All judgments rely on advice from what people call ‘experts’. As an example, someone might ask advice to develop an under-explored science domain for children or young students. If 20 experts provide advice how to promote evolution theory prior to university level, advice will most often differ amongst ‘experts’. Advice might include formulation of complicated arguments or terminology to impress those that ask for advice. Perhaps individual experts do not like to repeat what has been advised by others. But how can someone select the best advice amongst a multitude of propositions?
I think the expert advice at the right time can avoid costly mistakes at startup, particularly. But even the experience persons may seek right advice from the experts. The selection of a right expert is the key of taking the desirable advice.
I think the expert advice at the right time can avoid costly mistakes at startup, particularly. But even the experience persons may seek right advice from the experts. The selection of a right expert is the key of taking the desirable advice.
Limitation, of consulting experts for advice, is more appropriate. In my opinion, talking with 3 experts is better than talking with 5 or more experts. When the number of suggestions increases, then hesitation is bound to occur. When there are 3 suggestions, it will be easier to narrow down the choices into one route or path.
The person that asked for advice might consider overlap in contents of comments provided by different experts? The more experts the higher the probability that advice will overlap in content?
Is consensus among experts a key factor for selection of advice?
We can use the Delphi method for optimal use of expert's opinions. In the Delphi method, the experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds.
After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the experts’ forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer.
In what conditions is the Delphi method applied? Apparently not in the referee processes of potential publications?
Apparently not!, Dear Marcel,
Four key features may be regarded as necessary for defining a procedure as a ‘Delphi’: These are anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and the statistical aggregation of group responses.I have attached a good article on Delphi .
This is actually a very interesting question and I do not think that there is a clear cut answer. I will follow with interest to learn from experts.
Dear Behrouz,
You can use the Delphi method to write multi-author publications.
Cheers
Marcel ,
I would fall back to basics:
1) Is the reasoning proposed by the expert follow a logical construction on which the conclusion follows from the premises
2) What are the premises on which the expert bases his analysis. Are they objectionable based on scientific grounds(known by the evaluator) or others such as religious ethical or moral grounds(depending on the argument)?
3) Does it follow Ockham's Principle?One should be careful with this one, since it does not apply in all cases.
4) Is there consensus between experts?
The complication of "formulation of complicated arguments or terminology to impress those that ask for advice" usually comes with a high Gunning fog index. Usually those arguments should be given a low evaluation if they are not followed by a clear and concise explanation that can be followed easily. Both the complicated argument and the simple argument are needed to evaluate if there is loss of accuracy in the explanation once the evaluator comprehends the simple argument and "graduates" to the complex one.
Hi Marcel,
Another great but complicated question!
The situation is not unlike when we search the internet for answers to our personal questions. Therefore, it’s not simply the expert’s opinion that is so important but an awareness of what we should expect to accept as a sufficient answer. That is, I believe your question asks how we can be better prepared to distinguish between competing hypotheses and therefore, better judge the inference to the best explanation. This requires closer examination of the problem, itself, and sometimes we find that we just don't have the necessary background information to decide on the best answer and more information is needed.
To perform this questioning systematically means we should be experts, ourselves… not expert in the domain of the question but at least in knowing how to apply a scientific habit of mind.
But we can not be more expert than the experts to make the best choice among the experts, can we?
Of course not but a good answer has to be justified and justification depends on what you know, as well. So, if you can't understand the answer, then you have to do more searching or ask more why questions.
Here are some videos that illustrate what can happen when you ask for explanations. What's the responsibility of the questioner?
Feynman on why-questions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
Popovich on explanations...in simplest terms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaisJ3NJXpY
Besides talent, one needs many more things in life like good advice and common sense. To profit from good advice requires more wisdom than to give it - Wilson Mizner
"An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore"
– Edward de Bono
"An expert knows all the answers - if you ask the right questions"
– Levi Strauss
Marcel, what makes a question right or wrong?
For instance, is the question, "What is the answer to life.. the universe.. everything?", correct?
Dear Jerry,
Why asking such a general question when the number of answers can be infinite just depending on the infinite number of scales of analysis/perception/etc....?
But only one answer is given...42. So if the answer and question match, is the question correct?
“It is the standing problem which has exercised the wonder and the study of every fine genius since the world began; from the era of the Egyptians and the Brahmins, to that of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Bacon, of Leibnitz, of Swedenborg. There sits the Sphinx at the road-side, and from age to age, as each prophet comes by, he tries his fortune at reading her riddle....
This relation between the mind and matter is not fancied by some poet, but stands in the will of God, and so is free to be known by all men.
Can these things be, And overcome us like a summer's cloud,
Without our special wonder?"
~Emerson
______________
Triadic relations (modified from Peirce)
one, two, three…
pathos, ethos, logos…
beauty, goodness, truth…
esthetics, ethics, logic…
icon, index, symbol
Chapter 42 (Daodejing)
The way begets one;
One begets two;
Two begets three;
Three begets the myriad creatures...
______________
"It is easily seen that there is nothing lucky or capricious in these analogies, but that they are constant, and pervade nature. These are not the dreams of a few poets, here and there, but man is an analogist, and studies relations in all objects..." ~Emerson
______________
Emerson's comment as an example of one, two, three...
chance, law, habit-taking...
"lucky", "constant", assertion of "man is an analogist"
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science