[extropy-chat] Doubt and About

[Harvey Newstrom]

Robin Hanson wrote,
> On 12/9/2003 Harvey Newstrom responded:
> >I disagree.  Things are different than they used to be.
> 
> Yes of course things are different than they used to be in many 
> specific ways.  The question is whether there is an overall trend.

Of course.  That is what we are discussing.  I think it is a general trend.
You apparently do not.

> >University studies
> >are supported by specific corporations now.  Discoveries are 
> >proprietary and patented instead of peer-reviewed.  More
> money is spent
> >on lawyers to prevent flaws from being exposed rather than
> confirmation
> >studies being performed.
> 
> These are not about fake versus real experts.

Real experts can take peer review and criticism to refine real theories.
Only fake experts need to avoid peer review and use lawyers to stop people
from pointing out their flaws.

> >Corporate fraud has moved into the realms of computer science and 
> >biology more than ever before.
> 
> There didn't used to be any computer science, so of course there 
> wasn't fraud there.

This is silly.  Of course I wasn't referring to a lack of computer fraud
before there were computers.  But in the early days of computer research, we
didn't have the problem with vaporware, bogus claims, fraudulent products,
and legal maneuvers to suppress the disclosure of flaws that we see today.
These problems are currently getting worse instead of better.

> >Areas of research that used to be purely
> >scientific are now overrun with corporate lawyers,
> politicians, ethics
> >advisors, and a whole host of non-technical people trying to control 
> >technology that they don't understand.
> 
> And areas that used to be overrun are now left more alone. Which areas 
> are of wider interest changes over time.

Can you name an area that used to have this problem and now does not?  I do
not know of any politically charged area or area of pseudoscience that has
been abandoned by the politicians and quacks.

> >Doctors used to make medical
> >decisions, now non-medical professionals in HMOs do.
> 
> But this isn't a matter of fake experts.  The HMO people are typically 
> expert enough for the decisions they make.

I disagree.  HMO accountants are NOT more qualified than my doctor to treat
me!

> And so on.
> 
> Really, aren't you familiar with the "back in my day things were 
> better, now the world is going to hell in a hand basket" stereotype?

Yes.  Is that how you judge my arguments, on the basis of stereotypes?  I am
also familiar with the "things are getting better all the time so we don't
have to worry" stereotype.  There are stereotypes on all sides of every
argument, and I don't find them useful in determining the truth.

> Such claims are usually backed up by a list of
> specific complaints about the world today. But what is
> missing is whether a similar list of complaints could have 
> been made in the past.  Not the exact same complaints of 
> course, but similarly negative ones.  Without evidence on 
> this, you don't have relevant evidence.

That's why I am giving examples from my fields of expertise.  In biological
research, computer science, and corporate auditing, it is clear that
exaggeration of results is getting worse.  You keep referencing stereotypes
and how my claims are "usually" presented.  You don't seem to be addressing
the specifics of my statements as much as a general attitude that you seem
to have lumped me into.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>