Read on Twitter
Since no one can know everything (except maybe @peterktodd), we all have to rely on the knowledge of others from time to time (division of intellectual labour).
But how much trust is too much?
Do people put too much trust into scientists? Journalists? "Experts"?
1/
But how much trust is too much?
Do people put too much trust into scientists? Journalists? "Experts"?
1/
The other day I wrote a thread explaining that different methods to obtain knowledge have different ES (epistemological strength) and that even the ones with very low ES may have their function:
https://twitter.com/butera_simone/status/1247843447668703232
2/
https://twitter.com/butera_simone/status/1247843447668703232
2/
But epistemologically naive people are not good at recognizing ES.
Thus the actual ES of a tool is one thing, and the perceived ES another one.
If the perceived ES exceed the real ES, we'll call the gap between the two ESVI (epistemological strength valuation inflation).
3/
Thus the actual ES of a tool is one thing, and the perceived ES another one.
If the perceived ES exceed the real ES, we'll call the gap between the two ESVI (epistemological strength valuation inflation).
3/
So for example, science is based on abductive/inductive reasoning, so it's inherently about finding & adopting the *least wrong* model possible.
When someone thinks that science is instead about *absolute truth*, he's overestimating its ES, so we're dealing with ESVI.
4/
When someone thinks that science is instead about *absolute truth*, he's overestimating its ES, so we're dealing with ESVI.
4/
The most blatant example of ESVI is probably journalism.
Having an editor & a traditional journalistic structure might give MSM on average a slight ES advantage over the average blog, but the perception that people have of this advantage is vastly overestimated.
High ESVI.
5/
Having an editor & a traditional journalistic structure might give MSM on average a slight ES advantage over the average blog, but the perception that people have of this advantage is vastly overestimated.
High ESVI.
5/
The ESVI of journalism has caused countless problems to society and individuals alike.
Support for wars predicated on lies, personal reputations destroyed, public attention swayed from major problems, manipulation of political elections etc.
6/
Support for wars predicated on lies, personal reputations destroyed, public attention swayed from major problems, manipulation of political elections etc.
6/
Of course with time people tend to lose faith in it. The ESVI of journalism is slowly decreasing as more and more people realize that they've been lied about, or at least lied to. But in the meantime, it keeps on creating trouble.
7/
7/
The people who're skeptic about everything don't realize that the perceived ES is not the problem, it's the ESVI. Putting the adequate amount of trust into something that deserves it it's not only useful, but indispensable to navigate reality.
8/
8/
Another example: the core issue with social sciences is that they are not real sciences, but are marketed as such.
This creates an incredible level of ESVI. And there lies the root of the problem.
9/
This creates an incredible level of ESVI. And there lies the root of the problem.
9/
There's nothing wrong with taking some ideas from psychology, the problem is when people think that it's as reliable as medicine.
Just as the problem with medicine is when people think it can be as precise as math.
Every tool has its value if understood for its actual ES.
10/10
Just as the problem with medicine is when people think it can be as precise as math.
Every tool has its value if understood for its actual ES.
10/10
