper. I soon realised that an article just looked and read better once in print! Weird but there is an apparent authority in the printed word.

There is a sort of hierarchy of trustworthiness when it comes to the source of information: from scientific consensus through to 'the bloke in the pub'. Of course, no source of information can be considered 100% foolproof.

However, I have noticed (mainly on the internet) that there is indeed a 'don't trust' or 'question' all authority attitude. Skeptics may find that refreshing but the solutions people come up with aren't (IMO).

The attitude seems to be: don't trust what you're told by anyone. Instead, find out for yourself.

Fair enough, I think most skeptics would say that's a good idea but skeptics would then be in search of the best evidence available from a scientific source (if possible).

What others tend to do, however, with this 'find out for yourself' idea is that they read around until they find something that suits what they want to believe and then consider it as authoritative.

There's also a sort of 'appeal to vanity' with this idea of 'find out for yourself' as it casts the individual as someone who can know better than the experts and sift through evidence accepting or rejecting whatever they want based on what they want to find. It's like, "Ignore the evidence and think for yourself (even though you have no expertise whatsoever)." i.e. if you want to know whether homeopathy really works, forget Cochrane reviews and the science and try it for yourself - if you conclude it works then science is obviously wrong.

So if we think of skepticism as 'doubt and inquiry' then many people are good at the 'doubt' bit but the crucial component of inquiry is where people lack real skepticism.

I've certainly been one for the "question everything" approach. I do however, recognise the problem you point out. People will tend to look for the answer that suits rather than what is correct or best. Understanding where expertise is required, recognition of our own lack of knowledge is what is needed.