Mini-Throughput: Einstein’s Greatest Mistake Edition

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

82 Responses

  1. I’d think Einstein’s greatest mistake was his rejection of quantum mechanics. Even the sharpest eye has blind spots.Report

    • More accurate to say that Einstein thought quantum mechanics was incomplete than that he rejected it. He asked questions like why does the wave function collapse? What constitutes a measurement/observation that causes the collapse? Is the process of the collapse instantaneous or is still limited by the speed of light? He was particularly unhappy with the responses from Born and his folks in Copenhagen. Einstein spent the rest of his life looking for a unified field theory that would explain both how the universe worked at a macro scale as well as why the wave function collapses, and the linkage between the two.Report

      • He wasn’t wrong about that. We’re still trying to reconcile quantum field theory and relativity.Report

        • Random question… Is there a world’s record for the largest molecule that can behave like electrons in the electron-slit experiments where the wave function for the molecule doesn’t collapse? Or is that some sort of meaningless question? (Full disclosure: electron-slit experiments made me decide to drop physics as my second major and study computers instead.)Report

      • DavidTC in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I actually find myself wondering what Einstein would have thought of quantum mechanic interpretation that actually _did_ explain things, unlike the nonsense of Copenhagen.

        For example, relational quantum mechanics doesn’t have a wave collapse at all, and it completely nullifies the objection to QM he came up with, the EPR paradox. And it functions a lot like special relativity. What would he have thought of that, if it had existed back then?

        Edit: An interesting fact is…Einstein’s theory of relativity is him simply taking lorentz transformation, which everyone already knew but assumed was a mathematical fiction, and using it to describe the actual universe.

        Likewise, relational quantum mechanics take quantum mechanics _and_ relativity serious and says ‘Well, then, this must be what happens. If information cannot travel faster than might, then how could quantum mechanics function, cause it appears to do that…but how do we actually _know_ it did, because we can’t _confirm_ it did without communicating anyway! So maybe it didn’t until we do that!’.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to DavidTC says:

          For those people who don’t know what the relational quantum mechanics interpetation is, basically think of it this way: Under that, when you open the box Schrodinger’s Cat is in, you don’t collapse the waveform…you merely expand the superposition to include you and the room you’re in. In the room you’re in, you can conclusively say the cat is dead or alive, but outside that room, they know that mathematically, you are both observing a dead cat _and_ observing a live cat until someone opens the door to your room.

          There’s no such thing as what ‘really’ happens, no point it become real, everything that looks like a collapse of the waveform is just…now you’re part of the same quantum state.

          Which hilariously solves the problem of spooky action at a distance, aka, the EPR paradox, by pointing out that it means nothing…you can’t _know_ if anything happened FTL without you checking the results at the speed of light, when do that, by either visiting or communicating, it puts you in the same quantum state, which of course means your observations of the past are going to be consistent. It was undecided until you got there…in fact, it’s still undecided, cause nothing is ever decided…it’s just that you now are part of the same undecided state, you are now _in_ Schrodinger’s Cat’s box, so you see a specific outcome.Report

  2. Pinky says:

    “And while I think skepticism of experts is reasonable, dismissal is not. If I’m sick, I want to go to an expert — a doctor. If I want a room added on to my house I go to an expert — an architect. If I’m in trouble with the law, I will go to an expert — a lawyer.”

    You’re making Prager’s point. You don’t go to a doctor, as a rule, when you want to put an addition on your house. A particular person you know might be good with architecture and also be a doctor, but in general, you go to the expert in the field of concern. Nobel laureates should carry no extra credibility in a debate about the death penalty.Report

    • John Puccio in reply to Pinky says:

      Experts are commonplace. Anyone who works in any field can be considered an “expert” on something.

      Genius is rare. And Einstein is an outlier among geniuses.

      Using an example of rare genius to make a “trust the experts” argument is not compelling.

      And that’s without even considering how “experts” are so often corrupted by bias and/or incentives.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

      In that debate who should carry that extra credibility?Report

      • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

        Where facts are in dispute, we should listen to the people who know more. But when you have a moral question in our democratic system, I don’t see how anyone gets pride of place. Each of us is free to consult with any religious or philosophical thinker we want, but if the matter is outside the Constitution, it’s got to be up to the elected representatives of the people.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

          Funny how when the facts of Covid were in dispute a lot of people refused to listen to the people who knew more. One outcome if that was a lot of people dying who didn’t need to die.

