Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nathan Young's avatar

I'm gonna assume this post is serious but not literal. I think you raise legitimate problems with updating. I agree this is a core problem.

I'll add some other problems:

- Experts are bad at predicting advances in their own fields. The future is what matters and on average experts can't predict it.

- Experts are bad at changing their minds. We aren't scouts so much as messengers from the scouts. Our actual scouts are not using scout mindset.

You retreat to pessimism. Instead I suggest:

1. Bayesianism provides other options - Scott can say that he's extremely confident a flood didn't happen and so it's very unlikely he'll be convinced otherwise. Many conflicting pieces of evidence back this up (or suggest he shouldn't take a view)

2. Understand expert models. My work is on finding wants to understand and pull apart expert models with less effort. I think the present is bad, but we can do better. Where do the experts disagree?

Expand full comment
John Lawrence Aspden's avatar

Glorious argument. Hasn't persuaded me.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts