In a stereotypic rich household of long ago, servants and the served had different roles, and different styles of talk. Servant areas of responsibility were practical, concrete and narrow, and servants were subject to being overruled by the served. The served were responsible for overall policy, especially those that reflected value choices. The served set overall goals, and servants figured out how to achieve them. The served made the biggest choices, including when to punish anyone, while servants made smaller choices.
You can't compare accuracy ratios across different fields. Some questions and some fields are much harder to be accurate about. Also, some fields are such that it doesn't matter if you're wrong 99 times as long as you get it right once. For instance, 99 failed attempts at proving a difficult theorem or inventing a better battery don't matter, if in the end you can produce a single successful attempt.
"I'm confident that the elites are doing things in a way that effectively perpetuates their own social clout."
Isn't that what both elites and experts do--act to perpetuate their higher social status? Experts seem more "legitimate" than elites. Joe Biden is a "top elite," but I have more confidence in the piloting competence of the average commercial pilot. Tyler Cowen seems impressed and supportive of the veracity of both experts and elites. He feels he is both--expert and elite, and he is. But if a 767 pilot had the same accuracy ratio as Tyler Cowen, then he would be crashing the plane every other flight . . . an okay ratio for an economist, but fatal for a pilot.
"Doing things roughly right" by whose definition of "right"? I'm confident that the elites are doing things in a way that effectively perpetuates their own social clout. Perhaps that makes it "right" for them.
That does not mean it is right for society. By failing to adopt more objective, falsifiable modes of discourse, we would expect policies to be adopted and perpetuated for non-outcome-based reasons. This would result in worse outcomes for society.
We may interpret right and wrong, here, as an expression of advocacy. To say that a style of talk is "right" for a group means that you, the speaker, are advocating for that style of talk being used in that group. For us as observers to advocate a style of talk is different from the style of talk simply being a stable equilibrium in the group.
I can believe that being rocket scientists counts more for eliteness in China. That's different from elites having different styles of talking and interacting there.
Beijing doesn't ignore its uppity experts, it hires them.The cutoff IQ for a national public service job is 140, and several provincial governors are literal, successful rocket scientists.
We should consider the possibility that the way society operates in general is in a fairly stable equilibrium, and objections to it from radical thinkers should be dismissed. Small changes in society’s operating procedure will always be taking place, but large—radical--ones would be impractical. Utopian visions might work in a society made up of creatures different from ordinary human beings, but not with those we actually have.
You can't compare accuracy ratios across different fields. Some questions and some fields are much harder to be accurate about. Also, some fields are such that it doesn't matter if you're wrong 99 times as long as you get it right once. For instance, 99 failed attempts at proving a difficult theorem or inventing a better battery don't matter, if in the end you can produce a single successful attempt.
"I'm confident that the elites are doing things in a way that effectively perpetuates their own social clout."
Isn't that what both elites and experts do--act to perpetuate their higher social status? Experts seem more "legitimate" than elites. Joe Biden is a "top elite," but I have more confidence in the piloting competence of the average commercial pilot. Tyler Cowen seems impressed and supportive of the veracity of both experts and elites. He feels he is both--expert and elite, and he is. But if a 767 pilot had the same accuracy ratio as Tyler Cowen, then he would be crashing the plane every other flight . . . an okay ratio for an economist, but fatal for a pilot.
So Elites are "line" and Experts are "staff"... ?
"Doing things roughly right" by whose definition of "right"? I'm confident that the elites are doing things in a way that effectively perpetuates their own social clout. Perhaps that makes it "right" for them.
That does not mean it is right for society. By failing to adopt more objective, falsifiable modes of discourse, we would expect policies to be adopted and perpetuated for non-outcome-based reasons. This would result in worse outcomes for society.
We may interpret right and wrong, here, as an expression of advocacy. To say that a style of talk is "right" for a group means that you, the speaker, are advocating for that style of talk being used in that group. For us as observers to advocate a style of talk is different from the style of talk simply being a stable equilibrium in the group.
The changes you describe as being desired by many experts seem radical.
I didn't specify the size of changes considered in the above discussion.
I can believe that being rocket scientists counts more for eliteness in China. That's different from elites having different styles of talking and interacting there.
Beijing doesn't ignore its uppity experts, it hires them.The cutoff IQ for a national public service job is 140, and several provincial governors are literal, successful rocket scientists.
We should consider the possibility that the way society operates in general is in a fairly stable equilibrium, and objections to it from radical thinkers should be dismissed. Small changes in society’s operating procedure will always be taking place, but large—radical--ones would be impractical. Utopian visions might work in a society made up of creatures different from ordinary human beings, but not with those we actually have.