How to Use Expert Opinion

[Alan Klein]

Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.

You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.

Doctors can't drive.  They're also cheap.  Must be because they can\'t calculate the tip right. 

[Alan Klein]

There are even some doctors and dentists who happen to be also good photographers.

That's because they can afford Leicas. 

[Alan Klein]

As always, it depends.

There are various areas of expertise. If the field is less limited, like response to pandemics, they are actually pretty well rounded on what it implies in other fields too; being less narrow there is more uncertainty but they are still better than the next person who doesn't deal with this.


You are correct that the decisions should be made by listening to various experts and come up with the best compromise. However this implies listening to and trusting those experts. If you disregard what they say and decide to just go with your gut, you might as well not pretend that you used experts in your decision making.

Drs' Birx and Fauci are not experts in economics and business.  I don't recall either one of them posturing on it at any of the news conferences.  Trump seem to rely on his own experience in that areas as well as his economic team of experts. EVen ciproration in science have financial and operationsla and marketing managers in addition to research and science managers.  It's not that difficult to understand unless you you hate Trump. Then you want to only use the science experts advice so you can beat him over the head with it. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

The one you don't berate.

Oh, wait...

Eh?

Jeremy

[RSL]

Had a friend who once defined an "expert" as "a drip under pressure."

[Jeremy Roussak]

Drs' Birx and Fauci are not experts in economics and business.  I don't recall either one of them posturing on it at any of the news conferences.  Trump seem to rely on his own experience in that areas as well as his economic team of experts. EVen ciproration in science have financial and operationsla and marketing managers in addition to research and science managers.  It's not that difficult to understand unless you you hate Trump. Then you want to only use the science experts advice so you can beat him over the head with it.

You are skating on extremely thin ice, Alan.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

You are skating on extremely thin ice, Alan.

Jeremy

What do you disagree with?  That Birx and Fauci are not experts in business?  That Trump used experts from other disciplines to help make his decisions?  That companies do similarly? That people here only take science experts advice on what to do about the virus rather than getting input from economic experts as well? 

[Chris Kern]

It's not that difficult to understand unless you you hate Trump. Then you want to only use the science experts advice so you can beat him over the head with it.

You are skating on extremely thin ice, Alan.

What do you disagree with?

I can't speak for Jeremy, but I don't think the issue is disagreement; rather it's your apparent compulsion to inject your repetitive political opinions, dubious conspiracy theories, unfounded apocalyptic predictions, and irrelevant rhetorical questions into threads that are, at least ostensibly, intended for rational discussion of issues relating to the pandemic we are experiencing.

You have the "playpen" for your comments―a thread that was started (by you) expressly for the purpose of letting people blow off steam in posts that don't belong in other threads.

Actually, I read almost everything you post, no matter how preposterous or even downright bizarre it seems to me, because I think you represent a particular strain of neo-populist opinion that is important for the rest of us to understand―not only here in the States but in many other countries, democratic and authoritarian, as well.

However, please confine your screeds to the thread that was created expressly for them.  You won't be deprived of your emotional outlet and the rest of us won't have to wade through your extraneous posts to find those that are responsive to the subject at hand.

[Alan Klein]

I can't speak for Jeremy, but I don't think the issue is disagreement; rather it's your apparent compulsion to inject your repetitive political opinions, dubious conspiracy theories, unfounded apocalyptic predictions, and irrelevant rhetorical questions into threads that are, at least ostensibly, intended for rational discussion of issues relating to the pandemic we are experiencing.

You have the "playpen" for your comments―a thread that was started (by you) expressly for the purpose of letting people blow off steam in posts that don't belong in other threads.

Actually, I read almost everything you post, no matter how preposterous or even downright bizarre it seems to me, because I think you represent a particular strain of neo-populist opinion that is important for the rest of us to understand―not only here in the States but in many other countries, democratic and authoritarian, as well.

However, please confine your screeds to the thread that was created expressly for them.  You won't be deprived of your emotional outlet and the rest of us won't have to wade through your extraneous posts to find those that are responsive to the subject at hand.

Chris this thread is full of opposing viewpoints by many people beside me including yours.  To restrict me is just an attempt to shut up people you disagree with. 

[Manoli]

To restrict me is just an attempt to shut up people you disagree with. 

That comment alone so exemplifies Chris Kern’s post above.
What total utter claptrap.

[Alan Klein]

That comment alone so exemplifies Chris Kern’s post above.
What total utter claptrap.

Very classy. Like Chris, you'd like to shut me up too.   

[Manoli]

Very classy. Like Chris, you'd like to shut me up too.   

No, I'd like you to post less than the 30 times a day you've been averaging recently, interrupting threads with your knee-jerk, poorly considered commentary and particularly misrepresenting others to suit your own peculiar agenda. Your reply to Chris Kern being a case in point - yet another 'make me the victim' attempt to divert attention from a polite, appeal to reason.

Clearly water on a duck's back.

[RSL]

Very classy. Like Chris, you'd like to shut me up too.

Knock it off, Alan. You're making the conservative point of view look ridiculous -- at least to those who can't discriminate between bloviation and serious discussion.

[Mark Nadler]

Any decision that involves risk is ultimately subjective.  Some of us are more risk averse than othesr and thus will make
different decisions given the same information.  Experts cannot provide us with answers to questions that involve tradeoffs: quicker economic recovery
vs. the number of additional lives lost because of an earlier reopening of the economy.  I will believe that experts do not wear blinders when admirals
testify that we need fewer aircraft carriers and more modern highschools.   Politicians, at least those that have been trained to think rationally, understand
that they must integrate expert opinion into a choice that is ultimately subjective. 

karm

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I can't speak for Jeremy, but I don't think the issue is disagreement; rather it's your apparent compulsion to inject your repetitive political opinions, dubious conspiracy theories, unfounded apocalyptic predictions, and irrelevant rhetorical questions into threads that are, at least ostensibly, intended for rational discussion of issues relating to the pandemic we are experiencing.

You have the "playpen" for your comments―a thread that was started (by you) expressly for the purpose of letting people blow off steam in posts that don't belong in other threads.

Actually, I read almost everything you post, no matter how preposterous or even downright bizarre it seems to me, because I think you represent a particular strain of neo-populist opinion that is important for the rest of us to understand―not only here in the States but in many other countries, democratic and authoritarian, as well.

However, please confine your screeds to the thread that was created expressly for them.  You won't be deprived of your emotional outlet and the rest of us won't have to wade through your extraneous posts to find those that are responsive to the subject at hand.

+1 (+ complements for the polite reaction ...).

[Mark Nadler]

Any choice that involves risk is subjective.  In the case of the coronavirus a national leader must make tradeoffs
between damamging their macroeconomy and increasing deaths from the coronavirus.  There is
no right answer to where this tradeoff should be made -- it depends on the risk aversion of the decision-maker.

Concerning earlier comments:

1.  If you train a person to be a hammer that person will see the world as nails needing hammering.  This is what I mean by saying
that experts have blinders.  Very few health experts are also macroeconomic economists who can appreciate the havoc that will follow
a collapsing economy.
2. Expert opinion has value as an input in decision-making.  Military experts should not determine the size of a country's military budget.  Educators
should determine the size of a country's education budget.  Police should determine the size of a country's police force.  All of these choices should be made by
politically elected officials.
3.  In the case of President Trump, the claim that he is not listening to health experts is meaningless.  President Trump must integrate the views of multiple experts
in different areas of expertise and reach a decision.  I do not have the foggiest idea whether the choices he has made are smart or stupid.  In fact, no one knows!