Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j19fuhz wrote

Reply to comment by thenousman in Epistemic Trespassing: Stay in your lane mf by thenousman

[deleted]

−22

thenousman OP t1_j19hm7v wrote

A random person on the street? We are talking about an expert, not a random person. General expert? What does that have to do with this, no one is claiming to hold any given expert as a general expert. It sure sounds like you’re missing the point. In order for it to count as epistemic trespassing, it must involve an expert who then passes judgment on a question in a field in which they have no expertise and it’s wrong because people, including the expert, may be ignorant that that is happening. Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion.

24

[deleted] t1_j19ihsx wrote

[deleted]

−7

godsonlyprophet t1_j19npsc wrote

Maybe you didn't read the article? If is referring to expert testimony in courts. Those 'experts' are somewhat defined in their jurisdictions by law. You may have seen that discussed in movies like My Cousin Vinnie.

While I'm not a lawyer the article seems to discuss an actual problem. Being in a court of law it seems reasonable for a pediatrician to quote a well understood statistic in the field. What seems outside of expertise for an average pediatrician is to modify or attempt to refine a well known statistic themselves without also being an expert in statistical methods relevant to that field.

11

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j19tlw8 wrote

I think the issue is that the topic of "Epistemic Trespassing" isn't limited to just expert testimony in court. Yes, that is what the article is talking about in particular, but in wider national discourse the phrase is used to silence dissenting opinion in regards to policy proposals, ie covid lockdown regime. In fact that is the first time I've ever seen the phrase used (which is tangentially mentioned in the article). In such discourse the phrase is used in regards to accusing laymen of ignorance and lacking education in the face of people crafting policy that often adversely affect said laymen. People who are affected by policies ought to have a say in the creation and implementation of such policy.

"Who will watch the Watchers" yida yada. But the truth of the matter is the Experts are people like the rest of us and are prone to error and using their position as a vector to implement their personal politics (which is unavoidable, but manifests in egregious ways in particular instances). Also, their credentials and position allow them to buffer themselves from the negative consequences of their actions/inactions. Relying on your credentials is always a sign of lacking a proper argument/case/judgement.

4

godsonlyprophet t1_j1bej5b wrote

And there's the crux, no? Epistemological Trespass isn't about credentials, it is about epistemology. Your rebuttals seem more like blaming medical stitches for causing the wound those same stitches seek to address.

What is Epistemological Trespass if not a caution against overly trusting credentials or status?

>In such discourse the phrase is used in regards to accusing laymen of ignorance and lacking education in the face of people crafting policy that often adversely affect said laymen.

Were they misinformed?

>"Who will watch the Watchers" yida yada. But the truth of the matter is the Experts are people like the rest of us and are prone to error and using their position as a vector to implement their personal politics (which is unavoidable, but manifests in egregious ways in particular instances)...

Who do you propose, those out of the field with next to little training or the tools to understand? Where is epistemological consensus in this?

1

thenousman OP t1_j19lys3 wrote

I don’t know what specifically makes someone an expert in whatever particular field, but in the context of epistemic trespassing that person is considered by others in and outside of their field to be an “expert” in their field, and then that person passes judgment on some question outside whatever field that they are considered an expert in. That’s why it’s trespassing and if they abuse their expert authority, which most people might not know that they did that, is why it’s wrong.

8

supersecretaqua t1_j1an8dq wrote

What fucking world do you live in that even if we removed the court context here and just compared what someone would be more likely to listen to, an expert in one field talking about another, or a high school student.... And you're trying to say you'd be similarly impacted by the high schooler?

Do you even realize what you're saying?

Some weird vacuum you have created and it doesn't even work contained like that either... Genuinely flabbergasted, like how do you process this and then share it

3

iiioiia t1_j19xg8y wrote

> Any advice either comes from someone who knows what he's talking about, or it does not.

Is "knows what he's talking about" a True/False binary:

a) in fact?

b) in appearance?

3

thedeafbadger t1_j1bx0hv wrote

As a bartending expert, my opinion on fresh juice vs super juice would be an expert opinion, but my opinion on the proper method of preparing demiglace would not be.

1