Laypeople trump experts

The impression I got was that you believe lay people cannot have intelligent opinions while scientists are virtually infallible.  I know that wasn't in your wording but in a forum like this, that is what seems to come across.  If that was what was going on inside your head, then I think my post answered it very well indeed.  An example of something that lies outside science would be the meaning of life if there is any, and I believe there is. You cannot find a meaning to life by studying particles in a laboratory yet many people seem to believe that science has somehow proved that there is no meaning to life.  I don't need a PHD to see that.

For further clarification, this is exactly the same impression that I and others have gotten from Linda's posts, and I certainly think it's a fair inference based on the content and tone of the things she has said.

I think your response is similar to what I've been trying to convey, and you did so in a more clear manner than I did in my PM to Linda.

Let me be clear, and I believe I've addressed this somewhere on this forum - that statement was made by me in a private conversation with Linda. It was incredibly poorly phrased, and I was not right to have stated it in the manner that I did. It is not an "oft-made claim".

Thanks for clarifying that. It didn't look as though fls was going to (and no wonder, if her "oft-made claim" was said only once in private   ).

Personally, I think there are some areas of scientific controversy where it's difficult for lay people to evaluate the evidence. But I don't think that's generally true of parapsychology, because what's at issue isn't usually technically difficult.

Let me be clear, and I believe I've addressed this somewhere on this forum - that statement was made by me in a private conversation with Linda. It was incredibly poorly phrased, and I was not right to have stated it in the manner that I did. It is not an "oft-made claim".

I was referring to the views expressed in the posts I quoted from Michael Larkin on the first page. I could find additional examples here or probably any of the threads in this forum - http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/forums/why...-is-wrong/ if my OP and subsequent posts weren't clear. I thought you meant much the same thing, but apologies if I misunderstood.

What I was in essence attempting to convey was my belief, which as far as I understand her position Linda appears to disagree with, that any intelligent and informed person can, as Brian did above, analyze a study, evidence, research, etc, and come to a legitimate and defensible, as well as rational, conclusion about that material without being a "professional" in the sense that I feel Linda seems to use the word.

I agree with you.

The way I think Linda approaches this seems to be that you aren't qualified to really speak on something unless you're a pro

Nope, you don't have to be a pro to speak on something. I've always emphasized that at the very least knowledge (and ideally knowledge and experience) is relevant. If you don't have that (since none of us do on everything), then you have a robust way to reference a source which does.

Certainly, to some degree, we have to take expert opinions at face value, because we don't all have the time or means to independently verify every single claim out there. But this in no way means that we have to just defer to the researchers at every turn, bowing to their vast knowledge. Researchers on a specific topic certainly know more information about the topic than a lay person, and are more familiar with the methods being studying it. This does not, however, mean that those people are vastly better equipped to discuss or reason through the implications of their study, or to see its potential flaws (whatever they might be), than some third party who is not an expert in that field. Really, that's what any mainstream scientist who isn't a parapsychologist is doing, assuming they've actually taken the time to read up on and become informed on the psi topic they care to opine on.

Agreed. 

It seems to me that Linda's approach is utterly dismissive of people who seek to evaluate evidence or research if they don't have the requisite degree or stature, whatever that is to her. I think it's arbitrary and also unreasonable. There are loads of people who may not be qualified in Linda's eyes to analyze evidence, who in fact are every bit as good as a professional scientist at thinking critically about the research done. There's a difference between knowing material and studies and being able to actually connect the dots and make reasonable and reasoned inferences from that research. Not every scientist possesses that ability, and there are certainly many lay people who do.

That's not my opinion or approach. I'm more focussed on whether or not someone's approach produces reasonable and reasoned inferences. Pretty much the last thing I suggest is "defer to the researchers at every turn". In fact, I've specifically said NOT to do that, on multiple occasions.

I was referring to the views expressed in the posts I quoted from Michael Larkin on the first page.

We're talking about what you described just a few hours ago as "the oft-made claim I quoted in my OP":
“history is not lacking in examples of experts being proven wildly wrong, oftentimes by lay people...”

