I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never said I don’t respect experts, and I have REPEATEDLY throughout this conversation referred to experts as the EXCLUSIVE source of reliable knowledge, and information about options and consequences, so I’ll thank you not to be disingenuous about my words.
That said, what I HAVE said is that those experts OBTAIN AND INTERPRET the data, and at that point, the decision no longer requires a PHD. The extensive studying and the information and options are now boiled down, and the making of the decision is left to a politician.
If that politician is, say, a constitutional lawyer, and this a decision about say, bridge tolls for a road maintenance fund, the lawyer doesn’t have ANYTHING more to contribute to the decision making than the bartender. Any speculative professional knowledge he’s using here is OUTSIDE his area of expertise. The bartender is FAR more likely to accept this and make the decision based on what is in front of them. The lawyer is FAR more likely to either feel like their professional knowledge gives them some special insight outside their area of expertise, a phenomenon known as “epistemic trespassing”. And you actually see this in practice ALL THE TIME.
On the other hand, if the bartender is the politician, and we really need the lawyer’s expertise on constitutional law? They can hire him. People don’t LOSE the benefit of his knowledge because he isn’t in the office.
I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never said I don’t respect experts, and I have REPEATEDLY throughout this conversation referred to experts as the EXCLUSIVE source of reliable knowledge, and information about options and consequences, so I’ll thank you not to be disingenuous about my words.
That said, what I HAVE said is that those experts OBTAIN AND INTERPRET the data, and at that point, the decision no longer requires a PHD. The extensive studying and the information and options are now boiled down, and the making of the decision is left to a politician.
If that politician is, say, a constitutional lawyer, and this a decision about say, bridge tolls for a road maintenance fund, the lawyer doesn’t have ANYTHING more to contribute to the decision making than the bartender. Any speculative professional knowledge he’s using here is OUTSIDE his area of expertise. The bartender is FAR more likely to accept this and make the decision based on what is in front of them. The lawyer is FAR more likely to either feel like their professional knowledge gives them some special insight outside their area of expertise, a phenomenon known as “epistemic trespassing”. And you actually see this in practice ALL THE TIME.
On the other hand, if the bartender is the politician, and we really need the lawyer’s expertise on constitutional law? They can hire him. People don’t LOSE the benefit of his knowledge because he isn’t in the office.
“It’s not that I don’t respect experts its just that I trust my well spoken barkeep more than academic peer review and lifelong disciplines.”