|
|
|
|
|
by cudgy
1636 days ago
|
|
“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? |
|
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.