          As to the death penalty – no Christian theologian has ever supported the modern death penalty. And they would be consider experts in it as much as Einstein was. Yet a vast swath of alleged Christian’s in this country support state sanctioned revenge – which is what the death penalty is. You need to rethink your theories here.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

            I’m sure I didn’t say that people always do the right thing. I’m pretty sure I never even implied it. My approach is: the experts make the facts public, each voter considers his own beliefs then votes, and (assuming the matter doesn’t violate our overall system) the elected officials decide. It’s not guaranteed to produce the correct results, but it’s the best possible process.

            Now, let me say this next part from a Christian perspective. I am comfortable with Christians holding different positions on the death penalty. I’m not comfortable with Christians referring to other Christians as “alleged Christians”.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

              I’m not comfortable with Christians referring to other Christians as “alleged Christians”

              When your primary expression of Christianity is oppression of others, the use of state force to impose your religious beliefs, and generally ignoring Christ’s actual teachings in favor the Old testament – which He mostly rejected, that label is quite fitting.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                I want us to incorporate this into more stuff.

                “Alleged Hindus.”
                “Alleged Muslims.”
                “Alleged Jews.”

                This could be awesome.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well if they are apostate, they are alleged, aren’t they?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                HELL YES THEY ARE!

                I have their religious texts right here! All I have to do is point out how they’re not following them.

                The best part is that I don’t have any such documents for myself. So this is a criticism that I can make against them but they have nothing even close to similar that they can make against me.

                Maybe the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

                Speak of the Devil…

                Not very Hindu of them, tbqh.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

                The best part is that you don’t even have to be particularly well-read.

                “Oh, you’re Catholic? Not particularly Lutheran of you!”

                “Look, I just checked the web and Southern Babtists are the only authentic Christianity. If you’re Methodist? Not really Christian.”Report

              • There is a very old joke about a new arrival to heaven getting a tour and meeting all the groups of people which are listed, the punchline being that the tour ends with all the Baptist in a room together separately with the tag line of “They think they are the only ones here”Report

              • There’s also the joke about how the Pope dies, and goes to Heaven, and St. Peter shows him the condominium where he’ll be spending eternity, a very nice complex with several other of the deceased Popes inhabiting other nearby units. Then the tour continues and they see the lawyer’s estate, with rolling hills and an equestrian compound and the degree of luxury that the Pope had thought Heaven would have afforded all of the Righteous Called Home.

                “I don’t want to seem like an ingrate, St. Peter, but I do wonder about the disparity. I’m quite sure the attorney here was a good person, and lived a righteous life, else she would not be here at all. Yet why the accommodations much larger than my own? I was Pope, after all!”

                St. Peter looks at the recently-deceased Pope and says to him, “Your Holiness, this is Heaven. We get a LOT of Popes here.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                An apostate doesn’t allege to be a member of the given religion. Apostasy is renunciation of the faith.

                Bur more to the point, given how rarely Jesus talked about the state, and how often he talked about not judging others, it seems like you could make a stronger case against judging others’ faith than against supporting the death penalty. The Church has existed in a thousand different societies organized under different political theories. There’ve been many wrong-thinking Christians, including both of us. There’ve been many bad Christians, including both of us. It has never been right to call someone an alleged Christian.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

                “Alleged trans woman”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC says:

                Yes, exactly. If you’ve ever seen the criticism that someone might be LGBT but they aren’t *QUEER*, then you know exactly what I’m talking about.

                Anybody can claim to be anything.

                But only people like me can decide whether they are *AUTHENTIC*.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

                If you’ve ever seen the criticism that someone might be LGBT but they aren’t *QUEER*, then you know exactly what I’m talking about.

                Uh, Jaybird, no one has ever said that. At least, they’ve never said that in the context of queer being a category they will admit exists but argue someone who is LGBT doesn’t fall into…there are a few weird people who try to disassociate themselves from the term queer, even argue it shouldn’t be used as a category at all, but that’s not the same as saying that someone doesn’t fit the _qualifications_ for the queer category.

                The person here who was most recently talking about an alleged trans woman was you.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC says:

                I’ve seen the distinction made before. Mostly by exceptionally vanilla gay dudes who just want gay marriage without any subverting the heteronormative paradigm (and, of course, people criticizing such people).

