"Trust the experts" has been the motto going around for a while now.
It makes it easy to outsource your own critical thinking by letting the "experts" do it.
The experts should just be one data point not THE SOURCE OF ULTIMATE TRUTH.
It makes it easy to outsource your own critical thinking by letting the "experts" do it.
The experts should just be one data point not THE SOURCE OF ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Pretty much the same goes for civil engineering, particle physics and any other highly trained field that requires vast quantities of knowledge to even intuit probable outcomes.
Why is economics any different? I don't believe it is, I would say economics falls into a similar bucket as weather science where there are always large unknowns that make broad predictions imprecise but that doesn't invalidate their expertise and ignoring it is definitely foolish.
Experts are experts for a reason. If you could intuit all difficult problems as a layman we would have already advanced science far beyond where we currently stand.
Plenty of people have found cures for their medical problems only after they kept doggedly pressing medical people for things that made sense and actually worked for them. Something didn't seem right to them, and they pulled and pulled at threads to find out what it was. You don't need a medical degree to do that: you just need a brain.
It's gravely concerning to see hostility directed at people who tell others to think for themselves, question experts, and adopt a general attitude of informed skepticism. Too many people get genuinely offended when you indicate that you're going to do your own thinking and not just follow "experts". They bring out cliches like "experts are experts for a reason" and "look at this one guy who did something stupid" and neglect, or even suppress, the idea that we at all, each and every one of us, scientists of our lives and competent to make our own decisions and form our own opinions.
In a vacuum, yes. Skepticism isn't just healthy, it's what powers science itself.
However this isn't a vacuum and most people that "question the experts" aren't doing so in good-faith.
Your ability to question an existing theory is proportional to your understanding the problem space itself and knowledge of the existing facts. Basically in order to question an expert realistically you need to be an expert yourself. This shouldn't be controversial, but for some reason it is. :/
There's a current trend with labeling people who disagree with your narrative as 'rejecting expertise'.
People aren't rejecting expertise. They're following different experts than the one's you approve of.
Descarte's, maybe you've heard of him, rejected the expertise that the sun revolved around the Earth despite all of the mainstream experts disagreement.
This pattern has repeated countless times throughout history: labotomies, thalidomide, antiseptic procedure...that's just science...god knows the number of people executed for going against the expertise backed narrative that a dictatorship is not an ideal form of government.
The problem with 'trusting experts' (which is a classic logical fallacy)...is WHICH EXPERTS?
At the end of the day it's all a narrative and you pick the narrative you wish to follow backed by the experts that support your narrative.
It's disengenous to claim otherwise.
And that's literally a politician or leaders job is to sift through all of the experts and all of the other bullshit and try to pull a good decision out of it.
And as a human being, that should be your job as well.
This trend of blind trust has been extremely alarming to me as well these days!
Lobotomies won the Nobel prize in the early 20th century championed by experts!
Experts aren't immune to agendas, or corruption, or any of the human vices.
Appeal to authority is a literal logical fallacy but it's lost on people.
Scary world we're in.
People are scared. When a smooth, soothing voice on YouTube tells these scared people that it's all going to be all right if they just follow recommendations A, B, and C from the "experts", these people feel soothed and safe, like a crying baby being swaddled and given a pacifier.
These people perceive criticism of these soothing experts as personal attacks on their safety and react accordingly. "How DARE you attack the people who made me feel safe after I was scared?!"
Scientific progress depends on consciously overriding these ancient impulses, and we've done a terrible job of communicating this idea to the next generation.
It helps deal with the fear of the unknown.
I guess one step in growing up is realizing nothing is good and also nothing is bad, it's all subjective...the world is essentially a thin veneer of civilization on top of total chaos.
EDIT: Add on also that economics is one of the few fields where what you learn changes the field itself. Gravity didn't start working differently because Newton figured out the laws of gravitation. But if one economic theory holds up in a particular economic cycle, people will adjust their behavior so that it doesn't work anymore. In that way, it's really like psychohistory.
Sure. Not everyone in every field is smart but experts are a real thing and they know vastly more about their field than you do.
I think when you achieve mastery in some field then it becomes a lot easier to appreciate this.
Maybe that is part of the problem. The vast majority of people aren't being offered the opportunity to achieve mastery and thus they don't have this critical grounding.
It's Dunning Kruger otherwise.