Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hacksaw001 t1_j19ilta wrote

Reply to comment by Strato-Cruiser in Epistemic Trespassing: Stay in your lane mf by thenousman

The opinion of an expert on a topic outside their field is a layman's opinion, since they're not an expert in that field.

Being an expert means you're a regular person who has advanced knowledge on a specific topic. This doesn't imply some kind of general aptitude, or advanced reasoning skill which could be applied to other fields. Certainly both of these could make attaining expertise easier, but they aren't prerequisites for expertise. The main prerequisite is the willingness and ability to spend a long time on a specific topic.

Therefore the opinion of an expert outside of their field of expertise is not likely to be more valuable than any other layperson's opinion, especially as the topic moves further from their field of knowledge.

A layperson's opinion could be valid and useful, or it could be incorrect and harmful. The problem is that neither the layperson, nor their audience knows which one.

4

Strato-Cruiser t1_j19ks0a wrote

I agree with you. To me there is a scale of how more likely I will scrutinize an expert outside of their expertise. If we use the example in the article, the understanding of that statistic is not highly advanced, it’s perfectly plausible for an intelligent doctor to learn enough about statistics without becoming an expert, it’s just this doctor did not, other doctors will have a better understanding maybe because statistics is an interesting topic. For example, it wouldn’t surprise me for a medical doctor to understand the physics of how a wing on a plane provides lift, even though he is not an expert in physics. If he were to explain it, I think he could be quite capable. If he started to explain the physics of a black hole, I would be more likely to scrutinize that. There is a degree of how far one is diving outside of their expertise and how far they’re diving into another.

2

iiioiia t1_j19wksg wrote

> The opinion of an expert on a topic outside [their field] [is] [a layman's opinion], since they're not an expert in that field.

layman: a person without professional [or] specialized [knowledge] in a particular subject

Some people have competence in more than one field.

1

hacksaw001 t1_j1bfrtl wrote

Yeah, you can be an expert in more than one field, for sure!

3

iiioiia t1_j1ivuip wrote

Demonstrating how easily casual language can be misinformative - "Being an expert means you're a regular person who has advanced knowledge on a specific topic" could easily be (and very often is) interpreted to mean that if someone isn't ~formally identified as "an expert" then their opinion on a subject is necessarily inferior to that of an [declared to be] expert.

1