The Existential Threat of Ignorance and Stupidity in America

[Nakosis]

Is that relevant to the actual OP? If so, how do you know that?

Do you think experts are above reproach and ought nought be questioned?
You certainly aren't going to know that if you don't ask questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you think experts are above reproach and ought nought be questioned?
You certainly aren't going to know that if you don't ask questions.

Even if they are above reproach, if they are claiming new ideas or some new way to look at existing evidence or theory, they should be questioned. If you don't understand what they are saying, they should be questioned.

What I'm saying is that I think there is a growing number of people that aren't doing that or are deciding they are experts.

Part of it is this idea of individual liberty stretched to cover a view that the un-expert opinion is equal to the expert opinion, because everyone has a right to their opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a game, "go moku".
It involves getting 5 stones in a row.
But it's unrelated to go, other than being playable on a go board.

I don't get Japan's conventions on pronouncing a u, where I am unable to pinpoint a consistency (except perhaps in older Japanese media) in if it's fully pronounced, makes a very small appearance or is just left out (especially at the end of a word).
Or I would think thats "go moku" from what I've learned but suspect I'd probably hear "go mok" and I don't know why.

 

[Nakosis]

We are all ignorant of something. I had a discussion today about the disposal of lithium with a chemist that was far more knowledgeable of the chemistry of lithium than I am. But I do have some knowledge and experience enough to recognize my own ignorance and their expertise.

Since experts are already experts in their fields, at what point do they lose the plot?

I'm not claiming the ignorance of specific groups other than politicians, but experts have a body of work to review. Credentials and affiliations that can be reviewed. Scientific experts are under the constant surveillance of their peers which can be reviewed.

There is nothing preventing an expert from failing to see their own ignorance on a subject, especially one outside their field and they could feel their expertise in one field means expertise in all fields. That has happened. But it is up to us to find the best information we can and not just accept expertise without consideration. Which I think is part of the problem and one that has always been the case. Picking experts that aren't the best and for reasons that have nothing to do with their expertise. I just think that issue is bigger today, because the ignorance is much more widely available. Though @Revoltingest has a great point that in the past, expertise and valid knowledge were not so widely available as these things are today. At one point, it wasn't just bad information spreading, it was that the good information wasn't spreading any faster than the bad and may less fast.

You knew the person well enough to evaluate their knowledge. I see part of the problem as being "experts" are paraded in front of people with most people not really knowing how trustworthy the individual is. If you work in the field yourself, great. You can usually quickly tell who is blowing smoke and who is not. If you don't, those folks are fairly easy to manipulate into accepting you as the expert. Also there is a lot of difference between academic study and actually working in the field.

So people end up listening to the wrong expert and go forth assuming the knowledge they've been given is reliable. They don't know better.
Sometimes ignorance is a consequence of being educated by the "less than expert, expert" and being unwilling to question the education you were given. Peer review is inconsistent. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Credentials can be misleading, especially if you don't know what you are looking at.

The people I trust are those that know their limitations and express it in some way. I don't run into too many people like that.

 

[Nakosis]

Even if they are above reproach, if they are claiming new ideas or some new way to look at existing evidence or theory, they should be questioned. If you don't understand what they are saying, they should be questioned.

What I'm saying is that I think there is a growing number of people that aren't doing that or are deciding they are experts.

Part of it is this idea of individual liberty stretched to cover a view that the un-expert opinion is equal to the expert opinion, because everyone has a right to their opinion.

Everyone having a right to their opinion is kind of an American staple.
I suppose I'd say everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone else has a right to question it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everyone having a right to their opinion is kind of an American staple.
I suppose I'd say everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone else has a right to question it.

It seems it is. I have noticed it on this forum and largely, though not exclusively, from representatives identifying with a certain segment of the population. Mostly from the US. And opinions that are often unfounded, or at least the person's holding the opinions seem to be unable to provide much or any viable foundation other than holding the opinion makes it sound.

I agree. Without question lets bad information and poor conclusions survive.