Denying expert knowledge by appealing to conspiracy

[Strathos]

Consider the following claims:

- The U.S. Civil War began in the year 1397 B.C., when Union forces, under General Snoop Dogg, launched a surprise attack on Fort Sumter, which was located on Olympus Mons on Mars. Don't trust all of those historians who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Global warming isn't happening. Don't trust all of those climatologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The earth is flat, the edge is somewhere in Antarctica, gravity isn't real, and there's no such thing as outer space. Don't trust all of those astronomers, cartographers, astronauts, physicists, GPS manufacturers, high altitude pilots and passengers, surveyors, etc. who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Lightning is caused by Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars using the Force. Don't trust all of those meteorologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Vaccines don't work and they are dangerous and cause autism. Don't trust all of those doctors and medical researchers who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The state of Wyoming doesn't exist. Don't trust all of those geographers and residents who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The earth is 6000 years old and evolution never happened. Don't trust all of those biologists, geologists, nuclear physicists, and anthropologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The real value of pi is 4. Don't trust all of those mathematicians who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

Now, what makes any of these claims different from each other, or more or less reasonable?

 

[Norbert L]

Now, what makes any of these claims different from each other, or more or less reasonable?

The examples aside, I think the real problem is in the titled question of the thread. Experts do disagree with each other.
Why Experts Always Seem To Get It Wrong

I believe it's how those disagreements are handled which can lead to accusations that progress through a media telephone game that can often end with sensationalizing the problem into an appeal of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In Medicine, there is something called Evidence-Based Medicine or EBM. This was created as a system of statistical probability to aid decision making. Within EBM, expert opinion is considered the weakest evidence class, the poorest support. The reason being, that experts often were mistaken, when their reasoning supported a certain treatment but the data from studies was ambigious or often non-existent.

The problem is that all data or evidence has to be placed in an interprative framework for it to have meaning. Otherwise it is just numbers and things. So depending what that framework entails, people can look at the same data and make vastly different conclusions. EBM partly accounts for this by reducing ideas into simple queries that can be deductively answered from evidence, thus allowing statistical analysis to come into its own.

Such ideas like Climate change, historical events or the like, cannot be easily reduced in such a manner. Expert opinion on a subject cannot be validated from outside itself, as those attempting to validate it cannot then be experts themselves, or it is merely circular self-adulation. It is a difficult problem to solve, but essentially comes down to the trust you place in authority in most cases.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about informed knowledge by people who have spent their lives studying and cross-checking these things.

 

[pitabread]

All those ideas in the OP seem equally dumb and therefore equally reasonable.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about informed knowledge by people who have spent their lives studying and cross-checking these things.

Yes, which is often wrong. In Medicine we used to have consensus conferences, where experts in specific disciplines met together to write protocols on best practice. This was then the basis of medical textbooks, teaching and clinical practice. They supported the use of digoxin in heart failure, for instance, as decreasing mortality. When statistical analysis of cases were done, this was found to be mistaken.

Informed knowledge does not mean correct knowledge. Based on our current understanding of physiology, Digoxin should be aiding diastolic filling and thus should decrease mortality. But it doesn't. Empiric and clinical data had been used to come to this erroneous conclusion, extrapolated by the experts in the field, but ultimately it was not statistically significant. (Being a bit hard on Digoxin though, the debate is still ongoing)

A lot of EBM is counter-intuitive. We think arthroscopy should work, or that progesrerone should limit miscarriages. Many medical practices was built around these things. Ultimately, they were built on Inductive Reasoning on data - which inevitably means the problem of Induction applies, and thus their validity is hard to establish. Deductive EBM helps to alleviate this a bit.

There is little such structures outside of Medicine. No one walks back experts from their card castles of Inductive reasoning, until they collapse in on themselves if sufficiently falsified. So experts can pontificate on global warming et al. and people expect we must all kowtow to authority. A bit silly, I think. Show me robust heuristic technique, I say. Show me deductive conclusions. Before then, that is one way to evaluate the data, but it has not been validated, so is hardly Evidence-Based. As I said, it comes down to trust in authority of these experts, which may be compromised by presumed biases or motives. There is something called publication bias and Institutionalisation in the Kuhnian sense too: It hurts one's career if you disagree with the established consensus; or in publication, positive results are skewed for if a 'new conclusion' or negative results if an old orthodoxy is attempted to be overthrown. Journals aren't likely to publish boring inconclusive studies, as such. So evidence is weighted for statistical significance to occur, or people only become aware of such selectively published results. Experts are just humans with all our psychological quirks, and Sciences just flawed human institutions.

