"The trouble with experts"? What a ludicrous comment! The early response to this Ebola outbreak was faulty, but tens of thousands of lives were saved by the medical experts you dismiss so derisively (at considerable risk to their own lives.) Why don't we send non-experts next time? Maybe you should volunteer, Frank.
I tire sometimes of your imperious condescension toward those who have dedicated substantial time and effort to mastering some complex field of knowledge and activity. We can't all be perfect.
I didn't dismiss experts, and in fact have regard for them. What I dismiss is blind faith in them. After all, Jonathan Gruber is an expert. How much faith do you have in him? The argument from authority remains one of the weakest. Lots of stuff out now about the Pope and global warming. Who cares what the Pope has to say on the subject? I sure in hell don't.
The responders to the most recent Ebola crisis came armed with the only knowledge available to them: the experience of previous outbreaks. But each outbreak is different, so mistakes were inevitable. In this case, the trans-national aspect of the epidemic severely complicated the relief efforts. To most Americans, Africa is a single amorphous entity. But Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia are three very different cultural and political entities whose differences hindered the response for months. With that delay, any flaws in the international medical efforts were amplified far beyond what should have been the case. My point is this: the failures were the consequence of highly-skilled, enormously courageous human beings facing an unprecedented crisis. To haughtily dismiss them as bumbling "experts" is petty in the extreme.
Your response to my comment is baffling. Nowhere did I invoke an argument from authority or suggest blind faith in experts. I simply suggested that experts deserve respect for the time and effort they have spent to achieve their expertise, as well as understanding that they are human and not immune to mistakes. None of the epidemiologists profiled in this piece claimed infallibility, and none should be faulted for failing to achieve it. Your reference to the Pope is simply silly: are you suggesting that Dr. Rollin's knowledge of epidemiology is equivalent to Francis' knowledge of climate science, and therefore equally dismissible?
"Dr. Rollin and other well-intentioned veterans of past Ebola campaigns had tragically underestimated this outbreak, overlooking clues that now seem apparent. Viewing the West Africa epidemic through the prism of nearly two dozen previous outbreaks across the continent, they failed to appreciate that the 2014 version would be unique in catastrophic ways." Therein lies the trouble. Presuming that the latest outbreak would conform to the characteristics of previous outbreaks — in other words, relying on one's expertise — is less intelligent than keeping an eye out to see if the current outbreak in any way differs from previous outbreaks. It was "experts" who drove Ignaz Semmelweiss mad. It was "experts" who dismissed Copernicus. We are encouraged to listen to experts rather than think for ourselves. As for the Pope, he has apparently decided to agree with certain experts regarding matters of climate and exploit his authority to promote their views. He should mind his own business. That said, of course there have been persons who have dealt with the current ebola outbreak in ways that can only be described as heroic. But the point of the article linked to is that the experts, their expertise notwithstanding, were proved wrong by events.
"The trouble with experts"? What a ludicrous comment! The early response to this Ebola outbreak was faulty, but tens of thousands of lives were saved by the medical experts you dismiss so derisively (at considerable risk to their own lives.) Why don't we send non-experts next time? Maybe you should volunteer, Frank.
ReplyDeleteI tire sometimes of your imperious condescension toward those who have dedicated substantial time and effort to mastering some complex field of knowledge and activity. We can't all be perfect.
And, yes, I recognized after submitting my comment that the parenthetical was misplaced.
ReplyDeleteI didn't dismiss experts, and in fact have regard for them. What I dismiss is blind faith in them. After all, Jonathan Gruber is an expert. How much faith do you have in him? The argument from authority remains one of the weakest. Lots of stuff out now about the Pope and global warming. Who cares what the Pope has to say on the subject? I sure in hell don't.
ReplyDeleteThe responders to the most recent Ebola crisis came armed with the only knowledge available to them: the experience of previous outbreaks. But each outbreak is different, so mistakes were inevitable. In this case, the trans-national aspect of the epidemic severely complicated the relief efforts. To most Americans, Africa is a single amorphous entity. But Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia are three very different cultural and political entities whose differences hindered the response for months. With that delay, any flaws in the international medical efforts were amplified far beyond what should have been the case. My point is this: the failures were the consequence of highly-skilled, enormously courageous human beings facing an unprecedented crisis. To haughtily dismiss them as bumbling "experts" is petty in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteYour response to my comment is baffling. Nowhere did I invoke an argument from authority or suggest blind faith in experts. I simply suggested that experts deserve respect for the time and effort they have spent to achieve their expertise, as well as understanding that they are human and not immune to mistakes. None of the epidemiologists profiled in this piece claimed infallibility, and none should be faulted for failing to achieve it. Your reference to the Pope is simply silly: are you suggesting that Dr. Rollin's knowledge of epidemiology is equivalent to Francis' knowledge of climate science, and therefore equally dismissible?
"Dr. Rollin and other well-intentioned veterans of past Ebola campaigns had tragically underestimated this outbreak, overlooking clues that now seem apparent. Viewing the West Africa epidemic through the prism of nearly two dozen previous outbreaks across the continent, they failed to appreciate that the 2014 version would be unique in catastrophic ways."
ReplyDeleteTherein lies the trouble. Presuming that the latest outbreak would conform to the characteristics of previous outbreaks — in other words, relying on one's expertise — is less intelligent than keeping an eye out to see if the current outbreak in any way differs from previous outbreaks. It was "experts" who drove Ignaz Semmelweiss mad. It was "experts" who dismissed Copernicus. We are encouraged to listen to experts rather than think for ourselves. As for the Pope, he has apparently decided to agree with certain experts regarding matters of climate and exploit his authority to promote their views. He should mind his own business. That said, of course there have been persons who have dealt with the current ebola outbreak in ways that can only be described as heroic. But the point of the article linked to is that the experts, their expertise notwithstanding, were proved wrong by events.