You think there’s no value added from expertise in “Foreign policy, or economics, or Public health policy”??? That’s ... wow. There are questions in those domains that are political, and belong to the public. That something different.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Chris_arnade @antoniogm
OK. In which case I’d like to say that it’s not qualitatively different than a lot of these feels that you think of as “hard” expertise. They too have trade-offs which belong to the public, and not the experts.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
The granularity of our understanding and grasp of causal mechanisms in the domain to differ from field to field for sure. But they all hit trade-offs, and then same thing happens: attempted usurpation of politics by the experts, assumption there’s a singular technocratic solution
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but the pilot knows *exactly* the cause and effect of each decision in their domain. the economist or public health expert can only vaguely know the same in theirs. if they hit the trade-offs much sooner, doesn’t that mean their expertise is relatively less valuable?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I want to introduce you to some pilots in general aviation!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
fair enough! my only point is that complete mastery of a field like econ, foreign policy, etc. does not confer as much ability to explain cause and effect as the same level of mastery in a field like programming, aviation, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Finer-grained understanding confers almost no public benefits on its own, though; historically, actually, it makes things worse probably more of the time. It's striking how every field forgets this as soon as things get a bit under control.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.