Expertise

[Tim James]

Didn't want to shit up the EE "interesting" thread but Kraaze touched on something I read recently from a random libertarian blogger wondering aloud.
In other words I'm sure he's a great guy but it doesn't make him qualified to comment on this topic.
The poster wondered when Americans became afraid of a good well-rounded liberal arts education that encouraged every man to have a sound head on his shoulders, and suddenly adopted the compartmentalized turf wars that researchers and experts have been fighting for decades.

On the one hand, there may be a lot more depth out there, but on the other hand I'm afraid of long-term consequences of deferring everything to experts without offering one's own critical eye from time to time. There's almost an anti-intellectual streak to it where not only can't you claim to be an expert (which seems fair, due to the depth) but you can't even be skeptical of the god-kings who received a degree in the field and work in it, no matter how much research you do on your own. [EDIT] Or rather, how much thinking you apply to it. And in this case it's okay if the random Joe is wrong and can be educated, but that's a long way from shrieking anti-intellectualism (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=2) (not accusing Krugman here because later in the article he weakly acknowledges the idea I'm talking about).

Doesn't bug me too much one way or the other, but it was one of those rare intriguing meta questions to me that I thought I'd throw out there. I want to say we've touched on it before multiple times, so apologies if this is a repeat.

[Jazar]

redacted

[Saiban]

I blame Andrew Jackson.

[robsam]

I blame Andrew Jackson.

I think I get that.

[Jason McCullough]

Well-informed amateurs are probably fine on simple to moderate difficulty things, but you should defer to picking the fighting expert with the biggest beard on things more complicated.

[Huzurdaddi]

Climate modeling is very complicated and the models are not yet solid, so it makes sense that conservatives would fight them.

While people that state that 'climate change is a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.”' are clearly engaging in hyperbole. However so is Krugman with the title 'Betraying the Planet' and statements like ' treason against the planet.' It seems that non-specialists deal with technical concepts by making emotional pleas. It really irritates me.

It is especially sad that far more people will read drivel like Krugman's article when the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=9#pt1) has released a number of excellent, simply excellent documents on the topic.

WRT. climate change bills, it would seem that the rational approach would be to dramatically fund research into climate change and energy alternatives since research is, in general, underfunded compared to its benefit to society. And, AFAIK, the bill does that (I don't recall if it is 'dramatic' however, and I don't know if terms have been changed recently) sadly it also takes actions which may be counter productive but hey that's how our government works. Emotional pleas on technical issues for the win!

[Tim James]

No need to focus too much on climate change. It's just an example.

One thing I noticed about the Kraaze-Rimbo exchange was that Rimbo's dad did make some sweeping generalizations which doesn't necessarily seem valid, but then was told he's unqualified to comment on the subject in general. Perhaps somewhere in the middle is best -- don't pretend to be an expert, but add your perspective or skepticism when it's clearly useful and valid.

Jason, it's okay to defer to experts but the outright dismissal of shaven people is what is odd. You'd think the most difficult topics would invite the most widespread views and concerns to prevent tunnel vision between intelligentsia turf wars and then find the best solution. (Hey, diversity!) Of course, bleating tribalists don't help anything.

[Phil_Stein]

WRT climate change bills - I'd like to see market forces truly unleashed.

While some government funded R&D is a good thing, if carbon consumers (and that includes us consumers, via the electricity, gasoline, and whatnot that we use) paid whatever costs the scientific and economic community deemed appropriate, then we'd see considerable changes in behavior and tremendous incentives for manufacturers and others to implement existing carbon-reducing options and develop new ones.

I haven't read too much about the current house version of the bill, but from what I have read, the carbon tax effect of the cap and trade system is very watered down by vast swaths of credits being given away for free in various forms.

For those who know the legislation better, how are the carbon emissions from automobiles (gas powered and otherwise) handled? Do the gas refiners need to buy carbon credits, or what?