                There’s a handful of folks who claim to be “queer heterosexuals” and, of course, this is a food fight over who the sumptuary laws cover and who they don’t. There was a recent kerfuffle about it and “not feeling queer enough” and the whole “bi femme female” thing.

                It was really funny!Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to DavidTC says:

                “Alleged trans woman”

                weren’t you, like, just complaining about Kylie Jenner?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H says:

                Maybe we should all take a deep breath and realize that there is no ascertainable truth of the matter accessible to human methods of inquiry for any religious or theological proposition. As a matter of sociological fact, large numbers of people received their moral training in a religious context, which is fine, but most of the content they absorbed, except for odd dietary, fashion, or other superficial rules, roughly corresponds to the prevailing notions of the society in which they live and changes when the prevailing notions change. Look at the religious arguments over slavery, in which, based on the source materials, the pro-slavery side seems to have had the better of the argument, but is now considered obviously un-Christian.
                I’d be happy to make a deal under which you don’t quote your holy book to me and I don’t argue with you about what your holy book really means.Report

              • Philip H in reply to CJColucci says:

                The pro-slavery side was arguing out of the Old Testament, as are the anti-gay “Christians” of today. Christ’s actual teaching in the 4 Gospels, are about radical acceptance, true unconditional love, and human equality. Americna fundamentalists general shy away from such teachings. The American Catholic Church veers in and out of them at its convenience. Even the “Mainline” Protestants spend too much time trying to convince themselves they really aren’t bound by them – just look at the slow rolling schisms in the “United” Methodist Church.

                TL:DR – Christ was the radical leftist/progressive of his day. For which He was crucified by local authorities because His egalitarian politics threatened their power.

                Sound familiar?Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “Christ’s actual teaching in the 4 Gospels, are about radical acceptance, true unconditional love, and human equality.”

                Did you miss the part where Christ said he’d come to set father against son and brother against brother?

                Also, Christ’s “radical acceptance” meant the contemporary equivalent of cops and Trump voters. If you’re got the idea that he was hanging out with the soulful introspective queer butterflies and goths and other people who were just too cool for society to accept, you need to read more. Even in the source text it’s clear that’s not who he’s going after.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Christ ate with Lepers, promoted women and children above their societal assigned stations, and proffered non-believers as more in keeping with God’s commandments then the Jews of his day. So yes, he was going after the outsiders, the marginalized and the people who were “too cool for society to accept.”

                As to your brother against brother allusion, the full quote makes it clear that Jesus’ followers can expect to be persecuted, not that His disciples should go around fomenting insurrections:

                Jesus Warns About Troubles
                16 “Listen! I am sending you, and you will be like sheep among wolves. So be smart like snakes. But also be like doves and don’t hurt anyone. 17 Be careful! There are people who will arrest you and take you to be judged. They will whip you in their synagogues. 18 You will be taken to stand before governors and kings. People will do this to you because you follow me. You will tell about me to those kings and governors and to the non-Jewish people. 19 When you are arrested, don’t worry about what to say or how you should say it. At that time you will be given the words to say. 20 It will not really be you speaking; the Spirit of your Father will be speaking through you.

                21 “Brothers will turn against their own brothers and hand them over to be killed. Fathers will hand over their own children to be killed. Children will fight against their own parents and will have them killed. 22 Everyone will hate you because you follow me. But the one who remains faithful to the end will be saved. 23 When you are treated badly in one city, go to another city. I promise you that you will not finish going to all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes again.

                24 “Students are not better than their teacher. Servants are not better than their master. 25 Students should be happy to be treated the same as their teacher. And servants should be happy to be treated the same as their master. If those people call me ‘the ruler of demons,’ and I am the head of the family,[c] then it is even more certain that they will insult you, the members of the family!

                https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010&version=ERVReport

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “Christ ate with Lepers, promoted women and children above their societal assigned stations, and proffered non-believers as more in keeping with God’s commandments then the Jews of his day. ”

                This is another example of a dumb person bringing contemporary definitions to Biblical analysis.

                Let me guess, you think Paul was a frothing homophobe?Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                So He didn’t eat with lepers? Or heal them? Or tax collectors? The translations of those terms consistently down through the centuries were wrong?

