[runald]

> We’re now having to define what an expert in the field is now

What do you propose, just delegate an authority who defines an expert and blindly accept what they say? That we should stop asking questions and should hold an expert's opinion as absolute infallible truth? Never mind the fact that there are different opinions of experts and they can't even form an unified absolute consensus?

Good idea. Forget dark ages, dystopia is the future.

Extremist positions are never good. One side is to never trust experts. The other side is to trust everything experts say. You argue for the latter against the former (strawman), because you see it pointless to define expertise and that experts opinion should not be discounted (why not?).

Experts are tunnel-visioned by their narrow specializations. They don't see and know everything. It's up to the people how to interpret and apply their opinions to their respective domains.

> I’m sure if you received diagnosis for a rare and life threatening illness and your doctor referred you to an expert in the field to help save your life. You’d be totally happy to believe in experts.

A good example of the extremist strawman, where you decide that thinking for one's self and asking questions about expertise is the same as never trusting an expert.

[bamboozled]

Parent here, I absolutely never said you should blindly trust an expert at all. What I am saying is that it would pay heavily to pay attention to an experts opinion in their particular field of expertise. It's that simple.

I think we're saying the same thing I just think you're tone is more aggressive so it comes across overly hostile towards the idea of an expert.

I'd be that most expert know that they have narrow specialist information in their field and don't expect it to solve all problems in a general sense, you're just making that claim for them?

I've even seen Geoffrey Hinton say things like, "I don't know what to do about blah, I'm not a ...", so this man is aware of his limits too.