fMRIs are neat but they have limits. They simply show activation of areas of the brain. What they can’t do is tell us how that activation and how that brain is constructing a perceiving information. To draw a parallel like, since many people experience X when Y region of the brain in activated in situation Z; then if an animal shows the same region activated it must be like our perception. I think this is a wrong conclusion to draw.

It can be a fine line. As I commented in another spot you have to gauge how far you’re pushing into another field. What I don’t like about the article is that it appears to put too much responsibility of the expert to stay in their lane so they do not accidentally lead people astray. Rather, I would put more responsibility on the layperson to question the methodology of a conclusion by the person making the claim.

When you’re debunking something, if your methodology is trust me, I’m a biochemist, that’s not good enough. It appears that is not what you do. It appears you try to understand things to the best of your ability, and your expertise may help you understand things a bit better that are outside of your expertise. I find it very obnoxious when someone will dismiss me because I’m not an expert, even though I have consumed a hefty amount of information on the topic.

One of my favorite examples of why you should analyze the claim and not the person, is the Wright brothers. In particular Wilbur Wright. No training in math, engineering, or physics. Never went to college. At that time, a betting man would have put their money on Samuel Langley, the scientist, the expert, and the Wrights beat him at a fraction of the cost. Langley became too focused on a problem that Wilbur saw was not a problem, and Wilbur was correct and focused on the correct problem that was keeping planes from flying.

I agree with you. To me there is a scale of how more likely I will scrutinize an expert outside of their expertise. If we use the example in the article, the understanding of that statistic is not highly advanced, it’s perfectly plausible for an intelligent doctor to learn enough about statistics without becoming an expert, it’s just this doctor did not, other doctors will have a better understanding maybe because statistics is an interesting topic. For example, it wouldn’t surprise me for a medical doctor to understand the physics of how a wing on a plane provides lift, even though he is not an expert in physics. If he were to explain it, I think he could be quite capable. If he started to explain the physics of a black hole, I would be more likely to scrutinize that. There is a degree of how far one is diving outside of their expertise and how far they’re diving into another.

Yes, the myth of the rational voter.

Yeah, and I don’t think any malice from the doctor was intended. A defense lawyer should understand jurors and the information that they need. Because jurors are subject to making short cuts in thinking like, this person is an expert doctor, he must be right about this medically related statistic. That’s lazy reasoning, but it is how our brains function. A lawyer should know these things through experience and get another expert to add insight for the jurors.

Yes, the doctor over evaluated his intelligence in understanding statistics because he’s an expert as a doctor, and the jurors took him for face value, so yes, that’s a problem. I don’t think, and there is research to show this, but intelligent people are no so aware that they are over estimating conclusions and understanding. However, the doctor not being an expert in statistics still could have reached a correct conclusion because he is capable of understanding statistics. It would be wrong to dismiss him because he’s not an expert in statistics and it would be wrong to accept him because he is an expert as a doctor. Recipients of the information need to scrutinize the methodology of how a conclusion was reached. Now I admit that may be a tall order for people in a jury pool. However, there is another expert there, the defense lawyer, who’s job is to scrutinize everything and consider how jurors take in information. That defense lawyer should be calling an expert in statistics.

In general, in one’s day to day life. It is not good to dismiss someone because they are not an expert in a field, and it’s not good to accept a conclusion because they are an expert in a different field.

I get the message, but it feels too binary to me. In their example, I agree that an expert in statistics would be more appropriate especially in a high stakes environment where someone’s life and freedom is at risk. In general, I have no problems with experts speaking on topics in which they are not experts in. Their insight could be valid and correct, not because they are an expert in another field, but they used a methodology that got them to a valid conclusion. I think it’s important for the recipient to know they should evaluate and scrutinize a conclusion from an expert in a differing field. To not accept it because they are an expert in another field, and to not reject it because they are an expert in another field.