DO you really think science only takes place between the covers of a journal?
> Authority or expertise is not evidence of the truth of what someone writes, but for most of us, in the absence of the time or expertise to evaluate the evidence, it often serves as a useful shortcut to determine what amount of trust to assign to a statement.
Yes, understood. But not for a scientist.
> I for one am not about to go chase down every potential citation about a subject I don't know anything about just in order to fully evaluate his remark on its merits just because the subject is somewhat interesting to read about.
So, because you won't do research, someone has to prove themselves to you? You're going about this all wrong -- when you decide to be intellectually lazy, the worst thing to do as an encore is to demand that someone prove themselves to you, and then accept claims of authority. Jim Jones' followers died because they were unwilling to think for themselves, do their own research. David Koresh. The list goes on.
> In that situation, authority and expertise is important ...
The bottom line in science, and in any scientific discussion, is that authority and expertise are never important. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
> you are perfectly justified that on average you will do better if you take medical advice from a doctor than a random person, for example.
That's not a scientific example, because doctors aren't scientists. I'm beginning to realize you can't distinguish between science and anecdote. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
> DO you really think science only takes place between the covers of a journal?
DO you really think we are doing science in this discussion? Seriously?
If you genuinely think so, then we can end the discussion right here, as if that is the case, we are arguing on an entirely different basis.
Just to be clear, my argument is based on my expectation of engaging in a discussion that is not particularly scientific, but is a casual debate about a scientific result where most of the participants are not scientists, nor have sufficient knowledge or interest in the field in question to have read much actual research in the field. That fits _my_ observation of this debate. I see little to no evidence that there's much "science" going on in this debate.
> Yes, understood. But not for a scientist.
This is blatantly false. Scientists frequently engage in discussions about fields they only have a superficial interest in too, and where they don't have the time nor the interest to probe deeper, and I have personally seen plenty of examples of scientists deferring to authority on subjects they do not personally know for all kinds of purposes. Yes, that is not "science". But we're not all engaging in science every moment of our waking lives.
> So, because you won't do research, someone has to prove themselves to you?
No. Because I am here reading about something I don't have sufficient interest in to research, I appreciate an indicator of authority as a a contributing factor to judge what degree of trust to assign certain claims.
We all do that pretty much constantly, and largely automatically. Your username, for example, means I assign you a certain amount of trust in matters I have reason to believe you know something about. E.g. if you were to make statements about AppleWrite in conversation on HN, I'd likely take it on trust. Does that mean I'd be unwilling to do research about it in certain cases?
Of course not. If I was writing a scholarly article about the history of word processing, for example, of course I would obtain multiple sources and track down other evidence.
But I am not here conducting science, neither I'd gather are the vast majority of other people here. And then trust and authority does matter as shortcuts. I have plenty of other things to spend my time on. Things I _care_ about, which is not something I can say about neuroscience.
> Jim Jones' followers died because they were unwilling to think for themselves, do their own research.
Did you seriously compare someone asking for indicators of authority from someone who made statements that appeared to be a bit controversial to not being willing to think for oneself before joining a religious cult and participating in mass suicide? Are you for real?
Deferring to authority and assigning trust are not inherently bad just because there are nasty examples of the consequences of taking it too far.
For someone who harp about science, you've made some quite astounding leaps of logic.
> That's not a scientific example, because doctors aren't scientists.
Irrelevant. The issue here is not science, but whether trust and authority have value in determining whether or not it is necessary to do your own basic research of everything.
> The bottom line in science, and in any scientific discussion, is that authority and expertise are never important. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
If this was a "scientific discussion" perhaps you'd have a point.
The reality is that in a casual discussion, - which is what this is to me, and clearly to a substantial number of the other participants, given the widespread lack of citations and evidence in this discussion - where a large number of the participants are either not scientists and/or not deeply familiar with the subject in question, nor invested enough to find it worthwhile to chase down source material, often it is not clear what the evidence - if presented - actually is and what it actually means to a lay person.
As such, authority and expertise is an important shortcut to get an overview for the purpose of the discussion without bogging the discussion down to the point where the participants lose interest.
> I'm beginning to realize you can't distinguish between science and anecdote. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
I'm beginning to realize that you don't understand that in a social conversation, rather than, say, a scientific conference, evidence is not paramount, and often isn't even that important. That's not to say that some relevant evidence and citations are not appreciated, but most of us will not read them. That's not why people participate in these discussions. If we wanted in depth neuro-science, for example, we'd be busy reading the research not discussing a press-release on HN.
OK, you win. No one knows anything about anything and we should all stop talking, and we should all go embark on first principles research about everything and avoid taking lazy shortcuts like respecting anyone's expertise.
Good luck proving that your breakfast isn't poisonous before you eat it tomorrow. I hope you don't starve to death first.
DO you really think science only takes place between the covers of a journal?
> Authority or expertise is not evidence of the truth of what someone writes, but for most of us, in the absence of the time or expertise to evaluate the evidence, it often serves as a useful shortcut to determine what amount of trust to assign to a statement.
Yes, understood. But not for a scientist.
> I for one am not about to go chase down every potential citation about a subject I don't know anything about just in order to fully evaluate his remark on its merits just because the subject is somewhat interesting to read about.
So, because you won't do research, someone has to prove themselves to you? You're going about this all wrong -- when you decide to be intellectually lazy, the worst thing to do as an encore is to demand that someone prove themselves to you, and then accept claims of authority. Jim Jones' followers died because they were unwilling to think for themselves, do their own research. David Koresh. The list goes on.
> In that situation, authority and expertise is important ...
The bottom line in science, and in any scientific discussion, is that authority and expertise are never important. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
> you are perfectly justified that on average you will do better if you take medical advice from a doctor than a random person, for example.
That's not a scientific example, because doctors aren't scientists. I'm beginning to realize you can't distinguish between science and anecdote. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not evidence.