We're talking about what you described just a few hours ago as "the oft-made claim I quoted in my OP":
“history is not lacking in examples of experts being proven wildly wrong, oftentimes by lay people...”

I would just say that, in Internet discussions, when people tell a really obvious lie - I mean a lie that might fool the most casual readers, but whose untruth is evident to anyone who is following the discussion with any real degree of attention - then that shows complete cynicism and contempt for all the people concerned. (I think it can be argued that the contempt extends even to themselves.)

Perhaps I should be more tolerant in the "post-truth", "anything goes" environment that seems to prevail today. But I don't think I'll ever be able to reconcile myself to out-and-out liars. I dislike them intensely.

I was referring to the views expressed in the posts I quoted from Michael Larkin on the first page. I could find additional examples here or probably any of the threads in this forum - http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/forums/why...-is-wrong/ if my OP and subsequent posts weren't clear. I thought you meant much the same thing, but apologies if I misunderstood.

Examples of the "oft-made" claims I described in my OP as:
"individuals are reasonably capable of picking and choosing which authorities can be regarded as plausible" and
"if they have a modicum of knowledge and experience in a field, that they are capable of weighing the evidence themselves"

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-da...3#pid10363
"I do have quite a lot of education in the field of biology to evaluate the work both of IDers and neo-Darwinists, both of which are often discussed at EN&V. I have come to the conclusion that much (not all by any means) of what IDers say is cogent. I don't have to rely wholly on second-hand interpretations -- I can usually draw my own."

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-ho...7#pid10747
"I've had many experiences that have given me confidence in my own analytical ability and my ability to form opinions myself without having to rely on authorities."

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-in...ight=bauer
"I think that anyone, any person – including any non-scientist – can and should perform his or her own analysis and make his or her own decision concerning any scientific controversy."

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/ho...post-69526
Malcolm Kendrick as a plausible authority.

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-da...5#pid10365
Henry Bauer as a plausible authority.

These were I few I remembered off the top of my head. If anyone wants to claim that these ideas don't often arise here and on the Skeptiko forum, that most would regard Alex's "Why Science is Wrong...About Almost Everything" campaign as misguided, I would be most pleased to discover that I was wrong.

Dante has clarified that he meant something along the lines of, "lay people can have intelligent opinions while scientists can be infallible" (paraphrased from this). I agree with his statement and apologize for misusing his quote.

Oops. I just realized that should be “scientists can be fallible”.

Linda

My favorite example comes from the book "The Power of Why" by Amanda Lang.

https://www.amazon.ca/Power-Why-Amanda-L...1443413186

The book is somewhere in this house but I don't know where so this is from memory and it will probably have some errors.

She goes over the story of the guy who invented those curved shower rods that are now in pretty much every hotel ever. Short version is he invented it but in order to get them manufactured the rods needed to be separated and shipped in a smaller box but that meant the rods needed to telescope inside of each other or else they wouldn't fit. He eventually figured out how to do that but didn't have the money to do all the manufacturing himself or something. He was going to sell the patent to a huge hotel chain.

He meets with the head engineer of the chain to discuss the whole thing. The engineer was by all rights an expert and authority on these things, decades of experience and all that. The engineer tells him flat out "you can't telescope a curved rod."

The guys amazied, thinking, "Wow, this guys their head engineer and he says it can't even be done and I've already done it!" So he decided not to tell the engineer this fact, and sold the rods himself and became a multimillionare from it. This is teh only story I can point to specifically right now but it's a type of story I've seen played out time and time again. If I find more examples I'll make sure to bring them.

One thing though, From what I can tell Linda's definition of what counts as an expert and non expert is really blurry. Like what countsd as enough experience to be considered an expert? What's the threshold? Because right now it seems really arbitrary and opinion based.

