Mostly Aristotle lays out the problem today, so I will just let him do that without comment.
A further problem is set by such questions as, whether one should in all things give the preference to one's father and obey him, or whether when one is ill one should trust a doctor, and when one has to elect a general should elect a man of military skill; and similarly whether one should render a service by preference to a friend or to a good man, and should show gratitude to a benefactor or oblige a friend, if one cannot do both.All such questions are hard, are they not, to decide with precision? For they admit of many variations of all sorts in respect both of the magnitude of the service and of its nobility necessity. But that we should not give the preference in all things to the same person is plain enough; and we must for the most part return benefits rather than oblige friends, as we must pay back a loan to a creditor rather than make one to a friend. But perhaps even this is not always true; e.g. should a man who has been ransomed out of the hands of brigands ransom his ransomer in return, whoever he may be (or pay him if he has not been captured but demands payment) or should he ransom his father? It would seem that he should ransom his father in preference even to himself. As we have said, then, generally the debt should be paid, but if the gift is exceedingly noble or exceedingly necessary, one should defer to these considerations. For sometimes it is not even fair to return the equivalent of what one has received, when the one man has done a service to one whom he knows to be good, while the other makes a return to one whom he believes to be bad. For that matter, one should sometimes not lend in return to one who has lent to oneself; for the one person lent to a good man, expecting to recover his loan, while the other has no hope of recovering from one who is believed to be bad. Therefore if the facts really are so, the demand is not fair; and if they are not, but people think they are, they would be held to be doing nothing strange in refusing. As we have often pointed out, then, discussions about feelings and actions have just as much definiteness as their subject-matter.That we should not make the same return to every one, nor give a father the preference in everything, as one does not sacrifice everything to Zeus, is plain enough; but since we ought to render different things to parents, brothers, comrades, and benefactors, we ought to render to each class what is appropriate and becoming. And this is what people seem in fact to do; to marriages they invite their kinsfolk; for these have a part in the family and therefore in the doings that affect the family; and at funerals also they think that kinsfolk, before all others, should meet, for the same reason. And it would be thought that in the matter of food we should help our parents before all others, since we owe our own nourishment to them, and it is more honourable to help in this respect the authors of our being even before ourselves; and honour too one should give to one's parents as one does to the gods, but not any and every honour; for that matter one should not give the same honour to one's father and one's mother, nor again should one give them the honour due to a philosopher or to a general, but the honour due to a father, or again to a mother. To all older persons, too, one should give honour appropriate to their age, by rising to receive them and finding seats for them and so on; while to comrades and brothers one should allow freedom of speech and common use of all things. To kinsmen, too, and fellow-tribesmen and fellow-citizens and to every other class one should always try to assign what is appropriate, and to compare the claims of each class with respect to nearness of relation and to virtue or usefulness. The comparison is easier when the persons belong to the same class, and more laborious when they are different. Yet we must not on that account shrink from the task, but decide the question as best we can.
12 comments:
I have not been following along on this series, but the question struck a note- My own criteria on experts- See what they have done. Talk is cheap. See if they feel threatened by questioning- competence is not, usually. See if they admit only one solution-usually there are several approaches to any issue, that require some weighing.
Despite being street educated, these have served me well.
Fools and knaves often cloak incompetence with fast talk and fine grooming.
But we need experts.?????
BS
No we don't. They have failed on a massive scale
You do, though. You couldn't run a sewage system, in spite of your professed experience with bullshit.
The problem is the one Raven is getting after. I can't tell if you or anyone else can run a sewer system. I don't have any idea of how to do it myself, so if ten people presented themselves as prospective experts, I couldn't judge between them. I need a heuristic that lets me guess who is a real expert, and who pretends.
He's got some good guesses, but ultimately this is a lasting problem.
Unfortunately, often the measuring tools are gone- how to validate ability, if failure is promoted up and away? Or when there are no consequences?
Or overlooked for other reasons?
Atlas Air 3591 is a grim example.
In the USA , the connected have been free of consequence for a long time. Leona Helmsley, was famously quoted as saying "laws are for the little people", and was berated for her accuracy.
(The statement is perhaps apocryphal, but fit her personality, apparently).
A striking example of the failure of the "expert" class was the recent covid hysteria, where it seems now a good many of the experts have admitted they made up the rules out of thin air.
Yes, tragically you are right. Some of those experts managed to damage the whole of our civilization. Even though others were honest and forthright, the bad ones hurt everyone because of this general problem of our inability to identify experts in fields where we ourselves lack knowledge.
Not just inability to identify, but wholesale suppression of contrary thoughts and evidence.
This goes back to my comment on how true expertise is confident enough to not be threatened by opposing ideas.
Also true, but it was reinforced by power. Some genuine experts were trying to speak the truth.
And, also, some of the things we didn't want to hear did turn out to be true. I'm still not completely sure how much of the 'expert advice' we got was legitimate; and I don't think we've had a complete reckoning about how many people died from the vaccines, as opposed to being saved by them. A whole lot of people died, though, from one thing or the other. Someday we need to figure out what it was that killed them.
A modern problem is that technology is a long lever- in nearly any endeavor reach and power is extended far beyond what was once possible. So the "expert", once confined in his to enhance (or destroy) can now influence huge domains. And is subject to the same diffusion- the farther he is away from those he affects, the less influence they have to change a course they perceive as disastrous. Of course, the reverse is true too, but of no consequence- there is no reason for the expert to change if people think things are going well.
In discussing experts, it is good to keep in mind that any given expert is likely only an expert on one thing. Outside of that one thing, the expert is no better than the non-expert. There are no general experts. (All the posters with quotes from Albert Einstein on politics come to mind here.)
It is possible that someone with a long career behind them may be an expert on 2 or even 3 things, but even then, there are thousands of things that person is not an expert on.
Similarly, "the experts" don't exist; there is no official council of recognized general experts that everyone looks to for expertise, so saying "the experts failed" is nonsense. Some particular group of experts may have failed, but there are many other experts outside of that group.
Expertise can be confounded by environment: political power will distort both expertise and resistance to expertise; we all have biases and those distort expertise; and there are disagreements among experts, to name a few.
We both need expertise and can be victimized by experts. It is a difficult situation.
- Tom
On Trusting Experts...and Which Experts to Trust
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/57755.html
also Radar Wars: a Case Study in Expertise and Influence
https://ricochet.com/834816/radar-wars-a-case-study-in-expertise-and-influence/
That one piece cites Barbara Tuchman, whose work I know well. So well I honestly feel like I must have met her; but I can't have, I checked the dates and she died when I was too young. I greatly recommend her work A Distant Mirror. Well, and even more also her primary sources, especially Froissart's Chronicles. Froissart lived through parts of what she describes as a calamity, but he clearly enjoyed it more than she did.
Post a Comment