Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outside their fields. Was... The Cause of Global Warming...



On 05/22/2007 10:18 AM, Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:

So when John Denker gives an opinion on physics i tend to trust it, because I view him as
competent and motivated.

I'm sure that was intended as a compliment, and I happily
accept it as such ... but it worries me because it is
open to misinterpretation.

Maybe I'm over-sensitive to this, but I habitually cringe
whenever somebody talks about "trusting X" or "relying on Y".

When I'm being cross-examined, I get a lot of questions about
that, and I always try to deflect them.
Q: In forming your expert opinion, did you rely on Y?
A: I considered Y.
Q: Do you trust X?
A: I took X into consideration.

In my experience, "trust" is often interpreted as "absolute
trust" while "reliance" if often interpreted as "complete
reliance". This is so common that I don't know (and hardly
even care) whether it is the intended interpretation or not.

Particularly in an adversarial situation, where somebody is
being /paid/ to misinterpret my words, you can understand
why I work hard to avoid words and concepts that are open
to misinterpretation.

Even in non-adversarial situations, the question of trust
versus distrust seems too binary, too black-or-white. I
don't think in terms of black and white; I think in terms
of weighing the evidence. I assign more weight to some
sources and less weight to others, but that is a far cry
from complete trust or complete distrust.

To say it even more strongly: If "trust" means complete trust,
or anything close to that, I don't want folks to "trust" any
source, not even me.

They say charity begins at home. Well, so does skepticism.
*I* know I am not 100% reliable.