To go back to Medicine: There was a large trial in Australia called CHEST. It was to evaluate Colloid vs Crystalloid fluid, and came soundly out in favour of the latter. But it is deeply flawed, in that it was presented in such a way, without the data necessarily implying it. Worldwide people threw out colloids from theatres, Europe even took steps to ban it! Thing is, their groups were not requiring resuscitation, and the conclusions on sepsis were based on a mixed group.

Why did they do this? Well, Australia provides Albumin cheaply to hospitals (a colloid), but they must buy Crystalloids. The experts had profit motive, as who does fluid trials but people deeply entrenched therein? Or why pharmaceutical company supported trials are far more likely to post positive results. It is bias, often subtle bias, which EBM tries to limit through arcane number crunching.

 

[Strathos]

Yes, which is often wrong. In Medicine we used to have consensus conferences, where experts in specific disciplines met together to write protocols on best practice. This was then the basis of medical textbooks, teaching and clinical practice. They supported the use of digoxin in heart failure, for instance, as decreasing mortality. When statistical analysis of cases were done, this was found to be mistaken.

Informed knowledge does not mean correct knowledge. Based on our current understanding of physiology, Digoxin should be aiding diastolic filling and thus should decrease mortality. But it doesn't. Empiric and clinical data had been used to come to this erroneous conclusion, extrapolated by the experts in the field, but ultimately it was not statistically significant. (Being a bit hard on Digoxin though, the debate is still ongoing)

A lot of EBM is counter-intuitive. We think arthroscopy should work, or that progesrerone should limit miscarriages. Many medical practices was built around these things. Ultimately, they were built on Inductive Reasoning on data - which inevitably means the problem of Induction applies, and thus their validity is hard to establish. Deductive EBM helps to alleviate this a bit.

There is little such structures outside of Medicine. No one walks back experts from their card castles of Inductive reasoning, until they collapse in on themselves if sufficiently falsified. So experts can pontificate on global warming et al. and people expect we must all kowtow to authority. A bit silly, I think. Show me robust heuristic technique, I say. Show me deductive conclusions. Before then, that is one way to evaluate the data, but it has not been validated, so is hardly Evidence-Based. As I said, it comes down to trust in authority of these experts, which may be compromised by presumed biases or motives. There is something called publication bias and Institutionalisation in the Kuhnian sense too: It hurts one's career if you disagree with the established consensus; or in publication, positive results are skewed for if a 'new conclusion' or negative results if an old orthodoxy is attempted to be overthrown. Journals aren't likely to publish boring inconclusive studies, as such. So evidence is weighted for statistical significance to occur, or people only become aware of such selectively published results. Experts are just humans with all our psychological quirks, and Sciences just flawed human institutions.

To go back to Medicine: There was a large trial in Australia called CHEST. It was to evaluate Colloid vs Crystalloid fluid, and came soundly out in favour of the latter. But it is deeply flawed, in that it was presented in such a way, without the data necessarily implying it. Worldwide people threw out colloids from theatres, Europe even took steps to ban it! Thing is, their groups were not requiring resuscitation, and the conclusions on sepsis were based on a mixed group.

Why did they do this? Well, Australia provides Albumin cheaply to hospitals (a colloid), but they must buy Crystalloids. The experts had profit motive, as who does fluid trials but people deeply entrenched therein? Or why pharmaceutical company supported trials are far more likely to post positive results. It is bias, often subtle bias, which EBM tries to limit through arcane number crunching.

Scientific knowledge advances, but when has some fringe conspiracy theory ever overturned established science?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Scientific knowledge advances, but when has some fringe conspiracy theory ever overturned established science?

