There's some sort of point about experts in general which I am not sure exactly how to articulate but I think is relevant. I'm going to try to klutz through it anyway.
There are lots of fields where fundamental theories are relatively weak or have poor predictive powers. Macroeconomics, climatology, nutrition etc. Basically, we don't have real Knowledge. We have a bunch of data and a bunch of theories. Some of the theories that aren't very general or aren't very applicable to real life scenarios are predictive but relatively useless. We know that certain nutrients have some importance. We know that restricting caloric intake leads to weight loss. We know that money supply, inflation and other things are linked together in various ways. The theories don't answer the questions we want then to with any kind of certainty. Still, we sometimes need to make decisions and some knowledge is better than none so we go and find experts anyway. There are people who are experts. They're experts in the study and they are aware of our knowledge in the field such as it is. But they don't have real answers because there just aren't useful answers to be had at this point. All of medicine was like this until pretty recently.
When Darwin published "The Origin of Species" evolutionary biology came to being as a different kind of field. One where the knowledge was real and the theory predictive. The theory was fundamental and strong. Darwin could make claims & predictions with a lot of confidence. Subsequent biologists could keep making predictions and when new discoveries (like genetics) were made, they were found to be consistent with the predictions of evolutionary biology. In fact, if they hadn't been, a careful researcher would probably assume that the mistake was in their own conclusions, not in Darwins. So if Chimpanzees are closer to humans than to Gorillas, we share common acceptors not shared with Gorillas and the distinction between Humans and Apes (if we want to keep Apes as a category) is morphological (which is allowed by Darwin) rather than one of proximity on a family tree.
Darwin was careful. He didn't publish until he was sure. If he didn't been sure we wouldn't have published. There are lots of Darwins in every one of the former type of field. They haven't discovered real Knowledge that can tell them what to do in an economic recession or what people should eat so they shut their mouth and keep looking. They are still experts but their expert opinion is "I dunno." That doesn't register as expertise so we go on to find someone that will explain about Aggregate demand, antinflamatory diets, carbohydrates or something like that.
Development methodologies, executive compensation, distributed companies etc. are in the category of things that we don't have real "scientific" knowledge about. Most business-ey knowledge is like that.
Now it sounds like I'm bashing people who talk about this stuff and I don't mean to be (hence my disclaimer at the start). I'm just pointing out that our knowledge in different fields is different. Joel Spolsky is very insightful in his essays about the Software industry, for example. But there are certain people that are comfortable with anecdote and generalities and assertions that may turn out to be untrue. There are certain people (like Darwin) who are not. If we're talking about development methodologies, the people we here from are self selected. They are comfortable making grand statements, manifestos and such even though they may be wrong.
That's still useful and certainly interesting, but there is a big category of people we aren't hearing from and they are relevant to the discussion.
This comment is sufficiently interesting that I want to grab a coffee with you and talk about it IRL, but you don't have any contact information in your profile so I don't know where in the world you are.
The next time you roll through Austin make sure to look me up.
I think you are referring (at least partially) to something called the Dunning-Kruger effect[1], where people who know less about something tend to express more certainty about what they know (and thus tend to get more attention as well) than people who actually know more about it
I think the grandparent poster is referring to something subtly different. It's not that people making the bold pronouncements are incompetent, it's that they may be competent but are not quite as competent as other folks who stay silent, and they're okay with that. Oftentimes an "expert" knows more than the person they are explaining things to - it's just that they may know less than someone else who doesn't bother to explain things.
Somewhat relatedly - there's another phenomena where people may be quite aware of the limits of their knowledge, but deliberately choose to hide it to achieve some objective (usually personal gain, but it could also be in service of some organization or mission), because they know that their audience is more likely to believe confident people. You pretty much have to do this to found a startup, because all startups are inherently risky and uncertain and yet few people will follow you if you seem uncertain.
I think risk is extremely pertinent to this situation.
The (relative) silent expert to those more audibly expressing/pronouncing is also considering the outcomes of releasing information that is highly likely to be correct, and what may come of that information becoming public.
They also take into account the scenario where they may be wrong or only partly correct, and if so what are the long term problems that may result in being wrong (or even in being right - take the heliocentric model of the universe for example). Therefore they may deem the risk too high.
We're still finding out what a search engine monetised via advertising does to the world.
Aristotle said that the rhetorician is a rhetorician not because he absolutely can convince someone of something, but because he is aware of all the means of persuasion.
likewise, there's no guarantee that a doctor can heal /you/. but you go to the doctor because he is aware of the various means of achieving health. this is different from evolutionary biology, where firm predictions can be relied on.
same goes for lawyers; they can't guarantee a victory, but they are aware of all the methods in the courtroom. These are professions and fields of study whose variables are humans. i agree with the parent commentor that the distinction is worth investigating.
There are lots of fields where fundamental theories are relatively weak or have poor predictive powers. Macroeconomics, climatology, nutrition etc. Basically, we don't have real Knowledge. We have a bunch of data and a bunch of theories. Some of the theories that aren't very general or aren't very applicable to real life scenarios are predictive but relatively useless. We know that certain nutrients have some importance. We know that restricting caloric intake leads to weight loss. We know that money supply, inflation and other things are linked together in various ways. The theories don't answer the questions we want then to with any kind of certainty. Still, we sometimes need to make decisions and some knowledge is better than none so we go and find experts anyway. There are people who are experts. They're experts in the study and they are aware of our knowledge in the field such as it is. But they don't have real answers because there just aren't useful answers to be had at this point. All of medicine was like this until pretty recently.
When Darwin published "The Origin of Species" evolutionary biology came to being as a different kind of field. One where the knowledge was real and the theory predictive. The theory was fundamental and strong. Darwin could make claims & predictions with a lot of confidence. Subsequent biologists could keep making predictions and when new discoveries (like genetics) were made, they were found to be consistent with the predictions of evolutionary biology. In fact, if they hadn't been, a careful researcher would probably assume that the mistake was in their own conclusions, not in Darwins. So if Chimpanzees are closer to humans than to Gorillas, we share common acceptors not shared with Gorillas and the distinction between Humans and Apes (if we want to keep Apes as a category) is morphological (which is allowed by Darwin) rather than one of proximity on a family tree.
Darwin was careful. He didn't publish until he was sure. If he didn't been sure we wouldn't have published. There are lots of Darwins in every one of the former type of field. They haven't discovered real Knowledge that can tell them what to do in an economic recession or what people should eat so they shut their mouth and keep looking. They are still experts but their expert opinion is "I dunno." That doesn't register as expertise so we go on to find someone that will explain about Aggregate demand, antinflamatory diets, carbohydrates or something like that.
Development methodologies, executive compensation, distributed companies etc. are in the category of things that we don't have real "scientific" knowledge about. Most business-ey knowledge is like that.
Now it sounds like I'm bashing people who talk about this stuff and I don't mean to be (hence my disclaimer at the start). I'm just pointing out that our knowledge in different fields is different. Joel Spolsky is very insightful in his essays about the Software industry, for example. But there are certain people that are comfortable with anecdote and generalities and assertions that may turn out to be untrue. There are certain people (like Darwin) who are not. If we're talking about development methodologies, the people we here from are self selected. They are comfortable making grand statements, manifestos and such even though they may be wrong.
That's still useful and certainly interesting, but there is a big category of people we aren't hearing from and they are relevant to the discussion.