Mormons tend to let their mormon religious leaders do their thinking for them. Sometimes, exmormons might tend to do the same. They appeal to authority rather than actually working through problems and reaching conclusions.

Every person has a right to do their own thinking. They don't have to believe anyone who has had more training or experience or education on any topic.

I was recently on jury duty and listened to expert witnesses. Our job as jurors was to determine which "experts" were credible to determine the outcome of the case. None of us had the training, experience or education on the topic to be expert witnesses, but we were all smart and reasonable and we all found certain witnesses more credible than others which partially led to guilty verdicts on four counts against the defendant.

Someone on another thread indicated that there is some kind of disconnect or hypocrisy in someone who listens to "experts" or seeks their ideas if they don't believe in all experts, like professors, doctors, researchers and acclaimed leaders in different fields.

Do we do our own surgeries if we don't trust the surgeon we're referred to? No, we keep looking until we find one we see who we think has good judgement and the right experience and who respects our experience and opinions and will work with us.

Never need anyone simply follow along behind someone who happens to be an "expert," including those who are "true" experts.

Additionally, anyone is not a friend if they demean someone for seeking out good surgeons or other experts of choice in any field under consideration. That's the smart way to live and I'd hope that jury members are usually smart.

My point was simply that when push came to shove, you sought out experts. When the first ones failed to help you, you went to other experts until you found ones who recognized and addressed your physical problems.

That was wise. It also indicates that you, like almost all of us, are far better off because there are people who have taken the time and effort to learn a lot about specific topics.

No one has demeaned you for seeking out appropriate healthcare professionals. Visitors Welcome and I applauded your choices.

There is nothing wrong with getting help for going blind or having constant headaches.

Precisely. I am saying you were wise to seek expertise to help you with serious problems. You did not ask your grocer to diagnose and treat your brain problems.

You seem to say that experts are undependable even as you explain how they saved you from very serious problems.

We like to think we're rational. Sometimes we are; sometimes we aren't. Sometimes we keep looking for advice (expert or otherwise) until we get the advice we want.

According to Cheryl's last posts, she succeeded in finding experts who knew what she needed. The proof was in the pudding: resolution of health problems.

That's something to celebrate, I would have thought.

Celebrating your intelligence in seeking help from experts and the fact that they were able to help you.

I'm not sure why you would find that offensive.

There is no final resolution of anything as you somehow assume. Please don't pretend to know more about health issues of strangers on the internet than they know about themselves.

I can see for now and I'm being treated for the long term brain tumor situation. Your cliches of not apt.

I know exactly, no more and no less, than what you have written on the topic. If you think I am speaking erroneously, I suggest you take it up with my source.

As for my cliches, I'm not aware of having used any. Perhaps you can identify one or two?

Then you make up your own fabricated claims. Cliches include proof is in the pudding, push comes to shove. Your writing reeks of them.

Cheryl,

You and I get on one another's nerves frequently. That does not mean, however, that I wish you ill.

I hope you get the care you need and recover quickly and completely.

LW



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 10:39PM by Lot's Wife.

Perhaps I was a bit tangential. I simply meant that in all sorts of matters, from romantic issues to finances to health, many of us have a preconceived conclusion and find the advice, expert or not, that affirms it. For example: Steve Jobs rejected the best medical advice money can buy for a naturopathic remedy.(Truly "pathic.")



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 12:01PM by caffiend.

I agree.

Cheryl doesn't like my views, but I think hers is a situation in which she handled things correctly. She went to doctors who did not solve her problem, so she kept going until she found people who figured things out. That strikes me as wise.

On your broader point, I can't gainsay your assertion that people routinely and impulsively seek self-confirmation rather than accuracy. That sadly seems right to me.

Well, from my own personal experience, the "experts" I have seen when it comes to trial cases are nothing more than whores. Expert witnesses should be banned from the courtroom. They will think, say, and testify however the lawyer who is paying them wants them to. One lawyer will put his expert/whore on the stand to testify one way, and the opposition will put THEIR expert/whore on the stand to testify totally opposite. If these guys were experts instead of whores, don't you think they might actually come to the same conclusion?? Then it just comes down to a game in the courtroom of which lawyer can trip up the other's expert/whore while they ALL make a boatload of cash. Sadly, sometimes the expert/whore who gets tripped up by a good lawyer and loses his credibility is actually the one who was the most correct. But because he was made to look bad, his message (although correct) wasn't convincing. It is all a game.

When doing our own fact finding (or say looking for a surgeon) we should rely on our own instinct and perhaps the recommendations of people we trust. And of course, what is their motivation. In the courtroom is the expert/whore's motivation seeking the truth or seeking the cash? Unfortunately...it is the cash. You can buy anything in this world with money.

As far as hoping that jury members are usually smart...that hasn't been my experience either. Having served on a few juries and noticing their thought processes...I'd be scared shitless to be put to trial by a jury of my "peers".

As far as church members are concerned, because "others do their thinking for them", so called "experts" have made a fortune off them through various cons and schemes.

Many of those paid whores are the lawyers, selling their version of the truth they know to be a pack of lies.

My uncle has been an expert witness in the fields of computer patents and satellites. With a Master's degree in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley. He has 28 patents of his own, or so he claims.

In between riding the highs and lows of the Silicon Valley roller coaster over the years, at some point he reinvented himself into a con artist. Using his same computer and social skills he spent his lifetime cultivating, he turned into a sociopath.

He's one of the paid whores you mention in terms of being an expert witness, for the right price. He can't be trusted worth anything, he's a serial liar. I only learned this myself after my children and I were the only ones in our metro area who were able to identify my uncle from Crimestoppers after he looted our banks in a 3-4 day heist.

He'd taken my children on a week long vacation through our metro area just six months prior to that, when he came back unbeknownst to us to raid our banks. The cops and Secret Service know it's him. But lacked enough evidence other than the photo ID, to get a conviction in court. He is that good of a con artist. The same cops who interviewed him in his Silicon Valley home office, are the same cops who give my aunt a parade (or used to,) on her birthday in honor of her accomplishments to their community. It was a case of turning a blind eye, or he was really able to schmooze his way out of getting caught.

The cops where I live told me he's been doing this a long time. And that the heist where I live was only the "tip of the iceberg." So all those business trips he'd been taking around the world weren't for legitimate business transactions. They were more likely scouting out various areas to perpetrate his cons. Like when he came here to take my children on a high school graduation week-long vacation. I broke off all contact with him after that. Will have nothing to do with him now.

He hasn't changed. Sociopaths don't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 05:47AM by Amyjo.

Curiously, a good whore and a good expert witness cost about the same.

And just how would you know that?

He dated an expert witness.

I hire the best people I can find, through a combination of referrals and assessment of their education and training. Then I let them do their job and take their advice seriously. I have not yet been disappointed by this approach.

As for scientific studies, I might take an individual study with a grain of salt. Large, multi-year studies conducted by respected institutions or multiple studies with the same conclusion will get my attention.

I wouldn't give up my right to change my mind at any time after finding an expert that impressed me. I continue to expect give and take throughout any interaction or medical procedure.

As for studies, I would never consider them to be the final word on a topic of long term importance because there are always new and better (or worse) findings happening. But like you, the ones that appear reputable do also attract my serious attention.

I know an engineer who made good money testifying about earthquake damage in court. There were other engineers who testified the opposite in those cases. We can't accept conclusions from anyone just because they are experts. That includes true experts.

Why talk to people who have studied a particular field?

There are so-called experts, and true experts.
Liken it to climate change science...
There are a handful of “scientists” that completely dismiss the evidence for climate change and it’s causes. However the VAST majority of scientists who study the field all are in agreement, at least in the macro scale.
Courtroom “experts” are problematic because you can’t bring in thousands of experts to debunk the oppositions one outlier.
As such, I don’t think the debate here is really a fair one.

There are no absolutes among experts. Opinions will vary.

"True" experts are nothing more than "experts" with an adjective in front of the word.

Courtroom experts are problematic because they were chosen because their beliefs on a given subject match the side which is paying them. The other side usually has another expert who says the opposite.

I needed to read this today.

This topic mystified me more after reading than before. I tend to be dubious of anyone's claims purporting to be an expert. The right titles help, but are often a front like a cover story. I like second opinions, reading consumer reports, and checking references. Still no guarantees, but it helps.

Blind faith and appeals to authority are illogical and counter productive.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blind faith and appeals to authority are illogical
> and counter productive.

Blind faith I grant you. But appeals to authority? Not always, surely?

Suppose someone claims to know how the world came about; or how disease can be prevented or cured; or whether you should be allowed the person you love; and they do so based on their status in a religious community but without knowing the first thing about science. Don't you agree that someone who has actually studied it can mention their PhDs in an argument?

Peoples'credentials are one way of determining their qualifications. A person with an advanced degree in a subject knows more about it than some guy with a high school education who read an article online written by someone with equally poor qualifications. Yes, the expert could be wrong and the layman could be right, but the odds are in favor of the expert. I certainly dont let an advanced degree convince me that someone is automatically right, but it gives me a starting point. Then, if I am intersted, I read other opinions and make up my own mind. Everyone isnt equal and education counts even if it doesnt make a person infallible



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2018 02:41AM by bona dea.

You can't have blind faith and an appeal to authority at the same time, surely. The two ideas are contradictory.

Respecting a person's knowledge and education isnt blind faith. If he is proved wrong at alater time, so be it. That is the way academia works.

Yes.

Discounting truly educated people and those who have developed
an expertise in a particular area only serves to transport us back too the time of a sovereign such as Henry VIII when the king and God were the only ones who were interchangeably correct. That was in the 1500's and a long way to digress.

I agree. Everyone is fallible and a certain amount of skepticism is always good, but people with advanced degrees in a field, who have published and who are respected by their peers deserve some respect as they certainly know more about their subject than someone who hasnt studied the issue in depth.It is always good to read both sides and do research, but to just discount experts because you dont like what they say is stupid too. I do agree that if a doctor isnt getting to the bottom of your problem, it is time to try someone else.However, you should see another doctor,not your plumber.Same for experts in other fields.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 03:54PM by bona dea.

Exactly.