There are institutional biases that support ideas far longer than they should, and penalise deviation. Functionally this is a 'conspiracy'. Thomas Kuhn addressed this when describing Science as consisting of a series of paradigms; that grants, acolades and posts often depend on such institutionalisation. It is doubtful for instance, that someone doubting man-made climate change would be hired by many institutions and would have more difficulty getting published. Or people supporting alternative historical chronologies in the ancient near East, like Rohl. Deviating from established orthodoxy in a field has career penalties.

In that light, fringe theories have overturned orthodoxy - which was entrenched and attempted to suppress it. Good examples would be Harvey showing blood circulates against Galenic physiology; or Acid/Base vs Phlogiston.

 

[Strathos]

There are institutional biases that support ideas far longer than they should, and penalise deviation. Functionally this is a 'conspiracy'. Thomas Kuhn addressed this when describing Science as consisting of a series of paradigms; that grants, acolades and posts often depend on such institutionalisation. It is doubtful for instance, that someone doubting man-made climate change would be hired by many institutions or would have more difficulty getting published.

In that light, fringe theories have overturned orthodoxy - which was entrenched and attempted to suppress it. Good examples would be Harvey showing blood circulates against Galenic physiology; or Acid/Base vs Phlogiston.

That's equivocation. Actual, off - the - wall conspiracies that no one who has seriously studied a subject would buy into are what I'm talking about.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's equivocation. Actual, off - the - wall conspiracies that no one who has seriously studied a subject would buy into are what I'm talking about.

Then why are you mentioning things like climate change? They actually did a study on such against orthodoxy views recently, and found that climate-change deniers are not ignorant of the field. There is a big difference between that on the one hand; and antivaxxers, GMO food fears, and flat-earthers on the other, for instance.

Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most

I understood your OP as defending trust in the authority of expertise in a field, which I agree with up to a point. It should not be slavishly adhered to though, and alternate viewpoints at least given a hearing. Blood circulation was an off the wall idea, going against a 1000 years of Medicine and all the great doctors of the past, after all. If Medicine has taught us anything, it is that expertise is not enough and these inductive speculations that often pass as such, needs mechanisms to walk them back if need be.

 

[Strathos]

Then why are you mentioning things like climate change? They actually did a study on such against orthodoxy views recently, and found that climate-change deniers are not ignorant of the field. There is a big difference between that on the one hand; and antivaxxers, GMO food fears, and flat-earthers on the other, for instance.

Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most

I understood your OP as defending trust in the authority of expertise in a field, which I agree with up to a point. It should not be slavishly adhered to though, and alternate viewpoints at least given a hearing. Blood circulation was an off the wall idea, going against a 1000 years of Medicine and all the great doctors of the past, after all. If Medicine has taught us anything, it is that expertise is not enough and these inductive speculations that often pass as such, needs mechanisms to walk them back if need be.

I'm not talking about denying that climate change is happening as fast as some people say, or arguments over how much human activity contributes to it. I'm talking about the extreme position that no global warming is happening at all, and the whole thing is made up for some nefarious purpose.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not talking about denying that climate change is happening as fast as some people say, or arguments over how much human activity contributes to it. I'm talking about the extreme position that no global warming is happening at all, and the whole thing is made up for some nefarious purpose.

I have not seen anyone hold that position. Sounds more as if setting up a strawman. Or do you mean the position in which there is insufficient evidence to determine if it is occuring now at all? We only have good data going back 200 years, and there have been 20 year warm spells in the past based on tree rings, ice cores and such (for instance some have linked such a warm spell with the rise of Genghis Khan). The climate obviously changes now and then, like the mediaeval warm period or the little ice age, so a person believing in a static climate is obviously very poorly informed. However, doubting whether significant transformation of the climate is occuring, as opposed to a variant temp spike or anomaly, is not an absolute far-fetched position to hold. Regardless, everything cannot be tarred by the same brush, and climate change is a political issue, with lots of money thrown at it. To think there aren't people seeking to exploit it is wishful thinking.

I don't see how large scale industrialisation could not have affected the global climate myself, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the arguments of those who think otherwise. Probably a 'tragedy of the commons' situation anyway.

 

[tas8831]

I have not seen anyone hold that position. Sounds more as if setting up a strawman.

Really?

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.​

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Really?

