Whohoho, bringing real world facts into /r/philosophy? Stay in your lane buddy, this place is for made up make-believe.

> Any advice either comes from someone who knows what he's talking about, or it does not.

Is "knows what he's talking about" a True/False binary:

a) in fact?

b) in appearance?

> shouldn’t listen to programmers about anything other than programming

> [We’re all] idiots with God complexes [because so much of the world has computers in it these days]

As a computer programmer, I am curious about how you've acquired omniscient knowledge of the capabilities of all people, as well as causality.

Here in our everyday lives we go to places like /r/philosophy and pretend to be experts on everything. I don't think the scale of the stakes matter.

I had some dude claim "as a biochem engineer, I know frogs' sex is determined by their Y chromosome", when frogs don't have a Y chromosome. People try to appeal to (their) authority all the time.

> The opinion of an expert on a topic outside [their field] [is] [a layman's opinion], since they're not an expert in that field.

layman: a person without professional [or] specialized [knowledge] in a particular subject

Some people have competence in more than one field.

Eh, not the best example. I would certainly expect a doctor to know that some things are genes. And siblings you know, share genetrics. He just fucked up the statistics of something within his field of expertise. This was his lane and he rear ended this lady.

But the irony of having this topic broached on /r/philosophy of all places. Do you know how how often people here pretend they're experts on anything scientific? As soon as science enters the discussion, this place goes to pot.

[Apologies: I am taking out my general contempt for humanity on your comments, which are for the most part, more or less fine.

> Yes, the doctor over evaluated his intelligence in understanding statistics because he’s an expert as a doctor

Does a piece of paper declaring that someone "is an expert" [1] cause them to become able to reliably (say, > 90% correct) understand any question that is posed to them?

Possibly relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

> ...It would be wrong to dismiss him because he’s not an expert in statistics

Agree, though it may be prudent to be skeptical of any pronouncements that involve statistics, which is what happened in this story.

> 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.

They should probably also be nicer to their friends and family, eat better, exercise, not drink/smoke, inform themselves accurately before voting or even supporting the political system one grew up under, etc - just as we all should, including me. Yet, it seems people tend not to do all that they "should" - rather, most people seem to have extremely strong aversions to such things, despite regularly claiming with complete sincerity otherwise.

[1] which technically, no doctor actually receives, calling into question the very claim of them being "an expert", whatever that means

> 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.

By "valid", do you mean necessarily and comprehensively correct?

Because avoiding responsibility for the political direction of the country is moral?

Even irrational, ignorant beings can surely still assert their own values upon politics without there being anything wrong with it, I think.

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

I say: at drawing conclusions (upgrading propositions to facts). It is not necessary to categorize something as a fact before taking action, it is only a cultural norm. The world runs mostly on mere belief, it just doesn't appear that way.

This is an interesting debate, and one that I feel is missing a key component. In general, we expect experts in a field to be knowledgeable, but even then, an expert's opinion is only more valid than a layman's because of specialized knowledge or experience; either learned from another expert, or observed directly.

If a so called "expert" made an assertion without presenting citation or evidence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge that assertion. If a layman made an assertion and did provide evidence, I would consider that compelling enough to at least speak to an expert about it.

> Yeah and I should just reiterate that epistemic trespassing can only be done by someone who is an expert

As described in this article (you're the author I think?), but all people can engage in opining on matters without epistemic soundness, which may not be the exact same thing, but if considered comprehensively may very well have more causal importance.

> Here and, in everyday, we aren’t normally going about our lives (and certainly not in all matters) as experts

"A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one", though I'd say you are technically correct as it currently is, in the aggregate.

I think the issue is that the topic of "Epistemic Trespassing" isn't limited to just expert testimony in court. Yes, that is what the article is talking about in particular, but in wider national discourse the phrase is used to silence dissenting opinion in regards to policy proposals, ie covid lockdown regime. In fact that is the first time I've ever seen the phrase used (which is tangentially mentioned in the article). In such discourse the phrase is used in regards to accusing laymen of ignorance and lacking education in the face of people crafting policy that often adversely affect said laymen. People who are affected by policies ought to have a say in the creation and implementation of such policy.

"Who will watch the Watchers" yida yada. But the truth of the matter is the Experts are people like the rest of us and are prone to error and using their position as a vector to implement their personal politics (which is unavoidable, but manifests in egregious ways in particular instances). Also, their credentials and position allow them to buffer themselves from the negative consequences of their actions/inactions. Relying on your credentials is always a sign of lacking a proper argument/case/judgement.

Ooh, I recently read a paper on this: Mark Satta’s “Epistemic Trepassing and Expert Witness Testimony” in the Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.