                And when He summoned the children and used them as an example of how we should approach God they were considered as having worth by the society in which they lived? And having two female hookers find His tomb open and Him gone wasn’t a strict violation of women’s place in society (to say nothing of openly consorting with said hookers)?

                As for Paul, he was a prophet as much as anything. Paul was also attempting to organize a church in a world hostile to its central tenants. Paul preached Jesus’ gospel of unconditional love – never threatening or preaching violence against anyone including homosexual men. Paul did make references to sins of the flesh, but always in the context of a great many sins – including drinking and other sexual promiscuity. Some modern theologians even think he might have been gay himself, and was trying to reconcile his Damascus Road revelations with that personal sexual orientation.

                Got anything else you’d like to debate? Cause I can do this for days.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                I don’t think Jesus did eat with lepers. He healed them. His healings were generally or always rooted in the faith of the one requesting it. Physical healing was often associated with forgiveness of sins.

                He did talk to Romans, Jews, and Samaritans in the Gospels, but always propelling them toward faith in Him. He never said “go and keep doing what you’re doing”. I don’t know of any case of him continuing to pal around with people who practiced adultery, prostitution, et cetera.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                The women who found the Tomb empty were believed to be former hookers. Mary Magdelen appears more then once in the Gospels. You tell me if that constitutes “palling around.”

                As as to the Samaritan – the story is quite consistent that Jesus was educating his followers – most all Jews, about how to follows His teachings by a parable about a non-believer (The Samaritan) who did them anyway because they were right. Meaning He said “go and do what that guy did because it’s what I want you to do.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                You’re making my point. The faith requires change. There’s a difference between practicing hookers and former hookers, between unbelieving Samaritans and believing Samaritans. There may not be a difference in 1st century Jewish society, but there is a difference in Jesus’s eyes.

                But they were all called to stop sinning. Not to instantly become perfect, but to abandon paths that clearly led away from God. I’m all for compassion, almsgiving, and reaching people where they are. But we’re supposed to reform our lives with God’s grace.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                The Samaritan was not called up on to change – the Jews were. Yeash.

                And yes, we are supposed to reform our lives with God’s grace. But you can’t claim to have reformed anything when you are a biggot. You can’t claim to have reformed your life when you take away social safety nets to give rich people tax breaks. You can’t claim to have reformed your life and support the death penalty. And you most certainly can’t claim to have reformed your life and demand dominion over women.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                I should have been clearer. I’m talking about the Samaritan woman, who was a real person, not the Samaritan in the parable.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “So He didn’t eat with lepers? Or heal them? Or tax collectors? The translations of those terms consistently down through the centuries were wrong?”

                The translation isn’t wrong, but the context is. You’re thinking of “tax collector” and “leper” like these are no big deal–one’s just a job, the other’s just a disease that we know how to handle and isn’t anyone’s fault–because, again, you’re insisting on applying a modern context to these things.

                Here’s a suggestion. You know how people got all excited because they found that Ana Mardoll was a server-rebooter in Lockheed Martin’s back-end services group, and they went absolutely ham? That’s how the people in Jerusalem thought about tax collectors, as willing tools of the imperial oppressor. Now imagine someone saying “the progressive liberal notion is to take Ana Mardoll into your life, treat them as a friend, break bread with them, put aside your feelings of judgement for their associations and actions”.

                Or COVID, which has taken the place of leprosy and AIDS as The Thing You’re Allowed To Have Moral Judgement Feelings About. You’re gonna go hang out unmasked with people who took risky actions and got the ‘rona? Because Jesus would.Report

              • Barus in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Russians are the ppl liberals are allowed to be racist about.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                You’re gonna go hang out unmasked with people who took risky actions and got the ‘rona? Because Jesus would.

                Why yes, I did. Because that’s what living in Mississippi required of me. Leaving that aside as a grad student I was part of the first church-based AIDs ministry in Baton Rouge. So I’m not sure what flex you think this is . . . .

                Ana Mardoll

                No idea who that is, and thus no idea why you cited it here.

                That’s how the people in Jerusalem thought about tax collectors, as willing tools of the imperial oppressor.

                Yes, and the three translations of the Bible I have in my possession bear this out. Which makes Jesus welcoming of him all the more powerful and poignant don’t ya think? He did break bread with them and ordered his followers to put aside their feelings of judgement. Same thing with the Good Samaritan, where Christ was (to rebut Pinky) insisting that if non-believers (Samaritans or atheists ion modern terms) could do the God-directed thing without belief, then believers had no excuse.