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.​

Just twitter-talk. This is what he told CBS:

What did Trump say about climate change?
During Sunday's interview, Mr Trump cast doubt on making any changes, saying the scientists "have a very big political agenda".

"I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference," he told journalist Lesley Stahl.

"But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this. I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don't want to be put at a disadvantage."

Mr Trump added that temperatures "could very well go back" - although he did not say how.

Trump: Climate scientists have 'agenda'

So that is not really the simplistic position as presented here. I am sure you'll find quips or such where people say things along that line; when making an actual argument, I have not seen it presented as a full on deception usually. Probably there are such, but it isn't common. Not even Trump.

 

[lasthero]

Just twitter-talk.

So he was just joking? Not being serious? Should I not take anything he says on Twitter at face value?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Consider the following claims:

- The U.S. Civil War began in the year 1397 B.C., when Union forces, under General Snoop Dogg, launched a surprise attack on Fort Sumter, which was located on Olympus Mons on Mars. Don't trust all of those historians who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Global warming isn't happening. Don't trust all of those climatologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The earth is flat, the edge is somewhere in Antarctica, gravity isn't real, and there's no such thing as outer space. Don't trust all of those astronomers, cartographers, astronauts, physicists, GPS manufacturers, high altitude pilots and passengers, surveyors, etc. who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Lightning is caused by Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars using the Force. Don't trust all of those meteorologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Vaccines don't work and they are dangerous and cause autism. Don't trust all of those doctors and medical researchers who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The state of Wyoming doesn't exist. Don't trust all of those geographers and residents who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The earth is 6000 years old and evolution never happened. Don't trust all of those biologists, geologists, nuclear physicists, and anthropologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The real value of pi is 4. Don't trust all of those mathematicians who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

Now, what makes any of these claims different from each other, or more or less reasonable?

Nothing as almost no one makes any of them. Throwing a Strawman into the mix is not very useful.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So he was just joking? Not being serious? Should I not take anything he says on Twitter at face value?

No. Nor anything anyone else says on twitter either.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why are some people intent upon using the "experts agree" meme to prevent critical thinking on a subject? Is it a conspiracy or just a state of mind that is prevalent among many self admitted experts ? The class of self admitted experts that simply want people to take their word as infallible and do not like to be questioned by non experts since those particular style of experts have little facility for explaining things they themselves have never questioned?

 

[Speedwell]

Why are some people intent upon using the "experts agree" meme to prevent critical thinking on a subject? Is it a conspiracy or just a state of mind that is prevalent among many self admitted experts ? The class of self admitted experts that simply want people to take their word as infallible and do not like to be questioned by non experts since those particular style of experts have little facility for explaining things they themselves have never questioned?

Who are these people? It sounds like you are talking about creationists, but I rather think you are not. As far as scientific experts go, a scientist never commits to anything unless he knows his results and conclusions can be independently verified. No scientist expects other people to take his word as infallible.
On the other hand, when experts agree on a certain matter, it is a good idea to give their combined opinion serious consideration, rather than blowing it off as a conspiracy because some layman with an ax to grind disagrees with it.

 

[juvenissun]

Consider the following claims:

- The U.S. Civil War began in the year 1397 B.C., when Union forces, under General Snoop Dogg, launched a surprise attack on Fort Sumter, which was located on Olympus Mons on Mars. Don't trust all of those historians who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Global warming isn't happening. Don't trust all of those climatologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The earth is flat, the edge is somewhere in Antarctica, gravity isn't real, and there's no such thing as outer space. Don't trust all of those astronomers, cartographers, astronauts, physicists, GPS manufacturers, high altitude pilots and passengers, surveyors, etc. who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Lightning is caused by Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars using the Force. Don't trust all of those meteorologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- Vaccines don't work and they are dangerous and cause autism. Don't trust all of those doctors and medical researchers who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The state of Wyoming doesn't exist. Don't trust all of those geographers and residents who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The earth is 6000 years old and evolution never happened. Don't trust all of those biologists, geologists, nuclear physicists, and anthropologists who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

- The real value of pi is 4. Don't trust all of those mathematicians who tell you otherwise, they're all part of a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

Now, what makes any of these claims different from each other, or more or less reasonable?

There are many different type of expert, include expert on God. Why do you think there is only expert on science?