

Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong - edw519
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you

======
DaniFong
I really disagree with the premise of the article.

Famously, Feynman stated that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the
experts”.

When his sweetheart Arlene Greenbaum became sick, he found himself shuttered
away, studying her ailment with as much intensity as he could spare.
Eventually he thought, based on the evidence, that it was most probably
tuberculosis. But this was, at the time, a common disease. He reasoned that
her doctors (of which there were many) would have known if it was. So he
discounted his own diagnosis, and placed his faith in the opinion of the
experts, who, if I recall correctly, believed it to be some sort of rare
cancer.

But it was tuberculosis. She died from it.

Doing science isn't about applying some particular professional method.
Fundamentally it's about using everything at your disposal to find out the
truth of things. So called _non-scientists_ can do that, if only they try. As
an ethos, science, at least as it's seen by some, couldn't be more anti-
expertise.

~~~
dhbradshaw
>Fundamentally it's about using everything at your disposal to find out the
truth of things.

Nice statement.

Also, great story. It's not just Feynman either. I've seen the same thing
(family members getting the diagnosis before doctors because they care more
and take the time to get it right) several times in my own family.

As a graduate student I find myself continually astonished by the fact that
narrow expertise comes quickly. That is, if you start out with a specific
question it will not take too long before you understand it better than your
adviser and then better than anyone you can find and finally better than
anyone in the world, as far as you can discern.

Basically, the world is so broad that if you specialize on a specific, well
formed question (as Feynman did) you can probably become a world expert on
that question if you put in the time and are actually looking to learn.

------
vixen99
How annoying this is: 'But the collective expertise of thousands of
researchers barely registers with global warming skeptics, creationist movie
producers and distrustful parents. Why is scientific authority under fire from
so many corners?'

A neat trick, associating global warming scepticism with creationism! Why is
it so difficult for people to understand that science proceeds via argument
backed by data not by 'consensus' whatever that might be or estimations of
scientists' expertise.

------
kingkongrevenge
The tone of the piece is kind of pathetic. It's people who crave more power
and prestige bemoaning their status as technicians. Huge numbers of people
believe all kinds of idiotic things in all sorts of unscientific domains, and
this is not an interesting observation. This article only exists because
between the lines they're talking about political power.

This bit cracks me up.

>Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe,
those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to
throw their own judgment into the mix.

The _NERVE_ of parents to review the literature and conclude the autism threat
may be greater than the vaccine protective benefits and make their own
decision. It's not like billion dollar pharmaceutical products and associated
government policies have ever hurt people before!

The piece fails to even allude to the idea that scientific officialdom blew
its credibility last century. A whole lot of stupid or evil policies and
pronouncements that pushed people around were made under the banner of
science. The laissez-faire people were almost always right.

------
kingkongrevenge
The word "scientist" needs to be banned. There are physicists who have
expertise in physics, much as there are plumbers who know a lot about
plumbing. But there is no such special class of human beings called
"scientists."

