[satisfice]

When the CDC or WHO tells us that there is merit to this work, I will know to give it credit. As long as they don’t, the paper is asking us to believe that public health institutions are somehow stupid or corrupt.

I am not qualified to evaluate the claims made here, directly. I am qualified to notice that there are a lot of prominent experts from big universities on TV telling us things that are not in keeping with some of the key claims of this paper.

[cudgy]

“prominent experts from big universities”

If you are not qualified to evaluate these claims, how do you know they are prominent let alone “experts”? Why are you so willing to accept their opinions over a research articles conclusions?

[satisfice]

Because that’s what it means to BE civilized. It means that we learn how to trust each other. I’m willing to trust experts for the same reason that you trust them to build roads and buildings and grow the food you eat and when you are sick with covid you go and beg those experts to save you instead having the courage of your skeptical convictions and dying alone in a forest.

I evaluate information about expertise partly based on social heuristics. For instance, long term reputation; and reputation networks such as are cultivated by mainstream (read responsible and accountable) journalism.

I accept their opinions because they are internally consistent, survive skeptical journalism over time, and based on the poor quality of criticism against them.

I am knowledgeable enough to detect many of the tricks and evasions of charlatans. And I review the work of watchdog organizations, too.

Finally, I believe that most people are decent. Most people are mediocre, yes, but they are decent. Conspiracies of evil cannot grow very large, because they collapse. Too many people are too good.