Those rules will lead to the correct answer substantially more often than not.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. Everyone is fallible and a certain amount
> of skepticism is always good, but people with
> advanced degrees in a field, who have published
> and who are respected by their peers deserve some
> respect as they certainly know more about their
> subject than someone who hasnt studied the issue
> in depth.It is always good to read both sides and
> do research, but to just discount experts because
> you dont like what they say is stupid too. I do
> agree that if a doctor isnt getting to the bottom
> of your problem, it is time to try someone
> else.However, you should see another doctor,not
> your plumber.Same for experts in other fields.

Absolutely!
Often we are calling 2 or 3 individuals who are of the same caliber but may offer their expertise at various competitive prices. Of course that leaves us to make the decision
Between 3 good choices

Mao's great leap forward involved deliberately getting rid of the experts (doctors, scientists, engineers, etc). He had the experts go out to the farms to learn humility and had regular people do the experts' jobs. Millions died and starved. A raving success story. China still bears the scars from this time period.

This is exactly what I was just thinking. You beat me to it.

"Reds" versus "experts." It cost tens of millions of lives. When society devalues truth and celebrates ignorance, there is a high price to pay.

To pick and choose doctors and ask them to cooperate with a patient's point of view?? That is ridiculous.

Now who is doing the mind reading?

Your post made me think of Mao and how dangerous it was to be an expert or intellectual in China at that time. I am no fan of Mao. I think that was clear by my post.

I never commented on your seeing multiple doctors until you found a doctor that could treat your condition in a way that you found acceptable. I personally think that getting a second or third or fourth opinion on the treatment of a complicated condition is the logical normal thing that people would do.

I wish you all the best in the treatment of your condition.

Lawyers have a term for "expert witnesses." They call them
"whores." Basically that's what you call someone who will sell
themselves to someone for money. It was no coincidence that both
sides had "expert witnesses" contradicting each other. "Expert
witnesses" make a living testifying in court for ONE SIDE of a
case. Their duty is to their client, not to the truth.

Isn't that what many lawyers do as well, ie, have an aversion for truth so long as they generate lots of billable hours? There are good lawyers. It's the dirty, rotten scoundrels who give the profession a bad rap.

Yes. But they’re advocates not experts. Reality is many experts are advocates for their financial interest not truth.

How do you weed thru it?

ALL is the word that needs to be examined. Like most things in life, expert witnesses can be good, bad, or somewhere in between.

It's the same with other experts. Believing someone who is presented as an expert might be appropriate and it might not. That's why we have brains. We need to look at every expert presented to us and not necessarily discount them or accept them. Some are credible and others not so much so.

I think objections to my seeking a number of differing doctors opinions to save my eyesight and my life is a reaction to politics. Those who are desperate to have socialized medicine want to think it's safe to accept whatever doctor the system thrusts on them. Well, I'm not willing to go blind or die over such a fool hearty idea.

In the jury I served on as a dedicated and self sacrificing citizen, the expert witnesses on one side were credible and presented scientific data including blood and breath tests and firsthand observations. The other side mentioned some hypotheticals with no relationship to the situation at hand. The other jurors and I believed the believable experts since their explanations were the only ones that made sense and fit the facts. As the judge pointed out, there are flaws in the US legal system but it's still better than every other alternative.

Cheryl,

In all sincerity no one has "objected" to your seeking opinions from a number of different doctors. To the contrary, everyone thinks that was the right thing to do. And we wish you the best.

Likewise, no one has advocated socialized medicine or suggested that a person should accept a doctor thrust upon her by a "system." You are reading political intent into posts that don't have any.

She seems to be debating with herself but I must say she’s made good points.

And crowing that I do need experts which is not the issue, is it?

It's ridiculous to say that.

It is my right to pick and choose whatever "experts" suit me with no regard to anyone else who thinks that somehow Mao is a player in my quest.

I think in my situation you would have acted similarly, but you would have assumed you were right and you like to crow that somehow I undermined the system by allowing "my" experts over those thrust upon me.

Using real like examples seems to set you off for personal attacks.

Precisely the opposite.

In your situation I would have done just as you did. And there is nothing in anything I have written to suggest otherwise. You infer personal attacks when there are none.

You started this thread with a general debate about reliance on experts. Most of us were arguing with you about expertise. Then you turn the tables by saying that the topic is about you and that anyone who argued about experts in general is attacking you in particular. That is unfair; it is unfounded.

Please quit acting as if I, or anyone else, laughed at your seeking appropriate advice from numerous experts. That did not happen.

LW has agreed with you and complimented you and extolled your message. I cannot see a personal attack anywhere and I consider myself a great "expert" in finding them. Yea, even a "true" expert. :)

I’m having a hard time understanding why someone starts a thread and then torches everyone who responds. It seems to be a recurring theme with the OP.

It's certainly noticeable. Very strange.

She's going through tough stuff. It may be making her tetchy, which would be understandable.

No one must pass their post by you.

It wasn't this thread that got under Cheryl's skin. This thread was a carry over from a different thread where Cheryl felt under attack, and after that thread closed, continued it here.

Hopefully things will get smoothed over for everyone's benefit.