[extropy-chat] Science and Fools

[Robin Hanson]

At 12:57 AM 3/21/2005, Chris Hibbert wrote:
>>How can you justify disagreeing with people who have studied these
>>topics in great detail, just because progress hasn't been rapid?
>
>But I think the relevant characteristic of these stagnant fields is that 
>there's still disagreement among the experts, and while there may have 
>been sound and fury, it doesn't seem to have led to a settled 
>consensus.  If a reasonable amount of effort indicates that experts 
>disagree, then the uninformed baysian can't know which expert to believe 
>without investing the time to become an expert.

Rapidly progressing and slowly progressing fields both have many areas of 
agreement and many areas of disagreement.  When the experts disagree you 
have the option to either take the side with one set of experts, or to take 
an intermediate position of uncertainty between the various expert group 
positions.  The first choice is a choice to disagree, but perhaps not as 
problematic as choosing to disagree with experts when those experts mostly 
disagree with each other.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323