Laypeople trump experts

What’s your definition of lay person and expert? In tech, the culmination of lay person contribution usually trumps experts in the field, and it’s why open sourcing is so vital to technology.

Sorry. No problem

Linda

No need to apologise.

No need to apologise.

Well...I'm Canadian.

Linda

Can you post some actual quotes? If I reply, I would like to know exactly what you are referring to. 

Thanks

Hi Jim. Do you have some examples in mind? 

Thanks.

Linda

I thought of an example...the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

The Tuskegee syphillis experiment was started in 1932 to follow a cohort of black men to determine the course of untreated syphilis. The men who had syphilis were never told that they had syphilis, and even though penicillin was validated as a treatment for syphilis in the 1940s, it was never offered to the men. Instead these men were followed for another 40 years for their untreated syphilis. The initial whistleblowers were physicians not involved in the study (so not technically lay-people), but they were ignored by the medical establishment (i.e. the CDC and the AMA). And it wasn't until this was leaked to the press and a congressional hearing was called that it was finally stopped in 1972. As a result, the Office for Human Research Protections within the DHHS was formed and requirements for informed consent were changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_s...ermination

I propose it as an example of overturning an aspect of the practice of science (the ethics of informed consent) which was ignored by those within the field, and was changed only by lay involvement.

Linda

Hi Jim. Do you have some examples in mind? 

Thanks.

Linda

To be honest, at first glance I didn't see how the quote you gave was related to your question for the thread. If you want to explain it in more detail I'd take another look.

I was thinking of a few things that are somewhat related but I don't think they are what you were asking about in the OP, so I'm not claiming they support the proposition in the OP:


- Scientific discoveries that were first ridiculed but later accepted show that the scientific consensus is not always reliable. 

- Some lay people may have an area of expertise and know more about a subject than the scientists who study it. For example mediums and psychics know more about psi that parapsychologists.  People who meditate may know more about consciousness than psychologists.

- And people who live in primitive cultures know more about surviving in the wilderness than most scientists. They have a lot of empirical knowledge accumulated over hundreds or thousands of years and never studied the scientific method. A scientist would be likely to die in a few days in the desert or jungle unless he or she had help from someone who knew how to survive there.

- The problem for lay people is when there is a scientific controversy. If the scientists don't agree, then the lay person, in my opinion, shouldn't necessarily go with the majority or "consensus". Sometimes the loudest faction will claim consensus when none exists. Science journalism is often very poor so you can't trust what you read. Sometimes a majority of scientists will disagree with the scientists who actually specialize in the area of controversy.

  One possibility for a non scientist who has the analytical skills to analyze arguments and debates is to look for a written back and forth debate and analyze the arguments. When you see how each side responds to the other's criticism over several rounds, sometimes you can tell when one side is not able to defend their position with facts and logic.

To be honest, at first glance I didn't see how the quote you gave was related to your question for the thread. If you want to explain it in more detail I'd take another look.

- The problem for lay people is when there is a scientific controversy. If the scientists don't agree, then the lay person, in my opinion, shouldn't necessarily go with the majority or "consensus". Sometimes the loudest faction will claim consensus when none exists. Science journalism is often very poor so you can't trust what you read. Sometimes a majority of scientists will disagree with the scientists who actually specialize in the area of controversy.

This is what I was referring to - the idea that lay people can identify valid controversy and the amount of support for it.

There are numerous 'controversies' in my field (medicine), some of which have no validity, some of which have marginal validity but the evidence is solidly in one side's favor, and some of which are quite valid. What I see amongst lay discussion is that much credit is given to manufactured controversies which have little to no validity, and little to no discussion of the valid controversies which occupy the field.

One possibility for a non scientist who has the analytical skills to analyze arguments and debates is to look for a written back and forth debate and analyze the arguments. When you see how each side responds to the other's criticism over several rounds, sometimes you can tell when one side is not able to defend their position with facts and logic.

Has this ever worked? I've never seen a back and forth debate, aimed at a lay audience, that actually provided a reasonable representation of the 'controversy'. The debate over any controversy takes place among experts in venues which are not normally accessed by lay people. And much of it is incomprehensible to someone without knowledge and experience. So public debates tend to represent something other than what goes on in the field, and offer dumbed-down versions of the science.

Can you give some examples of where you think this has worked?

Linda

To be honest, at first glance I didn't see how the quote you gave was related to your question for the thread. If you want to explain it in more detail I'd take another look.

I was thinking of a few things that are somewhat related but I don't think they are what you were asking about in the OP, so I'm not claiming they support the proposition in the OP:


- Scientific discoveries that were first ridiculed but later accepted show that the scientific consensus is not always reliable. 

- Some lay people may have an area of expertise and know more about a subject than the scientists who study it. For example mediums and psychics know more about psi that parapsychologists.  People who meditate may know more about consciousness than psychologists.

- And people who live in primitive cultures know more about surviving in the wilderness than most scientists. They have a lot of empirical knowledge accumulated over hundreds or thousands of years and never studied the scientific method. A scientist would be likely to die in a few days in the desert or jungle unless he or she had help from someone who knew how to survive there.

- The problem for lay people is when there is a scientific controversy. If the scientists don't agree, then the lay person, in my opinion, shouldn't necessarily go with the majority or "consensus". Sometimes the loudest faction will claim consensus when none exists. Science journalism is often very poor so you can't trust what you read. Sometimes a majority of scientists will disagree with the scientists who actually specialize in the area of controversy.

  One possibility for a non scientist who has the analytical skills to analyze arguments and debates is to look for a written back and forth debate and analyze the arguments. When you see how each side responds to the other's criticism over several rounds, sometimes you can tell when one side is not able to defend their position with facts and logic.

This is what I was referring to - the idea that lay people can identify valid controversy and the amount of support for it.

There are numerous 'controversies' in my field (medicine), some of which have no validity, some of which have marginal validity but the evidence is solidly in one side's favor, and some of which are quite valid. What I see amongst lay discussion is that much credit is given to manufactured controversies which have little to no validity, and little to no discussion of the valid controversies which occupy the field.


Has this ever worked? I've never seen a back and forth debate, aimed at a lay audience, that actually provided a reasonable representation of the 'controversy'. The debate over any controversy takes place among experts in venues which are not normally accessed by lay people. And much of it is incomprehensible to someone without knowledge and experience. So public debates tend to represent something other than what goes on in the field, and offer dumbed-down versions of the science.

Can you give some examples of where you think this has worked?

Linda

Has anyone in this thread copy and pasted the definition of the word "lay person"? If not, it might be worth doing.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/layperson

lay·per·son (lā′pûr′sən)
n.
1. One who is not a cleric.
2. One who is a nonprofessional in a given field.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/layman

Definition of layman
1:a person who is not a member of the clergy
·The parish council consisted of both clergy and laymen.

2:a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field
·For a layman, he knows a lot about the
law.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/layperson

lay·per·son  (lā′pûr′sən)
n.
1.  One who is not a cleric.
2.  One who is a nonprofessional in a given field.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/layman

Definition of layman
1:a person who is not a member of the clergy
·The parish council consisted of both clergy and laymen.

2:a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field
·For a layman, he knows a lot about the
law.

The definition that's most concise is this one.

a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.

That means no training, expertise, knowledge. As stipulated by Linda this is the applicable definition. Being so no one has successfully provided a name of a layperson that has overturned any prevailing scientific theory no one has met the challenge set forth so the claim that laypeople have is a claim at this time with no provenance.