More Thoughts on Intellectual Authorities
Let's take a specific example:
Let's say that I found out that basketball coach Pat Riley, who has won several NBA titles and is (I think) also even a NBA hall of fame player as well, believes that "pick and roll" plays used in NBA games are not effective. Now, I don't personally have a clue about how effective "pick and roll" plays are when all the factors (do they cause offensive fouls?, injure players?, are there better plays?, etc.) are taken into consideration.
Then let's say that I have been studying earthworms for two weeks at the University of Minnesota Duluth. After doing tests for two weeks, it looks to me like in might be the case that the longer earthworms survive better in cold conditions.
Now I go to a rad UMD party after the hockey team sweeps the UM Gophers on the weekend. While there, some person says, "Hey Luke! What do you know?"
And I think, hmm...should I tell them that I know "pick and roll" plays aren't effective in NBA games OR should I tell them that longer earthworms survive longer in cold conditions?
-----
It seems like I should, rationally, be more certain that "pick and roll" plays aren't effective in NBA games, but that as people, we don't give full weight to things we know based on authority figures. So it seems more likely that we would say that longer earthworms survive better in cold conditions. (But it is possible that at a party like that, we'd be drunk, which would be a consideration)
posted by luke_d at 5:09 AM
6 Comments:
I think that "pick and roll" effectiveness would have similar statistical evidence. I don't know the evidence, but you could look through tapes and find the number of pick and rolls that worked in producing baskets, the number of injuries that occured in running the pick and roll plays vs. other plays, etc.
However, if it is easier, we could just change the scenario a bit and say that instead of Pat Riley, I read a statement by his brother, biologist James P. Riley, a nobel prize winner, who claimed that taller bears survived better in cold conditions.
Also, another modification to the party situation: the person says, "everyone state one thing you know and then lets go swimming." This change in order to try to get around the issue of defending your claim afterwards.
Anyway, situations aside, I just think that we fail to weigh our own opinions very heavily.
Take a class of 30 bright grad students in politics, yourself included. Ask them all 50 questions about politics. Now after you've heard them all spoken, including your own, it might be a strange question, but couldn't you ask, "why not accept someone else's view to a similar degree that you accept your own?" You know they have reasons for believing such and such, just like you do.
8:12 AM
jeff-
concerning your second post--it is a similar topic to that posted by fgelias in the comments for the initial post i made on this topic. i wish that, in general, people would be more open to admitting a change in views through argumentation, but it seems our egos are again getting in the way there.
however, a vegetarian friend of mine once ran into another friend at the grocery store and convinced her, over the course of a few hours there, to put the meat she was buying back onto the shelves.
also, sometimes people say that we shouldn't label our view (such as my being a "determinist") because by doing so, we then commit to the positions and thereby have a stake in being stubborn in the face of good arguments against the positions (after all, what would I do with all the "determinism" t-shirts I printed if I changed my mind?).
12:34 AM
Oops! Just noticed a typo in an above post. I said, "Anyway, situations aside, I just think that we fail to weigh our own opinions very heavily." I meant to say precisely the opposite--that we seem to weigh our own opinions too heavily.
2:25 AM
I definitely don't think you should talk about the earthworms. After all, having done the experiementation yourself, you are now an authority on the subject, and it isn't rational to take information like that on somebody's authority. By talking about the earthworms, you would just be encouraging people to be irrational.
2:39 AM
the answer to "hey, luke, what d'ya know?" is obvious. you know some stuff about earthworms under very specific conditions (though you may not know exactly what those conditions are), and you know some stuff about what an authority believes about "pick and roll" plays, but you do not know that authoritiy's basis for the claim.
what you don't know is any characteristic of earthworms, or any characteristic of "pick and roll" plays. your knowledge is entirely circumstantial.
science is based on statistical knowledge, and statistical knowledge is NEVER certain, rather it is probable. the reason for this is that such knowledge is circumstantial.
why do we think that we know the probability of a coin flip landing heads is 1/2? because we have seen many many many coin flips. it could be by chance that we have observed coins to flip in a fair manner, but given the quantity of our observations, this seems unlikely (this idea is given a name in statistics: the central limit theorem, or the law of large numbers).
when we take the word of an authority we do so because that authority has more experience than we do (or in academics, because that authority uses better statitistical methods than we do).
is this not where the majority of our "knowledge" comes from? or do we really claim to have deeper knowledge of some things?
12:56 AM
fgelias-
First of all, I think I agree with everything you said there--completely. Secondly, I think that is an interesting topic--reminds me of the popper/wittgenstein book about the poker incident (specifically, reading about popper).
However, I think I'm somehow confusing things by trying to use the examples, because what I find peculiar is, I think, being missed in the discussion.
So, I think I'm gonna take one more crack at this topic as a general post.
Anyway, it has been fun--as if we were conversing at Lula's or something.
1:08 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home