I'll pose this again:
Should laypeople go with the 97% consensus on climate change? Why or why not? — Xtrix
OK, so what's the alternative? Given our group of experts, the variance among whom we know is caused by a wide variety of factors, reasoning error being very low on that list (if present at all).
How do we then talk about that variance in a non-lame way? — Isaac
By pointing out that the problem at hand is a complex problem and that solving it requires decisions that are based on priorities (which cannot be established scientifically). — baker
The notion of a majority of experts being a safer bet — Isaac
SOCRATES: We should not then think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice, the one, that is, and the truth itself. So that, in the first place, you were wrong to believe that we should care for the opinion of the many about what is just, beautiful, good, and their opposites. — Crito, 48a
I'll pose this again:
Should laypeople go with the 97% consensus on climate change? Why or why not?
— Xtrix
At the risk of flogging the dead horse of statistical misunderstanding, I'll try another explanation. Remove climate change and replace it with issue X. — Isaac
On issue X the facts are such that two possible theories can be both held without being falsified by them (you're familiar with underdetermination of theories?). Theory X1 is favoured by experts with green eyes, theory X2 is favoured by experts with blue eyes. 97% of experts have green eyes. Now does it benefit the layman in any way to go with the 97%? — Isaac
To show that the layman (assuming he's interested in being right) is better off pinning their flag to theory X1, you'd have to show that the variance in support for each theory is caused by (or at least correlated with) the variable {rightness/accuracy/utility}, otherwise the fact that theory X1 has a high score in the variable {numbers of experts supporting} has no bearing at all on the variable of interest. — Isaac
To show that the layman (assuming he's interested in being right) — Isaac
But the aptness of that analogy is exactly what Isaac is disputing, isn't it? — Srap Tasmaner
One obvious way to tie-off this daisy chain is trust. At some point, early or late, you trust someone or some institution. Done. But don't we have to talk about how you make such a trust decision? Maybe not. Maybe people just choose, but you're not going to like everyone's choices of whom too trust. Yuck. — Srap Tasmaner
I've just started reading Plato again -- been a very long time -- and it's practically the founding claim of philosophy: we don't care what the majority thinks.
Except it isn't, because that's only half the point. Not everyone in town is a horse-breeder; if you want to know about horses, ask the expert. Not everyone in town is a physician; if you want to know about health, ask the expert. The situation with wisdom is apparently no different: — Srap Tasmaner
Here's my question: is expertise the same issue for us that it was for Athens? Or has something changed? — Srap Tasmaner
They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"? — Xtrix
You can't answer that simple question — Xtrix
it turns out that most of the 3% of dissenters have ties to the fossil fuel industry, — Xtrix
it's been stated from the beginning that there is no other information that the layman has beyond the majority. — Xtrix
it does correlate. How do we know? For the same reasons that greater experimental confirmation increases likelihood of accuracy. Not only is there historical data, but we know from predictive accuracy as well. — Xtrix
When there is overwhelming evidence that supports a theory, the experts (as experts) will be familiar with this, the consensus will change and often reflect the level of confidence in a theory. — Xtrix
If you aren't able to answer in the affirmative, then you're simply wrong, because that's the correct answer. — Xtrix
If you're arguing it isn't correct, then you're essentially saying that a laymen ISN'T better off going with the overwhelming consensus, and in fact cannot know either way -- perhaps it's 50/50, etc. Which is an absurdity, as demonstrated by the facts. — Xtrix
To show that the layman (assuming he's interested in being right) — Isaac
Quite an assumption to be made.
I would think the layman would simply choose the option that fits the closest to his or her Worldview in general. There being two or more opposing views means that the issue isn't a simple tautology and for the layman to hear about opposing views means that either the issue isn't settled or there is a sustained campaign to fight the so-called scientific truth for some reason. — ssu
Here's my question: is expertise the same issue for us that it was for Athens? Or has something changed? — Srap Tasmaner
We should rather start with this simple truth and work outward to understand why it’s true— not deny it’s truth altogether, as if consensus means nothing and science means nothing. — Xtrix
You see this in much discourse these days. When a QAnon supporter is confronted with facts... — Xtrix
That's one way to justify your position. I'd say "Stop the steal" is here an even better example where the Republican politicians and lawyers that supported Trump hopelessly tried to bring some credibility to a crazy man's narcissistic impulses and his bizarre claims that the election was stolen. Anything goes that will make it at the present. With wild accusations you can seize the moment in the media, but it won't stand in court, literally in this case. Yes, obviously it's not science, but politics, but unfortunately even scientific discourse can be hijacked in this way.Yes, we should start with the conclusion we like and then keep changing our reasoning until we justify it regardless of any mathematics, evidence, or line of reasoning to the contrary - what a brilliant way to go about thinking over a topic. — Isaac
I think one of the things that's getting mixed up here is the difference between the question "should we trust experts opinion?" (the answer is yes) and "should we trust the majority of experts over the minority of experts of the same education level?" the answer is no - by specifying that they're of the same education level we've removed (or severely limited) the one variable which had a link to 'rightness' (education level) so the remaining variables responsible for the within class variance may or may not be linked to 'rightness'. — Isaac
Tell me: does this also apply to horses do you think? That all men improve them and one individual corrupts them? Or is quite the contrary true, one individual is able to improve them, or very few, namely, the horse breeders, whereas the majority, if they have horses and use them, corrupt them? — Apology, 25b
If it turned out that 97% had ties to the fossil fuel industry would it still make sense to go with the majority? — Isaac
it's been stated from the beginning that there is no other information that the layman has beyond the majority.
— Xtrix
Then you too are engaging in "ridiculous contortions" — Isaac
If you're arguing it isn't correct, then you're essentially saying that a laymen ISN'T better off going with the overwhelming consensus, and in fact cannot know either way -- perhaps it's 50/50, etc. Which is an absurdity, as demonstrated by the facts.
— Xtrix
What facts? — Isaac
I'd like to talk about more about what Plato is saying and whether we ought to care, but instead I'll close by noting yet again the cross-purposes in this damn thread: one side (mostly that's just you Isaac) is talking about this as an empirical question, and the other side (this would be you @Xtrix) sees all Isaac's talk as a shocking failure of citizenship. — Srap Tasmaner
We should rather start with this simple truth and work outward to understand why it’s true— not deny it’s truth altogether, as if consensus means nothing and science means nothing.
— Xtrix
Yes, we should start with the conclusion we like and then keep changing our reasoning until we justify it regardless of any mathematics, evidence, or line of reasoning to the contrary - what a brilliant way to go about thinking over a topic. I couldn't have written a better explanation of exactly the process I was describing in theory selection. — Isaac
On the contrary, it is indeed an empirical question. — Xtrix
I think one of the things that's getting mixed up here is the difference between the question "should we trust experts opinion?" (the answer is yes) and "should we trust the majority of experts over the minority of experts of the same education level?" the answer is no - by specifying that they're of the same education level we've removed (or severely limited) the one variable which had a link to 'rightness' (education level) so the remaining variables responsible for the within class variance may or may not be linked to 'rightness'.
— Isaac
I get that. It's an interesting point, a reasonable point, but what kind of point is it? — Srap Tasmaner
Then you've agreed to fight it out on Isaac's terms, but I'm not sure you have to. — Srap Tasmaner
This is what I wanted to get at: are we compelled interpose a step where we play at doing social science every time we face a decision about how to be a good citizen, or just a good person? — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.