Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sQGNXXnkceeEfhm t1_j195wsi wrote

Good article. The POV espoused here is not a common one, and I think it’s important, even if I don’t think you should take it too far.

There’s two simple ways I think you can take it too far: muzzling yourself completely, and not intervening in the epistemic trespasses of others.

If you’re very aware of this issue, it becomes very easy to — very quickly — believe that you have little right to talk about anything except whichever narrow areas you might claim expertise in; even then, with enough humility, you might feel you have no expertise to claim at all. This completely destroys your self-confidence (in my experience), and inhibits personal growth. Instead, moderation is a better approach.

The other issue is that if you’re keenly aware of this issue, you will often be the best equipped person in the room to call others out for this or to spot issues in their novice arguments. An abject refusal to weigh in on issues you are not an expert in may become an abdication of responsibility.

64

thenousman OP t1_j197l7t wrote

Yeah and I should just reiterate that epistemic trespassing can only be done by someone who is an expert and that it can be considered wrong when it constitutes an abuse of expert authority that neglects novice vulnerabilities.

Here and, in everyday, we aren’t normally going about our lives (and certainly not in all matters) as experts so I don’t think such concern is warranted.

15

noonemustknowmysecre t1_j19x14q wrote

Here in our everyday lives we go to places like /r/philosophy and pretend to be experts on everything. I don't think the scale of the stakes matter.

I had some dude claim "as a biochem engineer, I know frogs' sex is determined by their Y chromosome", when frogs don't have a Y chromosome. People try to appeal to (their) authority all the time.

13

sQGNXXnkceeEfhm t1_j19hyqp wrote

In the context of an expert though, where do you draw the line on confidence?

I agree that, in the courtroom case, it is obviously too far (and generally have no patience for doctors with absolutely NO grasp of statistics). But I do see how we get here: a doctor has to guide her patients through decisions. If she has to give advice that she is only 99% certain of (say, telling a patient they likely have 6 weeks vs 6 months to live), at some point they have to make the call themselves and not consult a statistician.

So basically, I think that the position of expert encourages this, as they will become more and more confident in their non-expert area over time.

4

iiioiia t1_j19un96 wrote

> In the context of an expert though, where do you draw the line on confidence?

I say: at drawing conclusions (upgrading propositions to facts). It is not necessary to categorize something as a fact before taking action, it is only a cultural norm. The world runs mostly on mere belief, it just doesn't appear that way.

5

thenousman OP t1_j19q4iu wrote

I dunno, it’s an active area of research. But I agree about human nature tends towards overconfidence.

2

iiioiia t1_j19u6yt wrote

> Yeah and I should just reiterate that epistemic trespassing can only be done by someone who is an expert

As described in this article (you're the author I think?), but all people can engage in opining on matters without epistemic soundness, which may not be the exact same thing, but if considered comprehensively may very well have more causal importance.

> Here and, in everyday, we aren’t normally going about our lives (and certainly not in all matters) as experts

"A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one", though I'd say you are technically correct as it currently is, in the aggregate.

3

zoinkability t1_j1bq6hx wrote

I think the point is about ensuring that there isn’t a mismatch between the claims of authority you employ (or, if you have any degree of fame/recognition, the degree to which you temper any public perception of authority you may have) and the actual degree of expertise you have on the topic being discussed.

Here on Reddit, unless you claim expertise you are just another rando commenter, and even if you do claim expertise people are likely to be skeptical due to the anonymous nature of discourse here.

But using your academic credentials or public recognition as an expert to bolster your standing — particularly in non-anonymous settings — despite lacking direct expertise in the topic is another matter altogether.

3

GhastInTheShell t1_j19cgyh wrote

An abdication of responsibility? Who are you/I to be responsible for other people’s issues? Just because you think you might be the brain in the room doesn’t mean anyone asked for your input. If anything I’d say you only have a responsibility to try to not do anything that obviously makes someone’s life worse, but no responsibility to go out of your way to improve someone else’s life; that’s their responsibility. This sounds like you’re encouraging activism.

−1

sQGNXXnkceeEfhm t1_j19nhfk wrote

Context matters. I’m not advocating sticking your head into a conversation on the subway; I am advocating calling your friend out if they make an argument you’re pretty sure is wrong on a topic neither of you know a lot about.

I am ESPECIALLY advocating that in a setting like at work, you don’t allow your own humility to prevent you from being a voice at the table.

8

BirdieHo t1_j1cr1r8 wrote

whats so wrong about activism?

3

GhastInTheShell t1_j1fggo0 wrote

It should be kept separate from philosophy.

1

thenousman OP t1_j1fsois wrote

My reply started getting long so I’ll just blog about this in the new year.

2