Sure. Why not? But nobody has to take it seriously unless it makes sense. People might have entirely reasonable things to say about many topics. And, they might not.
Qualified yes and here's the qualification: Post whatever you want but don't post as if you are an expert in things that you aren't. Otherwise yeah, go for it.
Qualified yes, because of course it's ok to post about whatever you like, what's not ok is acting as though your expertise in one area also makes you an expert in every other area.
Sadly this attitude is common enough online that I have to advise everyone to always stay vigilant against this toxic behavior in themselves. I've certainly fallen prey to it. So I think interpret "stay in your lane" as lifting the voices of the relevant experts, not staying silent.
only qualification is that they don’t claim to be an expert in all things.
that’s what bullshitters do: they are the only fount of truth in the world they want others to enter so they can be controlled.
i’m just a hacker. i can and do come up with informed opinions backed by evidence, but i’m not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a philosopher, or whatev, and i admit i’m probably wrong.
love this topic. IMO this is the Spider-Man rule. With great power comes great responsibility. People with audiences have a responsibilities in how they influence them.
Qualified yes. Depends on how. If it's to claim expertise where they have none, then shouldn't be done/should be ignored. If it's to give their (clearly indicated if relevant) non-expert opinion then go for it.
An awful lot of harm has been done in the area of eg climate science and medical science (vaccination and epidemiology, for recent example) by experts in unrelated are only partially-related fields commenting as though they're also experts in those fields.
yes, of course, as long as they don't leave people to infer too easily that they have an expertise in a topic they are not expert it... although that often becomes quickly obvious.
Qualified, because an expert could put themselves across as an effort in other areas. Either by misguided intent, or because people have a terrible way of assuming expertise on one area transfers to another. Just look at actors being anti vaccine, for an example of how badly this can go in combination.
It depends on what you mean. If you just mean they're posting about unrelated topics as like regular people, sure. If they're trying to claim their expertise in one topic spreads to all other topics (this happens a lot with older scientists), we have a problem.
well, I think the only possible response here is to ask if you are an expert in posts about unrelated topics or an expert in something else but posting about posting about unrelated topics which is unrelated to your actual field of expertise?
experts can post about whatever they want for all I care, but if I were an expert in something (I’m not…), I would likely have 2 accounts. One for the expert in me, posting only on topic, and the other one for posting memes or pics of my cats…
I am a strong yes. I am much more interested in following real, three-dimensional people than I am in following The Inventor of Staplers or The World's Greatest Chef.
The people I respect the most in technology and other fields bring a lot more to the table than august pronouncements in their area of expertise.
I occasionally get called on this by people who follow me expecting me to be some kind of Elder of the Fediverse. I don't meet that expectation very well.
On the subject of experts posting dangerously ignorant misinformation: I actually think this is great.
When a vulcanologist posts about how women have a special bone structure that lets them play backgammon better than men, or whatever, and they are roundly chastised for it, the best ones learn from their mistake.
The ones who double-down and found the Women's Backgammon Skeleton Institute, and blow up their own careers, well, they were probably also bad vulcanologists.
Oh this is interesting - when I post about something that's outside of my area of knowledge (not sure I qualify as an expert in anything, though!) it's usually because I'm sharing something that I think is neat. I think I would have answered this differently if the question was 'should experts opine about things outside of their area of expertise'
I know my alleged "expert" gender psychiatrist was an utter asshole. How he never landed in jail I don't know. He came close at least once so I discovered later.
I'd much rather have these discussions be transparent, with lots of feedback, than have them happen behind closed doors, where groupthink can take hold.
I realise that misinformation sucks really badly and costs lives. I'm also really averse to powerful people developing bad ideas and executing them without the rest of us being involved.
It's not posting online that makes that cinematographer an anti-vaxxer; they already were one. But it might be how they stop being one.
I like the discussion this has prompted, but I'm going to (I hope constructively) point out that you, and really I, have a position of privilege in being able to evaluate this exposure as some sort of "objective" "good" situation.
It takes skill, experience, time and effort, both to be the one to respond to mis/disinfo and to be able to follow up on what gets spewed out there and read the skilled and effortful debunking.
Not everyone has the wherewithal to *realize* their exposures.
Unfortunately bad information is often very sticky, particularly if it's a con that feeds into people's desires for simple, easy, no effort "solutions" (or even effortful ones).
The spread of disinformation is more often helped by the "debate the controversy" gambit for a variety of reasons (and it's actually a tactic used in propaganda and deployed by Big Oil, Covid deniers and all kinds of purveyors of pseudoscience that want to create doubt to prevent action).
In principle yes, but what happens in real life is that 1) vulcanologist claims that and 2) mainstream media report that "Prof. X has found that women..." without the chastizing part to ever happen for that media's audience. So I tend to be a bit more careful there.
Or, they are excellent volcanologist and bad human beings.
