Comment by ElDiablo666 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ElDiablo666 | Hacker News Reader

This is the same alarmist nonsense that's been floating around since forever under one or another banner. This time it's expertise; last time it was "the end of intellectualism" and next time it'll be "Are we heading toward a chasm at full speed because PhDs aren't choosing the president?"

It's mostly intellectually embarrassing foolish nonsense. There's a significant difference between experts like developers, doctors, and engineers, and lawyers, sociologists, and anthropologists. The former group is composed of technical expertise that is necessary for performing the applied functional area of knowledge while the latter group is solely trained in the arena of thoughtfulness.

Want to lament the fact that social science isn't appreciated as it should be? Completely fine. But let's not pretend that understanding how to organize an economy is expertise nor that having such knowledge privileges anyone to make socio-economic decisions for anyone else. If ordinary people weren't the best at understanding how to organize their own lives, traitors wouldn't pay trillions to delude and manipulate them constantly.

Looking at internet threads engaging in amateur sociology is a decent demonstration of why sociological expertise is an actual field of expertise. It's not my field, but I've at least read a 101-level methodology textbook, which I think would improve the state of things considerably if even that level of knowledge were more widespread. Doesn't require a degree, but does require a willingness to learn, whereas I think many people with an anti-expertise viewpoint are more interested in rationalizing why they shouldn't have to learn it (the "only engineering expertise is expertise" view is one variant).

As someone who studied economics I believed I had well thought out positions before studying and wasn't sure how my opinions were going to change. It turned out all my theories were worthless compared to the combined knowledge of the field and the genius observations over the centuries. So your example of not needing economists is unconvincing. We do need to check up on them frequently though and no one should get a free pass.

>So your example of not needing economists is unconvincing.

I don't need to convince anyone of needing economists. Economists need to convince the world of their necessity and have never done so, nor could they ever. Human beings don't need economists to tell them how to live their lives and until economists come up with a good argument for their authority, no one ought to do anything other than listen to what they have to say and possibly give it some thought.

Remember, none of this has anything to do with you and your theories and whatever else you think has any bearing on the structure of societies. This is about general human necessity. People don't need economists or any other social scientists. The best we can do is be helpful participants and try to use our knowledge to help those who might lack it.

Yes, because all big, incredibly complex things are just too damned hard to study or understand and thus we should instead just guess our way through problems. In economics, this is known as the Austrian school.

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go out into the woods and try to kill animals with rocks and pray to the gods for fire.

I think there is a huge tendency to conflate specialization with expertise.

My arrogant baseless opinion is that there are a whole lot more specialists than there are experts.

Sort of off topic, but putting developers in with doctors and engineers is not really legit. The latter two have rigorous tests and certification standards, while developers (myself included) have nothing of the sort; furthermore, much of the methods and such used by developers are not founded at all in research or a scientific method, and are usually of an even lower standard then most soft sciences. (They at least have peer review, we mostly just have blog posts and books from random people from industry).

And it is exactly the same argument that was used against extending the franchise to non property owning men , women .... and so on.

Could you please post a citation for this? I do not know if you are right or wrong, and it is not something I have considered before, but I would appreciate the opportunity to learn what arguments were made at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/chang...

Or any general history text from say the last few hundred years.

There was also a lot of opposition to translating the Bible into vulgar language as opposed to having a Latin speaking elite interpret it for the peasants and yeomen

Interesting article, but it does not make any argument with respect to expertise; that BBC article talks about 'skin in the game'.

>only people with "a stake in the country", that is people who paid taxes and held property, should take part in politics

you really dont see the analogy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com