On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > It is interesting that an > "expert" can write a few paragraphs about how utterly surprised he was > about what was happening, and then a little later come up with a > "solution". But that is typical of advocates of government > interference. Playing god is seductive. You would have us believe that on principle, people who fail to foresee a negative event are thereby disqualified from comprehending and responding to it? Kind of a low view of humanity, isn't that? Just about everybody I know is capable of responding well to to unforeseen events. That's almost the definition of intelligence. Even more to the point, experts in a field are far more likely to be able to respond intelligently to events they failed to foresee. That's what makes them experts rather than technicians. Obviously, expertise does not assure that their response will be perfect, but given the choice between an intelligent expert and a non-expert, common sense says that the expert's ideas are less likely to be wrong. The fact that we must remain wary of the exceptions and the traps of expertise doesn't mean that expertise itself is a bad thing, which seems to be where you would lead us. In my experience, when all the experts are shown to be wrong, the experts have just gained significant new expertise. Your next step would be to fire them? When punishment for being wrong becomes policy, you have an environment that stifles learning and creativity... and the experts will be wrong even more often. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