I dunno, it’s an active area of research. But I agree about human nature tends towards overconfidence.

This is the precise reason why people shouldn’t listen to programmers about anything other than programming. We’re all idiots with God complexes because so much of the world has computers in it these days, but make no mistake, we’re all idiots

Maybe you didn't read the article? If is referring to expert testimony in courts. Those 'experts' are somewhat defined in their jurisdictions by law. You may have seen that discussed in movies like My Cousin Vinnie.

While I'm not a lawyer the article seems to discuss an actual problem. Being in a court of law it seems reasonable for a pediatrician to quote a well understood statistic in the field. What seems outside of expertise for an average pediatrician is to modify or attempt to refine a well known statistic themselves without also being an expert in statistical methods relevant to that field.

Context matters. I’m not advocating sticking your head into a conversation on the subway; I am advocating calling your friend out if they make an argument you’re pretty sure is wrong on a topic neither of you know a lot about.

I am ESPECIALLY advocating that in a setting like at work, you don’t allow your own humility to prevent you from being a voice at the table.

I don’t know what specifically makes someone an expert in whatever particular field, but in the context of epistemic trespassing that person is considered by others in and outside of their field to be an “expert” in their field, and then that person passes judgment on some question outside whatever field that they are considered an expert in. That’s why it’s trespassing and if they abuse their expert authority, which most people might not know that they did that, is why it’s wrong.

Yeah no I think I've engaged this entire time I just haven't given you a precise definition that you're happy with. It makes sense to me, and plenty of other people. I would say that yes, any group that momentarily overthrows the current authority to be somewhat anarchic. That's just how it seems to me. You don't have to agree, that's fine. Everyone has a different definition of seeking personal liberty, even if it's on their way to oppression or fascism or democracy. Dismantling an authority is being an anarchist.

There are other problems with the statistics in that example that the author doesn’t mention. One in 73’000’000 seems like a low likely-hood, but there are other factors.

First of all, courts exist to pass judgement on exceptional circumstances amongst a large population. 73’000’000 is pretty close to the population on Great Britain, so we would actually expect this to happen to someone, possibly even 2 or 3 people if they are unlucky.

The other problem is combined probability of everything strange that might happen. If we start using this kind of reasoning in court, every possible unlikely occurrence could be considered a crime. Even if each are extremely unlikely (like one in 10 billion) the chance of any one of them occurring accumulates to also become rather inevitable. One in 10 billion occurrences happen all the time, perhaps just not the particular one you’re thinking of at the moment. So we can’t just say that we will convict on every 1 in 10 billion occurrence that raises criminal suspicions.

I agree with you. To me there is a scale of how more likely I will scrutinize an expert outside of their expertise. If we use the example in the article, the understanding of that statistic is not highly advanced, it’s perfectly plausible for an intelligent doctor to learn enough about statistics without becoming an expert, it’s just this doctor did not, other doctors will have a better understanding maybe because statistics is an interesting topic. For example, it wouldn’t surprise me for a medical doctor to understand the physics of how a wing on a plane provides lift, even though he is not an expert in physics. If he were to explain it, I think he could be quite capable. If he started to explain the physics of a black hole, I would be more likely to scrutinize that. There is a degree of how far one is diving outside of their expertise and how far they’re diving into another.

It's like my dad, an expert mathematician and software engineer has goofy ideas about medical field.

Domain expertise is absolutely necessary in reasoning on a topic with a degree of authority. It's great that one can learn of logic and calculative tools by being in expert in one field, but while thoes skills translate to a large degree, they don't protect one from making an error in setting up the model to reason about.

EG. I read a paper by a PhD in Business that reasoned that vaccines are causing autism. It found that if you take autism and speech disorders and lump them together as one, there is a positive correlation between the two values over some time. Of course it was torn down by subject matter experts who said that you can't reason that the two disorders are in the same class. But hey, this person probably does know math well, and probably business too.

The opinion of an expert on a topic outside their field is a layman's opinion, since they're not an expert in that field.

Being an expert means you're a regular person who has advanced knowledge on a specific topic. This doesn't imply some kind of general aptitude, or advanced reasoning skill which could be applied to other fields. Certainly both of these could make attaining expertise easier, but they aren't prerequisites for expertise. The main prerequisite is the willingness and ability to spend a long time on a specific topic.

Therefore the opinion of an expert outside of their field of expertise is not likely to be more valuable than any other layperson's opinion, especially as the topic moves further from their field of knowledge.

A layperson's opinion could be valid and useful, or it could be incorrect and harmful. The problem is that neither the layperson, nor their audience knows which one.

[deleted]