Which in my opinion results in the only real definition being "experts have degrees in western universities" which itself brings about a whole bunch of other complications namely around resources but also source bias. A layman may be smart enough to understand particle physics, but doesn't have access to electron microscopes, particle accelerators, nuclear reactors and the like to conduct any real research. Thus of course you're going to find more "experts" making these discoveries and being right about them when they're the ones with all the neccessary time and resources. I really think it's a false equivalency. I know this has been somewhat brought up before but still.

One thing though, From what I can tell Linda's definition of what counts as an expert and non expert is really blurry.

That blur may be the effect of motion. An example of moving the strawmen after the game has started.

My favorite example comes from the book "The Power of Why" by Amanda Lang.

https://www.amazon.ca/Power-Why-Amanda-L...1443413186

The book is somewhere in this house but I don't know where so this is from memory and it will probably have some errors.

She goes over the story of the guy who invented those curved shower rods that are now in pretty much every hotel ever. Short version is he invented it but in order to get them manufactured the rods needed to be separated and shipped in a smaller box but that meant the rods needed to telescope inside of each other or else they wouldn't fit. He eventually figured out how to do that but didn't have the money to do all the manufacturing himself or something. He was going to sell the patent to a huge hotel chain.

He meets with the head engineer of the chain to discuss the whole thing. The engineer was by all rights an expert and authority on these things, decades of experience and all that. The engineer tells him flat out "you can't telescope a curved rod."

The guys amazied, thinking, "Wow, this guys their head engineer and he says it can't even be done and I've already done it!" So he decided not to tell the engineer this fact, and sold the rods himself and became a multimillionare from it. This is teh only story I can point to specifically right now but it's a type of story I've seen played out time and time again. If I find more examples I'll make sure to bring them.

I'm sorry, but why is the guy who doesn't know how to telescope a curved rod the "expert" in this story (assuming the story is reasonably accurate)? I'm sure there are lots of stories about somebody with a degree saying something ignorant, but that really doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I described in my OP. Curved rods can be telescoped if they are built on curves of the same diameter, as far as I can tell.

One thing though, From what I can tell Linda's definition of what counts as an expert and non expert is really blurry.

Like most categories, it can get blurry when you get to the edges. But mostly it's fairly obvious with respect to knowledge. For example, someone who is ignorant of some basic facts about a particular subject shouldn't be considered an expert on that subject, should they?  

Like what countsd as enough experience to be considered an expert? What's the threshold? Because right now it seems really arbitrary and opinion based.

I agree that that part is more blurry, and it is why I emphasized the knowledge part. You're the first person I've seen to specifically bring up the experience part.   

Experience is mostly about the opportunity to receive feedback in a high validity environment. So for example, the experience of trying to build a telescoping curved rod would be an example of feedback in a high validity environment (it works or it doesn't).

Which in my opinion results in the only real definition being "experts have degrees in western universities"

No. That is a terrible definition.

A layman may be smart enough to understand particle physics, but doesn't have access to electron microscopes, particle accelerators, nuclear reactors and the like to conduct any real research. Thus of course you're going to find more "experts" making these discoveries and being right about them when they're the ones with all the neccessary time and resources. I really think it's a false equivalency. I know this has been somewhat brought up before but still.

I agree that in some situations, a layperson can have good knowledge, but does not get the opportunity for feedback in a high validity environment, such as situations where the use of highly specialized and limited access equipment would be relevant. It's hard to obtain expertise in medicine without access to specialized training, which is mainly accessible only with a medical degree. But there are many areas where there are opportunities for that feedback. Sometimes it's just a matter of being able to discuss your understanding with somebody who already has the expertise you are hoping to achieve.

Dante has clarified that he meant something along the lines of, "lay people can have intelligent opinions while scientists can be infallible" (paraphrased from this). I agree with his statement and apologize for misusing his quote.

Oops. I just realized that should be “scientists can be fallible”.

The "this" you paraphrased from was Dante agreeing with Brian that you (fls) appeared to believe that "lay people cannot have intelligent opinions while scientists are virtually infallible"!
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-la...?pid=16869

I don't know whether this is deliberate or the product of genuine confusion, but I think when what people have said is misrepresented to this extent, then it's reasonable for a moderator to correct things.