Oh, the problem is that it's not as simple as intuition/experience/etc being better than bad science. Often enough your intuition is just wrong, and bad science is just right.
A better way is dealing with confidence values with your intuition, and changing the required quality of science based on the confidence of the priors you are trying to verify. But then, this is hard too.
The real problem here is that, as you complained, those people aren't just competent enough on the work they are doing. I guess my point is only that this shouldn't be surprising, as it's a hard job.
A better way is dealing with confidence values with your intuition, and changing the required quality of science based on the confidence of the priors you are trying to verify. But then, this is hard too.
The real problem here is that, as you complained, those people aren't just competent enough on the work they are doing. I guess my point is only that this shouldn't be surprising, as it's a hard job.