[extropy-chat] Doubt and About

[Harvey Newstrom]

Robin Hanson wrote:
> Your original claim was that "there are more faux experts
> than real experts in the public spotlight today," and that 
> this was worse than it used to be. So I thought we were 
> talking about expertize, i.e, the fact that some people know 
> a lot more about certain topics than other people.  I didn't 
> realize that you only meant to refer to a certain type of 
> expert, the "scientist" who uses the "scientific method", 

WRONG.  You have deliberately quoted me out of context.
My full claim was clearly about science:
> At first, skepticism was a scientific tool used to critically analyze 
> assumptions and verify facts.  Now we have copycats who are acting 
> like skeptics to give their unfounded beliefs an air of scientific 
> authority.  As the article notes, people who are "skeptical" about 
> evolution or global warming are merely pretending to be skeptics 
> without the underlying science.  This is the same as Christian 
> "Scientists" or Creation "Science" trying to pretend that their 
> religious beliefs are as rigorous as real science.  It is too easy to 
> fall into this trap.  People easily fall into a mode where they act 
> like they are experts and they have no real concept of how science or 
> the underlying technology really work.  I am afraid that there are 
> more faux experts than real experts in the public
> spotlight today.    It is easier to be a consumer, commentator,
> political activists, strategy consultant, public educator, or whatever 
> in a field of "expertise" without really going through all the trouble 
> of really learning the field.  This is the biggest threat to science 
> and by extension to transhumanism facing us today.  The world of 
> science is being diluted with pseudoscience, and it is very difficult 
> for the laypeople to tell the difference.

I find it hard to believe that you can read the above paragraph and then
claim that you didn't know I was talking about science.  Worse, I don't see
how you could extract that single sentence from the middle of it without
noticing all the references to science around it.  I am increasingly finding
it hard to hold a rational discussion with you.

> I know too little about what you mean by "scientist" to have
> much of an opinion about whether there are more or less of 
> them listened to today. Many years of study, including a 
> Masters in the history and philosophy of science, convinced 
> me that "science" isn't a very useful concept.

OK, I don't think further discussion will be useful in this case.

-- 
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>