Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Pat is fighting against one of the biggest problems in America at the moment - the death of expertise. People believe with google they can "inform" themselves and make critical decisions on topics that in decades past we left up to the real experts. You know, people with PhDs who live and breathe a particular subject. Then the interweb came along and "Jim" with his C- average in prealgebra and his GED decided "climate change" isn't real because last fall it was 2 degrees F cooler than normal and the numbers do not make sense to him. Now it has extended to motor oil viscosities. Next people will be showing their heart surgeon a Youtube video instructing them how they'd like their surgery done.
I agree with you in principle and speaking as one of those SME's- let me tell you a story similar in analogy that brings out the whole truth.
I have been doing VA (vibration analysis) and other predictive technologies almost since their entrance into general industry and in the beginning people were trained that "fault signal" equaled bearing defect- business listened, repair costs soared and the "old school millwrights' said
"show me the defect in this bearing"- there wasn't one. The technology looked foolish.
What we know today as "predictive maintenance' almost died on the vine in infancy because of claims that were "true" but advertised incorrectly, not applied properly and taken significantly out of context.
That's for the hard engineering focused sciences- now lets put the softer sciences ( medical, software, weather etc)- there is a greater element of 'pseudo science" and political influence driven by agenda, profit, ideology or all.
Both are correct to a point.
The simple truth is
legitimate science is the more inherently accurate and reliable but only when the accuracy of the claim is supported by the scientific method and other equally rigid standards and then only when used in context with the data and range as provided.
I could make the argument that "Jim" with his C- minus average has the intelligence and reasoning ability to realize that those "ivory tower types" don't always adhere to the high standards they claim to uphold and has a legitimate reason to challenge them on every point.
He certainly has the legitimate proof out there to validate his distrust in many different areas.
The experts fail when they pontificate beyond what they can legitimately produce and defend with actual data.
"Jim" fails when he refuses to listen to reason with critical thinking.
Theres plenty of examples of both out there
Pat is fighting against one of the biggest problems in America at the moment - the death of expertise. People believe with google they can "inform" themselves and make critical decisions on topics that in decades past we left up to the real experts. You know, people with PhDs who live and breathe a particular subject. Then the interweb came along and "Jim" with his C- average in prealgebra and his GED decided "climate change" isn't real because last fall it was 2 degrees F cooler than normal and the numbers do not make sense to him. Now it has extended to motor oil viscosities. Next people will be showing their heart surgeon a Youtube video instructing them how they'd like their surgery done.
I agree with you in principle and speaking as one of those SME's- let me tell you a story similar in analogy that brings out the whole truth.
I have been doing VA (vibration analysis) and other predictive technologies almost since their entrance into general industry and in the beginning people were trained that "fault signal" equaled bearing defect- business listened, repair costs soared and the "old school millwrights' said
"show me the defect in this bearing"- there wasn't one. The technology looked foolish.
What we know today as "predictive maintenance' almost died on the vine in infancy because of claims that were "true" but advertised incorrectly, not applied properly and taken significantly out of context.
That's for the hard engineering focused sciences- now lets put the softer sciences ( medical, software, weather etc)- there is a greater element of 'pseudo science" and political influence driven by agenda, profit, ideology or all.
Both are correct to a point.
The simple truth is
legitimate science is the more inherently accurate and reliable but only when the accuracy of the claim is supported by the scientific method and other equally rigid standards and then only when used in context with the data and range as provided.
I could make the argument that "Jim" with his C- minus average has the intelligence and reasoning ability to realize that those "ivory tower types" don't always adhere to the high standards they claim to uphold and has a legitimate reason to challenge them on every point.
He certainly has the legitimate proof out there to validate his distrust in many different areas.
The experts fail when they pontificate beyond what they can legitimately produce and defend with actual data.
"Jim" fails when he refuses to listen to reason with critical thinking.
Theres plenty of examples of both out there
