Recently finished this one. This is a pop philosophy book on why, epistimologically, it makes sense to just use expert opinion (without checking their reasoning or reasons carefully yourself) generally. It was written just before widespread AI use, with more of a focus on vaccine denial and conspiracy theory. But I think it has a lot to do with AI use, especially in schools and conversation. Many students are turning to an AI to complete homework and study, with mixed (and often disastrous) results.
Importantly, the book only makes the moral case in a weak sense. The main good is ‘justified, true beliefs held’ with a minimum of error, time, and effort. It does argue that we have to use expert testimony for most of our beliefs (wikipedia) anyway; and that the best way to manage expert incentives and opinion is institutional (and not trying to become an expert in everything yourself).
Overall, I found it troubling to read. The rationalization is pretty compelling, and there are few glaringly obvious leaps or gaps. Worse, the rationalizations aren’t hard.
I can see this a bit except for the “without checking their reasoning or reasons carefully yourself”. Certainly no one should reinvent the wheel and one should be aware of how limited thier knowledge is in a field but things need to be logical to oneself in their actions. I recognize that when I lack the necessary knowldge then expert advice is the way to go but generally there are multiple experts and if they disagree you have to choose which expert to go with. This goes into credentials and societys and such around the field since nowadays many things have so called experts. Further when you have an expert you believe is valid and get their opinion and it does not make logical sense to you it makes sense to ask them about how it appears wierd to you and for them to help explain it to a leve where you can see the logic. There is an efficiency cost to all of this. The richer one gets and the more money ones time is worth the more one needs to offload things to the best experts you can. I really don’t have much of that problem though.
Summarizing from the book:
Experts have seen more evidence than you.
Experts have better techniques for evaluating the evidence than you can be easily taught (if you are an expert in something, think about all the little edge cases that the news always gets wrong).
The above are often not easily shared. It takes years to understand why we run medical trials the way we do.
If experts credibly disagree: You should suspend judgement! If experts can’t get through it, you are very unlikely to get through it yourself. Even more so if the correct conclusion has consequences; there are certainly motivated actors trying to prey upon exactly you(r demographic).
(The book agrees with you that it’s probably for everyone’s best interests to have folks checking and having a dialog with the experts to get some understanding. It’s just not an imperative for getting correct conclusions.)
I guess im thinking in terms of going to an expert. Like a doctor. I expect the doctor use his better understanding from years of training to explain why his recommendation is the best course. To me the expert should be expected to be able to explain it at least well enough to convince me. If an expert wants to say I just know best Im not sure I can take them seriously as an expert.