Why is somebody considered an expert? Doesn't it come down to a trusted network of other experts recognizing them, with examples of why? Could we map all of that (and possibly any missteps) with social media, so that we could easily verify everyone's credentials? #LiberalValues
@wjmaggos Wouldn't this system make it more difficult for "non-expert" people to contribute to scientific or engineering fields? Ideally arguments should be evaluated by their merits and not by the credentials of the author
I wouldn't want to change any process, just make it all more transparent. And allow for people to jump in on relevant conversations.
More than anything, we need long public conversations among "experts" who disagree re: controversial topics that the average person just doesn't know that much about. Instead of falling into our info bubbles, we need well informed people to talk about everything surrounding COVID19, climate change, guns, BLM, even Cuties. This would help with that.
@wjmaggos I don't know that the problems that need to be discussed are generally technical. They tend to be more about values and trade offs than straight what's the right answer sort of questions. I think its more important to have average people discussing them with an open mind than technocrats having sterile debate
@valleyforge
That's usually more important too, but what we get now is people in tribal bubbles making a lot of claims and arguments (that they read/heard in these same bubbles) that are hard to dispute unless you have the relevant information that most people don't. Over time, this info becomes accepted (obvious) fact and people in the bubble think anyone with different info from outside the bubble are idiots to be dismissed. Rogan hosted this kind of conversation about pot. It was great imo.