───✱*.｡:｡✱*.:｡✧*.｡✰*.:｡✧*.｡:｡*.｡✱ ───
In the module four discussion, our group considered when it makes sense to defer to scientific experts and how to treat consensus. I argued that scientists shouldn’t be treated differently than any other professionals such as doctors. I also argued that consensus, although it’s not perfect, usually reflects multiple independent checks rather than one opinion, so it’s generally a more strong belief. I suggested that non-experts should adjust confidence based on evidence, rather than believe that they have superior insight. This is especially harmful in fields like medicine, which can effect people’s lives if non-experts make ill-informed decisions.
Lindsay had a good point about how scientific training and peer review justify deference, and that when experts disagree, it’s reasonable for non-experts to be uncertain and skeptical about the topic and to wait for more evidence. Similarly, Makayla mentioned that scientists deserve the same recognition as doctors, and that the lack of evidence is a legitimate basis for being skeptical about a claim. I think that the group had a consensus that scientific evidence is good, especially with consensus, and that it makes sense for non-experts to be skeptical in instances where there isn’t strong evidence.
I think that we should treat expert consensus as strong but revisable, and I think that people should be cautious when evidence is weak or experts in the field are divided. I also think that we should be aware of our own biases to not dismiss expertise in things that we might have a bias towards.
───✱*.｡:｡✱*.:｡✧*.｡✰*.:｡✧*.｡:｡*.｡✱ ───