science   406147

« earlier    

In Picasso’s Blue Period, Scanners Find Secrets He Painted Over - The New York Times
On some of the new techniques used to scan art works to discover composition, other paintings below the surface, etc.
art  art_history  conservation  science 
2 hours ago by johnmfrench
This Is Your Brain on Silence - Issue 38: Noise
Contrary to popular belief, peace and quiet is all about the noise in your head.
marketing  noise  sound  articles  science  finland 
4 hours ago by mikael
Optical illusions on the Web
An article series discussing different optical illusions & mechanical toys, and how to recreate them on the Web
illusion  opticalillusion  science  perception  css  designthinking  webdesign 
8 hours ago by garrettc
Wrong - By David H. Freedman - The New York Times
"Putting trust in experts who are probably wrong is only part of the problem. The other side of the coin is that many people have all but given up on getting good advice from experts. The total effect of all the contradicting and shifting pronouncements is to make expert conclusions at times sound like so much blather — a background noise of modern life. I think by now most of us have at some point caught ourselves thinking, or at least have heard from people around us, something along these lines: Experts! One day they say vitamin X / coffee / wine / drug Y / a big mortgage / baby learning videos / Six Sigma / multitasking / clean homes / arguing / investment Z is a good thing, and the next they say it’s a bad thing. Why bother paying attention? I might as well just do what I feel like doing. Do we really want to just give up on expertise in this way? Even if experts usually fail to give us the clear, reliable guidance we need, there are still situations, as we’ll see, where failing to follow their advice can be self-defeating and even deadly.

So I’m not going to spend much time trying to convince you that experts are often, and possibly usually, wrong. Instead, this book is about why expertise goes wrong and how we may be able to do a better job of seeking out more trustworthy expert advice. To that end, we’re going to look at how experts — including scientists, business gurus, and our other highly trusted sources of wisdom — fall prey to a range of measurement errors, how they come to have deep biases that lead them into gamesmanship and even outright dishonesty, and how interactions among them tend to worsen rather than correct for these problems. We’re also going to examine the ways in which the media sort through the flow of dubious expert pronouncements and further distort them, as well as how we ourselves are drawn to the worst of this shoddy output, and how we end up being even more misled on the Internet. Finally, we’ll try to extract from everything we’ve discovered a set of rough guidelines that can help to separate the most suspect expert advice from the stuff that has a better chance of holding up.

As I said, most people are quite comfortable with the notion that there’s a real problem with experts. But some — mostly experts — do in fact take objection to that claim. Here are the three objections I encountered the most often, along with quick responses.

(1) If experts are so wrong, why are we so much better off now than we were fifty or a hundred years ago? One distinguished professor put it to me this way in an e-mail note: “Our life expectancy has almost doubled in the past seventy-five years, and that’s because of experts.” Actually, the vast majority of that gain came earlier in the twentieth century from a very few sharp improvements, and especially from the antismoking movement. As for all of the drugs, diagnostic tools, surgical techniques, medical devices, lists of foods to eat and avoid, and impressive breakthrough procedures and technologies that fill medical journals and trickle down into media reports, consider this: between 1978 and 2001, according to one highly regarded study, U.S. life spans increased fewer than three years on average — when the drop in smoking rates slowed around 1990, so did life-expectancy gains. It’s hard to claim we’re floating on an ocean of marvelously effective advice from a range of experts when we’ve been skirting the edges of a new depression, the divorce rate is around 50 percent, energy prices occasionally skyrocket, obesity rates are climbing, children’s test scores are declining, we’re forced to worry about terrorist and even nuclear attacks, 118 million prescriptions for antidepressants are written annually in the United States, chunks of our food supply periodically become tainted, and, well, you get the idea. Perhaps a reasonable model for expert advice is one I might call “punctuated wrongness” — that is, experts usually mislead us, but every once in a while they come up with truly helpful advice.

(2) Sure, experts have been mostly wrong in the past, but now they’re on top of things. In mid-2008 experts were standing in line to talk about the extensive, foolproof controls protecting our banks and other financial institutions that weren’t in place in the late 1920s — just before those institutions started collapsing. Cancer experts shake their heads today over the ways in which generations of predecessors wasted decades hunting down the mythical environmental or viral roots of most cancers, before pronouncing as a sure thing the more recent theory of how cancer is caused by mutations in a small number of genes — a theory that, as we’ll see, has yielded almost no benefits to patients after two decades. Most everyone missed what was happening to our climate, or even spoke of a global cooling crisis, until we came to today’s absolutely certain understanding of global warming and its man-made causes — well, we’ll see how that turns out. How could we have been so foolish before? And what sort of fool would question today’s experts’ beliefs? In any case, the claim that we’ve come from wrong ideas to right ideas suggests that there’s a consensus of experts today on what the right ideas are. But there is often nothing close to such a consensus. When experts’ beliefs clash, somebody has to be wrong — hardly a sign of an imminent convergence on truth.