                I really don’t know what you are driving at, but if you are trying to catch me NOT living my faith based on my politics, you need to try harder.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Pinky says:

              I am comfortable with Christians holding different positions on the death penalty.

              The argument isn’t that Christians can’t hold different position on the death penalty, it’s that no Christian theologians support the modern one.

              Which is…mostly true, I think. There’s not really any serious theological support for the death penalty at all when looking back over the entire history of Christianity.

              I think maybe only Aquinas is one of the few who expressed support, and his position was that it was acceptable if society could not otherwise be made safe, which is…a very strange position, objectively speaking. This is a ‘Batman is morally justified in killing the Joker because he will just escape and kill more’ argument, which work great in comic books, but in the real world people do not generally escape prison. Maybe prisons were revolving doors back then, or just generally unused, but his argument sorta falls apart in the present day, barring the circumstances where people continue to murder people while _in_ prison.

              In the modern world, where we generally can imprison people successfully, and the flaws in the modern version of the death penalty (and the justice system as a whole) are understood, I think the statement that ‘No Christian theologians support the modern one’ is pretty much correct.

              It sorta depends on what people mean by ‘Christian theologians’, though.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to DavidTC says:

                Or, I guess, let me say: ‘no Christian theologian has ever supported the modern death penalty’ is the words actually in the sentence, which is generally true if you look at just those words.

                Philip H seems to think that ‘no Christian theologian seriously arguing for something’ means that no Christian can support it, and everyone who does not actually Christian, which is just…utter false on its face, not how Christianity works, and to prove that instantly all anyone has to do is say the two words ‘sola scriptura’. (I mean, what he thinks is not true even in denominations that _don’t_ believe sola scriptura, but it’s the fastest response.)Report

              • Philip H in reply to DavidTC says:

                Philip H seems to think that ‘no Christian theologian seriously arguing for something’ means that no Christian can support it, and everyone who does not actually Christian, which is just…utter false on its face, not how Christianity works, and to prove that instantly all anyone has to do is say the two words ‘sola scriptura’. (I mean, what he thinks is not true even in denominations that _don’t_ believe sola scriptura, but it’s the fastest response.)

                Id really love to know how you got there, because … no.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Philip H says:

                ..do you even know what the words sola scriptura mean?Report

              • Philip H in reply to DavidTC says:

                Never heard the term actually. The very left leaning Presbyterian Church I formed my faith in clearly did me a disservice . . .Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Nah. If they taught you that you can go by your gut, they’ve taught you enough.

                Hey, maybe we don’t have a decent translation! This makes going with your gut even more important!Report

              • Pinky in reply to DavidTC says:

                “No Christian theologian has ever supported the modern death penalty”

                I think that was supposed to be “no modern Christian theologian has ever supported the death penalty”. I don’t think that statement is true, but I could see it being argued. The problem with Philip’s original statement is that there are no fundamental differences between the death penalty today and at any other point in history. The appeals and delays are new, and while they may change the process, the essence isn’t changed.

                What’s new is the prison system. This is not my area of expertise, and Foucault’s influence on public thinking has probably contaminated any study of the subject, but modern Western incarceration is something that didn’t exist until a few hundred years ago.

                St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t alone in supporting the death penalty. It was a pretty standard belief in the West. Without the death penalty, a violent wealthy person could kill someone, pay a fine, and go free. Outside the West, historically, the death penalty has been accepted as well.Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

            “[W]hen the facts of Covid were in dispute a lot of people refused to listen to the people who knew more.”

            Like the people who knew that COVID was transmitted by fomites and thus the primary vector was contaminated surfaces, meaning that masks were not sufficient protection and that shutdowns of public activity was the only possible response?Report

            • Pinky in reply to DensityDuck says:

              People should have trusted the experts on diseases. They made some early guesses, and corrected the wrong ones as soon as possible. People increased their chances of serious health problems by not paying attention to them.

              People should have told the public health policy experts to stuff it. They panicked, or got caught up in the rush of power, and just didn’t think things through. They thought they were the experts on diseases. People who followed the policy experts endangered a generation.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                However flawed public health authorities were or are, no one has been able to present any better voice to listen to.

                Like, the idea that Covid is transmitted by air and not surfaces- How do you or I “know” this?

                We only “know” this to be a fact because public health experts tell us this, even though it is contradictory to their earlier reports.

                The criticism of authority tends to be circular in the “All Cretans are liars” sense.
                They can’t be trusted because they make mistakes.
                How do we know they made mistakes?
                Because they told us, and we can trust them!Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “We can’t trust them because in their leaked chat logs, they talked about how they were lying to the public.”

                “Ah, but someone leaked the logs, didn’t they?”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You keep thinking that all you need to do is show errors or malfeasance by them.

                That’s not enough.

                Again, it doesn’t matter if they make errors or even outright lie because you don’t have any other source that is better.

                So their opinion is the only one on we have to work with.

                Connect this to Em’s post about the forensic scientists.
                The only way to impeach their expert testimony is with a second expert.

                You don’t have a second expert.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’ve got plenty of experts. Experts are a dime a dozen.

                It takes a 15 second google search.

                You might even find one who has replicated studies and hasn’t yet been proven to have lied.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                If you have an authority whose work has been replicated and accepted by their peers, then by all means present them and we can listen to them instead next time.

                But notice, all you are doing is appealing to a different authority.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “But notice, all you are doing is appealing to a different authority.”

                Remember when you said:

                “The only way to impeach their expert testimony is with a second expert.

                You don’t have a second expert.”

                Because I do.

                Either I need a second expert or I don’t.

                Do I?

                Because, if I don’t need one, I can just say “eh, your expert is a demonstrated liar.”

                Then you can complain that I don’t have a second expert.

                Then I can present one and you can complain that all I’m doing is appealing to a different authority AS IF YOU HADN’T JUST ASKED FOR ONE.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                The topic of this thread is about appeals to authority, versus individual expertise.

                Phillip used Covid as an example of why sometimes appeals to authority are legitimate.
                To which objections were raised that the Covid authorities were flawed.

                And I responded that in the absence of other, better authorities, the ones used by the public health authorities were all we got.

                So, having brought us all up to speed on the conversation, maybe you and I can agree that when it comes to public health, scientific authorities whose work has been peer reviewed and replicated are worth trusting.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                And ones who have demonstrated to be liars aren’t?

                Or do I need to get a second authority first?
                And then I can get yelled at for that?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                If they lie less than the other ones, then yes, outright liars are *still* the more trustworthy source.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Oh, I think I see the problem.

                “More trustworthy than X” might not still reach the threshold of “trustworthy enough to trust” for me.

                But for you, you need to appeal to an authority.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                At the end of all this, you either get on the airplane or not, drive over the bridge or not, take the vaccination or not.

                You took the vaccination, so obviously you found a source which was trustworthy enough.

                You made a permanent, irreversible decision which some people were saying would end your life. You obviously didn’t trust them.
                Other people were saying the vaccination would prevent you dying in a particularly ugly way.
                You obviously trusted them, enough, to follow their advice.

                That’s what this all comes down to. Out of all the cacophony of voices we hear, we pick the ones we think offer the least amount of distortion and the most amount of reliability.

                Trust is all relative, not absolute.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                But what if we’re talking about stuff like “lab origin vs. zoonotic origin”?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Which authority lies the least?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yeah, that’s a completely alien way of thinking about it.

                “I have to trust these guys on this topic even though they lied because, seriously, other guys have lied worse on other topics.”

                That’s nuts.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You literally do this every day. Place your trust in people who are known liars and prone to error, but who lie less and make fewer errors than others.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I honestly think that the people who repair my car and the people whose logs got leaked are two entirely different groups of people.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Why in the world would you think this?

                Just to use your example, do you have any idea how much fraud and error happens in the repair shop you take your car to?

                Its safe to say it is a nonzero number, and probably safe to say its on par with public health agencies.

                And how would you even know? Would you consult government oversight agencies? Consumer organizations? Court records? Yelp?

                All those sources of information are rife with fraud, error and liars too.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Why in the world would I think that my mechanics are different than the guys who got their chat logs leaked?

