//****************************************************************************//
//********** Expertise and its Problems - November 6th, 2019 ****************//
//**************************************************************************//
- Okay, we are NOT having a quiz today, but we're going to be talking about an important topic that is NOT in the book
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Today, we'll be talking about the concept of "expertise," and what it means, and why you should care about it, etc.
- "I came up with 5 ways of thinking about expertise, and let's start going through them"
- First off, there's the problem of expertise and democracy
- While this isn't an "either/or" dichotomy, there is a certain tension between expertise and democracy: where do experts fit into society? Should EVERYONE have a say in ALL decisions, or are there areas where only people who "know the stuff" should get to make choices?
- Broadly, DEMOCRACY is the idea that decisions should be made by consensus from everyone (although there's TONS of nuance and different views here)
- EXPERTISE are the special skills or knowledge possessed by certain people
- How do we know who the real experts are? Are ghost hunters real experts? What about if ghosts end up being real?
- We simultaneously want to solve problems fairly and democratically while ALSO solving problems through specialized knowledge not everyone has
- "Side-note: I remember as a naive undergrad philosophy student that I was reading Rousseau, and someone said 'Oh, you want to be a teacher! You probably belong to this political party!', and that made me realize that a lot of people don't just vote for what's best for their country, but there's at least a bit of a 'what's best for ME?' factor"
- The problem is that in many contexts, we DON'T support simple democracy. You don't want the public to take a vote on your heart transplant results - you want a reputable doctor to do that!
- At the same time, we can look through any news clippings and point out events where politicians wrongly did something they "thought was best" that more public input and better representation could've stopped
- One example of this dilemma is public education - how should science be taught? There's a movement called "teach the controversy" where we should teach flat-earth theories, non-evolution, aliens building the pyramids, etc. to be "fair" to all sides, but is that really the best way to do things?
- The second problem is WHO counts as an expert? Who gets to decide this stuff?
- Our reading from today was an interview with Harry Collins (a sociologist we've briefly seen mentioned in our readings before)
- Collins has come up with some super-duper complex versions of expertise, but his broad version breaks down different kinds of "expertise" for a given topic X
- NON-EXPERTS don't know enough to meaningfully contribute or talk sophisticatedly about the topic
- CONTRIBUTORY EXPERTISE means that you can "do" things in the field, like use the particle accelerator and write a paper on it, or be a doctor that can perform heart surgery, or a plumber that fixes a valve gasket doohickey
- INTERACTIONAL EXPERTISE is a middle-ground between these 2, where you can talk about the field intelligently and make good points, but you can't actually do the work
- Collins points this out with how he personally has interviewed gravitational wave physicists: he can discuss at a high level how the physicists conduct their research, he understands their concerns, he can ask intelligent questions and understand counter-explanations, etc., even though the actual math and techniques are way over his head
- In Collins mind, science journalists are a good example of this class: they understand what's going on, and can even give useful input to scientists, but they don't have expertise at a very deep level
- Our third (and a big public policy) problem, then, is who do we decide has authority when the experts disagree?
- Classic example: 2 "experts" are on a talkshow, and the first one says "this is happening," and another says "nu-uh, it's not happening!"
- Who do we believe, if we're not experts? Another expert might be able to look at the data and evaluate for themselves - but what if we can't understand the research?
- What do we do if we're a juror and we're hearing two blood-spatter experts arguing about where the shooter must have stood? How can we, as non-experts, tell who's credible and who's not?
- This also goes back to the 1st question: should the experts decide this, or is there something important about having a democratic expert?
- When the Chernobyl nuclear disaster happened in 1986 ("I heard the TV show of it was great"), there was an interesting study on sheep-herders in Britain
- As the scary radioactive cloud floated over Europe, different experts told the sheep-herders different things: "You need to kill your sheep," "You should wait this thing out," "You need to sell them by this day," etc.
- So, what did the sheep-herders do? They got frustrated and ignored ALL of the advice, even though much of it had a pretty large consensus!
- ...unfortunately, this really is a tough problem, and there isn't a clear answer
- The fourth big problem: what should YOU do if you're an expert witness?
- This one DOES have a good answer: avoid perjury!
- "Basically, don't lie on the stand! Why is that an issue?"
- The book has 5 pieces of advice (pg. 113), and while they're pretty common-sensical ("only become an expert research if you've done all your research"), it'd be bad if you didn't at least consider these things:
- Don't take a case if there isn't enough time to conduct the proper research
- Only take the case if you can testify with a good conscience, without being pressured into withholding information to protect a client, etc.
- Consult extensively with the lawyer so he's familiar with the technical details of the case
- Stay objective and unbiased on the witness stand; stick to the questions asked, don't lose your temper, answer honestly, etc.
- Always be open to new information, even in the trial
- Finally, the fifth problem: who has authority to critique experts?
- Traditionally, the answer has been "only other recognized experts," since they know what's going on - but what about people who have lower levels of expertise, like science writers or critics? Don Ihde was a big proponent of this
- "We have music critics who aren't themselves music producers, so why can't we have science critics who aren't scientists themselves? We understand that you can evaluate if something is good or not separately from being good at MAKING that thing in these other domains, so why not apply that to science and engineering?"
- Similarly, there are people who are great actors or musicians or directors who are TERRIBLE at talking about their job - it seems like it could be a separate skill
- You don't have to agree with this - you may think science is fundamentally different - but it's something to think about
- Alright; for recitation, read "case 33" on the Therac-25, and I'll see you later!