[phkahler]

They ignored the actual fact that it was sagging more than predicted and insisted the calculations were right. That might be ok, but someone allowed the project to proceed without explaining the contradiction. Real observations were dismissed in favor of believing in the expertise.

[kerkeslager]

Hm. You're saying that inexpert decision-makers were misled by experts?

That is true, but I'd argue that the article is making a different claim: the article is claiming that experts are misled by their own expertise.

[akamoonknight]

It seems like one difficulty is in knowing what expertise is important? Assumedly the contractors thought they had expertise, but were lacking. The firefighters assumedly thought they had expertise, but we're lacking. What expertise do I think I have, but am actually lacking?

[kerkeslager]

Yeah, that's difficult. The only answer I've found is experience. Gaining experience for yourself is painful because it's slow, and part of the experience is consequences of your mistakes: in fields like fire-fighting (or rock climbing, which I love) your mistakes can literally kill you. So hopefully you learn form other people's experience and mistakes as much as possible.

[mcguire]

The experts were led to disregard reports of sagging by their trust in the computer model.

[spaced-out]

>They ignored the actual fact that it was sagging more than predicted and insisted the calculations were right.

Seems like they lack the expertise needed to properly evaluate their model.

[geggam]

or experience can create a bias where you know you are right even when the evidence says otherwise.

Age usually humbles people by them experiencing this often enough they tend to check things... if they mature properly