In the context of an expert though, where do you draw the line on confidence?

I agree that, in the courtroom case, it is obviously too far (and generally have no patience for doctors with absolutely NO grasp of statistics). But I do see how we get here: a doctor has to guide her patients through decisions. If she has to give advice that she is only 99% certain of (say, telling a patient they likely have 6 weeks vs 6 months to live), at some point they have to make the call themselves and not consult a statistician.

So basically, I think that the position of expert encourages this, as they will become more and more confident in their non-expert area over time.

A random person on the street? We are talking about an expert, not a random person. General expert? What does that have to do with this, no one is claiming to hold any given expert as a general expert. It sure sounds like you’re missing the point. In order for it to count as epistemic trespassing, it must involve an expert who then passes judgment on a question in a field in which they have no expertise and it’s wrong because people, including the expert, may be ignorant that that is happening. Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion.

[removed]

[deleted]

An abdication of responsibility? Who are you/I to be responsible for other people’s issues? Just because you think you might be the brain in the room doesn’t mean anyone asked for your input. If anything I’d say you only have a responsibility to try to not do anything that obviously makes someone’s life worse, but no responsibility to go out of your way to improve someone else’s life; that’s their responsibility. This sounds like you’re encouraging activism.

Parents can not be trusted to treat the right leason.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[deleted]

Yes, the myth of the rational voter.

[deleted]

Yeah and I should just reiterate that epistemic trespassing can only be done by someone who is an expert and that it can be considered wrong when it constitutes an abuse of expert authority that neglects novice vulnerabilities.

Here and, in everyday, we aren’t normally going about our lives (and certainly not in all matters) as experts so I don’t think such concern is warranted.

Yeah, and I don’t think any malice from the doctor was intended. A defense lawyer should understand jurors and the information that they need. Because jurors are subject to making short cuts in thinking like, this person is an expert doctor, he must be right about this medically related statistic. That’s lazy reasoning, but it is how our brains function. A lawyer should know these things through experience and get another expert to add insight for the jurors.

Yep, nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism. And it evidently was a tall order, and so therefore an abuse of expert authority that neglected novice vulnerabilities.

Good article. The POV espoused here is not a common one, and I think it’s important, even if I don’t think you should take it too far.

There’s two simple ways I think you can take it too far: muzzling yourself completely, and not intervening in the epistemic trespasses of others.

If you’re very aware of this issue, it becomes very easy to — very quickly — believe that you have little right to talk about anything except whichever narrow areas you might claim expertise in; even then, with enough humility, you might feel you have no expertise to claim at all. This completely destroys your self-confidence (in my experience), and inhibits personal growth. Instead, moderation is a better approach.

The other issue is that if you’re keenly aware of this issue, you will often be the best equipped person in the room to call others out for this or to spot issues in their novice arguments. An abject refusal to weigh in on issues you are not an expert in may become an abdication of responsibility.

Yes, the doctor over evaluated his intelligence in understanding statistics because he’s an expert as a doctor, and the jurors took him for face value, so yes, that’s a problem. I don’t think, and there is research to show this, but intelligent people are no so aware that they are over estimating conclusions and understanding. However, the doctor not being an expert in statistics still could have reached a correct conclusion because he is capable of understanding statistics. It would be wrong to dismiss him because he’s not an expert in statistics and it would be wrong to accept him because he is an expert as a doctor. Recipients of the information need to scrutinize the methodology of how a conclusion was reached. Now I admit that may be a tall order for people in a jury pool. However, there is another expert there, the defense lawyer, who’s job is to scrutinize everything and consider how jurors take in information. That defense lawyer should be calling an expert in statistics.

In general, in one’s day to day life. It is not good to dismiss someone because they are not an expert in a field, and it’s not good to accept a conclusion because they are an expert in a different field.

Yep, that’s why it’s called epistemic trespassing and why novices are vulnerable to get harmed.

If an expert offers an opinion in an area that he is not an expert in, then he does not offer an expert opinion.

To reduce any more redditors committing epistemic trespassing with regards to this case, the proposed case is about Sally Clark and a more detailed breakdown of the case can be found here. There were other problems with the case, including the prosecutor's fallacy and ecologic fallacy.

[deleted]

I meant that as a joke :)

The article was good and pointed out a problem with experts in a very high stakes situation. In a forum like this where the penalty for being wrong is minor it would be more appropriate for someone to muse outside their expertise.

One way to learn, is to operate outside your lane but to do so in a situation where it’s understood that we’re not claiming to be experts and we’re open to correction.

The problem is “Everyone said well that’s fine, he’s an expert”. They were, like it or not, vulnerable novices and the expert abused his authority, intentionally or not, and with serious consequences, like the mother being convicted of murdering her children.

[deleted]

I get the message, but it feels too binary to me. In their example, I agree that an expert in statistics would be more appropriate especially in a high stakes environment where someone’s life and freedom is at risk. In general, I have no problems with experts speaking on topics in which they are not experts in. Their insight could be valid and correct, not because they are an expert in another field, but they used a methodology that got them to a valid conclusion. I think it’s important for the recipient to know they should evaluate and scrutinize a conclusion from an expert in a differing field. To not accept it because they are an expert in another field, and to not reject it because they are an expert in another field.

[deleted]

I find this an ironic/appropriate perspective in a sub on philosophy. My impression of undergrad intro to philosophy was that it was rife with epistemic trespassing. Some issue would be brought up for debate, and scientific or economic details would be conveniently omitted for the sake of argument. Or people would argue about an issue that could probably have been resolved if either party simply knew more about the issue.

I see it on this sub as well, plenty of people that seem very intelligent, making otherwise cogent arguments that are made completely undermined or irrelevant by deep knowledge of the subject matter.

I'm probably doing it now, since I also don't have deep knowledge of philosophy.