And, finally, (3) So what if experts are usually wrong? That’s the nature of expert knowledge — it progresses slowly as it feels its way through difficult questions. Well, sure, we live in a complex world without easy answers, so we might well expect to see our experts make plenty of missteps as they steadily chip away at the truth. I’m not saying that experts don’t make any progress, or that they ought to have figured it all out long ago. I’m suggesting three things: we ought to be fully aware of how large a percentage of expert advice is flawed; we should find out if there are perhaps much more disconcerting reasons why experts so frequently get off track other than “that’s just the nature of the beast”; and we ought to take the trouble to see if we can come up with clues that will help distinguish better expert advice from fishier stuff. And, by the way, if experts are so comfortable with the notion that their efforts ought to be expected to spit out mostly wrong answers, why don’t they work a little harder to get this useful piece of information across to us when they’re interviewed on morning news shows or in newspaper articles, and not just when they’re confronted with their errors?

Given that I’ve already started throwing the term “expert” around left and right, I suppose I ought to make sure you know what I mean by the word. Academics study “expertise” in pianists, athletes, burglars, birds, infants, computers, trial witnesses, and captains of industry, to name just a few examples. But when I say “expert,” I’m mostly thinking of someone whom the mass media might quote as a credible authority on some topic — the sorts of people we’re usually referring to when we say things like “According to experts . . .” These are what I would call “mass” or “public” experts, people in a position to render opinions or findings that a large number of us might hear about and choose to take into account in making decisions that could affect our lives. Scientists are an especially important example, but I’m also interested in, for example, business, parenting, and sports experts who gain some public recognition for their experience and insight. I’ll also have some things to say about pop gurus, celebrity advice givers, and media pundits, as well as about what I call “local” experts — everyday practitioners such as non-research-oriented doctors, stockbrokers, and auto mechanics.

I’ve heard it said, half kiddingly, that meteorologists are the only people who get paid to be wrong. I would argue that in that sense most of our experts are paid to be wrong, and are probably wrong a much higher percentage of the time than are meteorologists. I’m going to show that although the process of wringing useful insights and advice from complex subjects may indeed be an inherently slow and erratic one, there are many other, less benign reasons why experts go astray. In fact, we’ll see that expert pronouncements are pushed toward wrongness so strongly that in the end it’s harder, I think, to explain why they’re sometimes right. But that doesn’t mean we’re hopelessly mired in this swamp of bad advice. With a decent compass, we can find our way out. Let’s start by exploring some of the muck."
experts  expertise  authority  2010  davidfreedman  wrongness  science  medicine 
13 hours ago by robertogreco

« earlier    

related tags

2010  academia  adamdick  advice  aggregator  aging  ai  amygroesbeck  analysis  ancestry  animals  animation  anthropology  app  ar-15  archaeology  art  art_history  article  articles  audio  australia  authority  battery  battleofgreasygrass  big-science  biology  birds  blog  blogit  bogus  bookreview  books  brooksdavid  business-model  business  butterclams  caltech  canada  capitalism  carbon  categorization  cell  citizen  clamgardens  clams  climate-change  climate  climatechange  climategate  climatology  code  coding  competition  computing  conservation  criticism  css  data  dataset  davidfreedman  depression  design  designthinking  diet  discovery  dna  don't  eap  earthwatch  ecology  economics  education  einstein  elderly  energy  engineering  enlightenment  equality  ethics  eurocentricity  evaluation  evidence  expertise  experts  fact  facts  falcons  fall  faster  fat  female  feminism  fiction  finland  fire  firehawks  food  fraud  funeral  funny  future  gender  genes  genetics  global/intl  graphs  guns  hacker  hawks  health  heavier  hierarchy  high-school  high  highered  history  honesty  humanities  humannature  humor  illusion  indigenous  info  information  inspiration  interesting  internships  inuit  isomer  isotopic  jupyter  kaggle  kites  knowing  knowledge  ksp  kwaxsistalla  lab-reports  landscape  law  leadership  learning  library  lifehack  linkeddata  links  littlebighorn  logic  low-carb  low-fat  machinelearning  mariculture  markbonta  marketing  materials  math  mathematics  maths  max  medicine  memory  mentalhealth  metoo  microbe  microbiology  migration  mohammed-al-mosaiwi  molybdenum  morethanhuman  multispecies  nativeamericans  nature  network  networks  news  newsletter  nhst  nobel  noise  nuclear  nutrition  opticalillusion  oralhistories  oralhistory  paper  papers  peerreview  perception  pets  philosophy  physics  pinker  place  placenames  planck  politics  power  processing.js  processing  prodmgmt  profit  programming  psychology  publishing  python  quiz  rationality  reading  realtime  replication  research  return  revisit  robertgosford  satellite  scary  school  scientism  search  security  semanticweb  share_with_kids  shared  shellfish  society  software  sound  space  spacecraft  statistics  stewardship  storage  study  supplements  tech  technology  teenagers  things  time  to_read  tool  trudysable  tutorial  uk  us  video  visual  visualization  vitamins  vox  webdesign  weltuntergang  woman  women  worldview  writing  wrongness 

Copy this bookmark: