> All you need is to see whether their predictions are accurate.
Is not always available. Quite often we have to make decisions about big, underspecified stuff (environmental degradation, COVID at the very beginning, AI), and I don't quite see who are the legitimate, scientific experts on these matters, or how I would go about using the test recommended here to find them.
I don't have a good specific answer for the highly specific points you made, so here is my general answer. We need to return to the scientific method and begin enshrining replication and prediction as the validators of science in every field that we possibly can, replacing the "expert consensus" with prediction markets at every possible opportunity. In some fields (such as the ones you specified), we're not going to have a particularly great way to make that substitution - or at least, if there is a great way, I'm not seeing it.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in sociology and economics that we could easily pick up by dismissing the "expert consensus" and returning to a more scientifically accurate methodology of replication and prediction. And it's possible that by building the good "scientific habits" of using facts and data to determine the accuracy of "experts" instead of just trusting the experts own self-assessment, we will eventually find it easier to develop more objective methods of measuring accuracy, even for fields that are hard to quantify before it's too late.
I know that's not the best response, but I just want to be honest about the intended scope of this article. My intent is to discredit and replace the so-called "experts" in the fields of sociology and economics, because most of them have abandoned the scientific method and are now nothing more than political activists - primitive shamanic partisans who try to impress us with their respectability by overwhelming us with a flood of irrelevant mathematical data and useless degrees. I have no intent to discredit or replace any other scientific fields, just those two. It's possible that other fields could benefit tangentially from the methodologies that I'm advocating, but that falls outside of my scope - so rather than speaking ignorantly about subjects that I'm not as well-versed in, I'll defer to somebody else and limit my comments to my own area of specialty.
“The answer is that you test their predictive ability.” And who is going to do that testing? Experts! You have literally achieved nothing in this piece. What you described is the scientific process. Experts create a paradigm, which is then challenged by other experts. Eventually, new paradigms emerge. Read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn.
And, by the way, Critical Race Theory is one of those paradigms challenging old orthodoxies. It not a scientific theory, but it is way of looking at US history and politics through a lens that challenges the prevailing notion of “colorblindness” which has been abused and corrupted to mean there is only one color—white. CRT is exactly the kind of challenge to a paradigm that will overtake the old false ideology.
First of all, CRT is garbage. Just because a paradigm "challenges old orthodoxies" doesn't mean it's CORRECT. A lot of times, younger generations want to challenge old orthodoxies with new ideas because it makes them feel like they are useful people who are leaving their mark on the world. No generation wants to feel like they're useless idiots who accomplished nothing. So they come up with these delusional paradigms that they refuse to fact-check against reality because they WANT to believe that those paradigms are right. They WANT to feel like they designed a "higher truth" instead of ridiculous garbage that makes the world a worse place.
As for your first paragraph, yes! You're exactly right! What I'm describing is basically the scientific process. Sadly, in a lot of fields (sociology and economics in particular) we have stopped USING the scientific process - that's why garbage pseudosciences (like CRT) have been allowed to flourish throughout academia. The experts are biased because they suffer from that confirmation bias where they want to believe that the paradigm they designed is useful and true. However, it's just not. They're out of touch with reality and frankly delusional.
The reason I have been able to achieve so much better results with my superforecasting and memetics (see my earlier blog posts for examples) is because unlike the "experts," I still use the Scientific Process that they abandoned. We need to start purging all the so-called "experts" who have abandoned the Scientific Process, and in fact that purge is currently taking place. The reason the "experts" are so hysterical about "misinformation" and "attacks against science" is because they are trying to conflate an attack on THEM as being an attack on SCIENCE. But the truth is that they don't represent science, rationalists like me do. The second they abandoned the scientific process they lost their usefulness to society, so now they are gradually getting purged through political methods - which is exactly what they deserve. Trust the Plan! ;-)
And the “Expert Consensus” likewise is meaningless because there have been plenty of occasions throughout history when the experts were all wrong.
Who said that consensus is supposed to be 100% right 100% of time ? The consensus just has the best score on average. Another person, who does not understand probabilities. I have not read the article, because it was too cringy and childish. I randomly looked and saw this sentence, which is proof that you are not very intelligent. My advice: Dont post more trash on the internet and do something else
Good article and mostly agree. But this
> All you need is to see whether their predictions are accurate.
Is not always available. Quite often we have to make decisions about big, underspecified stuff (environmental degradation, COVID at the very beginning, AI), and I don't quite see who are the legitimate, scientific experts on these matters, or how I would go about using the test recommended here to find them.
Thank you! I totally agree with you.
I don't have a good specific answer for the highly specific points you made, so here is my general answer. We need to return to the scientific method and begin enshrining replication and prediction as the validators of science in every field that we possibly can, replacing the "expert consensus" with prediction markets at every possible opportunity. In some fields (such as the ones you specified), we're not going to have a particularly great way to make that substitution - or at least, if there is a great way, I'm not seeing it.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in sociology and economics that we could easily pick up by dismissing the "expert consensus" and returning to a more scientifically accurate methodology of replication and prediction. And it's possible that by building the good "scientific habits" of using facts and data to determine the accuracy of "experts" instead of just trusting the experts own self-assessment, we will eventually find it easier to develop more objective methods of measuring accuracy, even for fields that are hard to quantify before it's too late.
I know that's not the best response, but I just want to be honest about the intended scope of this article. My intent is to discredit and replace the so-called "experts" in the fields of sociology and economics, because most of them have abandoned the scientific method and are now nothing more than political activists - primitive shamanic partisans who try to impress us with their respectability by overwhelming us with a flood of irrelevant mathematical data and useless degrees. I have no intent to discredit or replace any other scientific fields, just those two. It's possible that other fields could benefit tangentially from the methodologies that I'm advocating, but that falls outside of my scope - so rather than speaking ignorantly about subjects that I'm not as well-versed in, I'll defer to somebody else and limit my comments to my own area of specialty.
That Heinz guy was a dumb bitch tbh, I was happier not knowing he wasted his potential so selfishly
Tell me more fellow cat enthusiast
“The answer is that you test their predictive ability.” And who is going to do that testing? Experts! You have literally achieved nothing in this piece. What you described is the scientific process. Experts create a paradigm, which is then challenged by other experts. Eventually, new paradigms emerge. Read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn.
And, by the way, Critical Race Theory is one of those paradigms challenging old orthodoxies. It not a scientific theory, but it is way of looking at US history and politics through a lens that challenges the prevailing notion of “colorblindness” which has been abused and corrupted to mean there is only one color—white. CRT is exactly the kind of challenge to a paradigm that will overtake the old false ideology.
First of all, CRT is garbage. Just because a paradigm "challenges old orthodoxies" doesn't mean it's CORRECT. A lot of times, younger generations want to challenge old orthodoxies with new ideas because it makes them feel like they are useful people who are leaving their mark on the world. No generation wants to feel like they're useless idiots who accomplished nothing. So they come up with these delusional paradigms that they refuse to fact-check against reality because they WANT to believe that those paradigms are right. They WANT to feel like they designed a "higher truth" instead of ridiculous garbage that makes the world a worse place.
As for your first paragraph, yes! You're exactly right! What I'm describing is basically the scientific process. Sadly, in a lot of fields (sociology and economics in particular) we have stopped USING the scientific process - that's why garbage pseudosciences (like CRT) have been allowed to flourish throughout academia. The experts are biased because they suffer from that confirmation bias where they want to believe that the paradigm they designed is useful and true. However, it's just not. They're out of touch with reality and frankly delusional.
The reason I have been able to achieve so much better results with my superforecasting and memetics (see my earlier blog posts for examples) is because unlike the "experts," I still use the Scientific Process that they abandoned. We need to start purging all the so-called "experts" who have abandoned the Scientific Process, and in fact that purge is currently taking place. The reason the "experts" are so hysterical about "misinformation" and "attacks against science" is because they are trying to conflate an attack on THEM as being an attack on SCIENCE. But the truth is that they don't represent science, rationalists like me do. The second they abandoned the scientific process they lost their usefulness to society, so now they are gradually getting purged through political methods - which is exactly what they deserve. Trust the Plan! ;-)
And the “Expert Consensus” likewise is meaningless because there have been plenty of occasions throughout history when the experts were all wrong.
Who said that consensus is supposed to be 100% right 100% of time ? The consensus just has the best score on average. Another person, who does not understand probabilities. I have not read the article, because it was too cringy and childish. I randomly looked and saw this sentence, which is proof that you are not very intelligent. My advice: Dont post more trash on the internet and do something else
> Did not read the article
> Has Very Strong Opinions on something he didn't even read
> Calls ME "cringy and childish"
OK.