                Well, for one thing…

                Anyway. I am sure that there is some wiggleroom for “fraud and error” but when I go in there for my 6000 checkup, I get my 6000 checkup printout and a report that my oil has been changed and I am confident that the checkup was run as it says it was and my oil was changed.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Oh.
                Well if they say so, I can’t argue with that.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Is this one of those things where since you don’t trust your mechanics, I shouldn’t trust mine?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I just think its weird how you do the very thing you claim is “nuts”.

                You have experts you trust, news sources you trust, people you trust, even though they are fallible and almost certainly lie on occasion. But you trust them because on balance, their record of lies isn’t more than others.

                Its not weird that you do this because we all do. Its weird that you vehemently insist you don’t.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                It seems to me that the appropriate critique or analysis isn’t expertise itself but the institutional environments in which the experts in question operated. True expertise is earned by submission to auditable, trustworthy processes that supersede the individual, and good faith operation within those processes. It isn’t a mantle bestowed, but a commitment to work within the processes, which includes among other things a big dose of epistemic humility.

                A number of public health authorities failed that metric during covid, in part due to hubris, and in part due to the distortion field created by Trump’s antagonistic relationship with the permanent administrative state and the media. Those things deserve correction. However it’s only in the bizarro world of the internet and our brain dead media environment that people take that and decide Jenny McCarthy was actually right all along about vaccines or the even more post modern idea that all expertise is a social construct and not any different than outright quackery.

                My point is it’s entirely possible to follow a legitimate criticism to a bunch of absurdly wrong conclusions.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                Oh, it absolutely is.

                But it’s possible to conclude “these guys lied to us” without jumping to “therefore I will trust this other crazy person.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

                This is what makes conspiracy thinkers so fascinating in theory and so boring in practice. They reject mainstream pseudo-experts, often for fair reason, but then they substitute in blind faith in non-mainstream pseudo-experts. They never learn critical thinking.Report

              • KenB in reply to Pinky says:

                It’s scary to realize that you can’t trust “authorities” — so when people first realize that, the temptation is to find someone else to trust rather than to adapt to the uncertainty.Report

              • Smug Enemy in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I had news reports from NYC saying that people who stayed in their apartments the entire time were getting sick. This was an “again and again and again.” I had news reports locally that people who wore masks “to protect themselves” and washed constantly, etc — still got sick.

                Experts are what you need so you don’t make the same obvious mistakes that everyone else makes the first three times they write a program (do not use “goto”).

                You can still figure out an infinite loop without being an expert.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “the idea that Covid is transmitted by air and not surfaces- How do you or I “know” this?”

                am I allowed to cite the experts, or do you consider them a poor example of a sourceReport

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

                You tell me.
                How did you arrive at your ideas about Covid?
                What sources of information did you use?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

            The people who knew more didn’t do their jobs, though.

            Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    There are plenty of fields where we pretty much are forced to outsource authority and- like medicine or engineering, fields the layperson can’t understand easily. If a bunch of scientists say something, I don’t have any way to verify it independently so I will usually rely on their authority.

    There are other fields, like ethics and morality, where we are all experts and the subject itself is basically unknowable.

    For every Einstein, there is a William Shockley, a brilliant mind who was also viciously racist. Ultimately, ethics is one field where we can’t outsource our authority.Report

  4. Burt Likko says:

    A hypothesis:

    Diminishing the importance of expertise, rendering people with substantial education and experience no more reliable than the layperson or indeed less reliable than “common sense” is a thing that seems to appear, historically, when political figures seek to consolidate power in smaller and smaller groups of people whose real experience and knowledge is bureaucratic infighting. This allows them to annoint “real” experts who say and do things pleasing to their power, and proclaim themselves and the “common people” they purport to represent to be the “real experts.” Sometimes, which the powerbrokers are religious, they claim to be the sole arbiters of Truth, with Truth being much more important than Fact. Other times, the Party favors Lysenko despite the fact that Lysenko’s theories are, from the conventional expert’s perspective, nucking futs, and fail every time they are implemented.

    Disrespecting subject matter experts in their various fields is not something that is generally associated with expansion of liberty and democratization of power. Historically, one finds very little dismissal of subject matter experts during eras like the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Experts in these fields certainly critique one another quite a lot, but there isn’t a lot of common suspicion that such people are suspect and dishonest and immoral; rather, they tend to be admired and deferred to.

    I don’t propose a cause-and-effect relationship between “acceptance of experts” and “expansion of liberty,” nor the converse, merely a correlation.Report