This sounds true in principle, but it can be observed that they are NOT roundly chastised and attract a certain bubble who shares their belief. See also Elon Musk.
@axeln People believe all kinds of crazy and contradictory things, including intelligent charismatic people who end up being leaders. There are far too many very intelligent people who are White supremacists, for instance. (Clinical narcissists and sociopaths are attracted to positions of power). In science you can be an expert without being a "good leader" in any sense of the word (lab environments historically where pretty patriarchal and hierarchical, rising to power has little to do with being a decent or even honest person). Mixing up someone's likeability with whether they are ethical people or not is a common thing we all tend to do but it's a misleading way to discern these things.
The paradox is that real experts will rarely venture to comment on other fields of knowledge, unless they are absolutely certain of what they are talking about
Even if their knowledge in that field is much higher than the average person
@slothrop And then there was William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor, recipient of a Nobel prize for physics, who was a bloody white supremacist pushing for eugenics. We may have to live with the idea of humans being able to be brilliant at one thing and otherwise mostly failing as human beings.
I like this quote, via Wikipedia: 'As described by his Los Angeles Times obituary, "He went from being a physicist with impeccable academic credentials to amateur geneticist, becoming a lightning rod whose views sparked campus demonstrations and a cascade of calumny."'
I think being good in your field means not only doing good research, but also being a leader for future generations, providing important support for your peers, and giving good advice to policy makers.
I think people who are racist, homophobic, or sexist are likely to also be bad at these skills.
I'll concede that could be theoretically untrue, but I'm not aware of it.
I'd also much rather have a Shockley who exposes himself for what he is, than have that same person foisting their beliefs onto students, asserting them quietly in the faculty club, or worming them into policy suggestions for the university.
I agree that the best thing is for these people not to have these ideas.
I think the second best thing is that they air them, get corrected, and learn from them.
The third best is that we know what they're doing and can stop them.
@whvholst@slothrop plus, there's the Great Men Theory aspect to this.
Did William Shockley invent the transistor? Sure.
But if white supremacy was not benefiting from immense privilege at the time, would somebody else, who might not have been a white supremacist, invent the transistor? I'd say: probably!
Ideas and breakthroughs happen not just due to the specific person, but also due to the social, financial, and scientific conditions.
Yeah, but what seems to happen in real life, is that the vulcanologist states that and mainstream media report that "Professor X found that ...." without the chastizing part to ever happen for that media's audience. So, that is why I tend to be a bit more careful in that regard.
I'm a qualified yes because in medical science this is a huge problem. Almost everyone now believes that vitamin C cures everything because of Linus Pauling veering very far out of his lane (it doesn't cure anything except scurvy and vitamin C deficiency and oranges aren't even a very good source of vitamin C). I even know this and even I find it hard to shake this bit of wrongness (I will happily take any placebo effect fizzy vitamin c tablets provide for a hangover, however, so at least I'm using my false beliefs to productively fool myself.)
of course the real person may and should post about whatever they want, and not only on their field of expertise.
But, I put qualified, because there are some examples of otherwise highly respected people making utter fools of themselves and taking their followers with them (“the fool who Leads or the fool who follows” discussion).
It is a basic human trait, and I think people should at least be aware of that.
I am a qualified yes as well for the same reasons as noted in commentary on medical science. My qualified yes would be:
"Yes, as long as you are clear about the scope and limits of your own expertise so that you are aware of your limitations, as is your audience. Ok, let's talk!"
Physicists are plagued by "I am expert in one thing and so expert in all things" thinking. I find a little honesty about your own self assessment paves the way for a marvelous conversation on other subjects.
I missed this one, but I'd have been "strong yes". Maybe its because I remember the Status.Net days, but you've always been "just a guy" who also happens to be one of the "Elders of the Fediverse".
I've also found that the FLOSS community seems to be better than others about seeing our "superstars" as real people and not unapproachable idols.
I've hung out (digitally/physically) with some of the biggest movers and shakers in some of these communities. They're just folks.
It felt like it was trying to ask something more specific, but was phrased broadly to avoid skewing the results, but went so broad it kinda lost sight of the shore.
“expert,” esp in science, has become someone working on a hyper-specialized area. We don’t need that as much as we need multi-disciplinary thought and research. We have major, global problems. Not hyper-specialized ones.
Thank you for verifying my ongoing theory that people should be able to exist as themselves and not having to divide into different personalities to suit their followers. I’m pursuing that single account idea here on Mastodon at least. Here’s hope it’ll work out. 🤞🏼
Johannes Ernst
•jph
•Gotanda
•whence and wherefore
•Ordinary Wonder
•Vincent 🌻🇪🇺
•Julien Genestoux
•j1mc
•Steve Scotten
•Steve Yanosky
•Space Hobo
•Nelson Chu Pavlosky
•Sadly this attitude is common enough online that I have to advise everyone to always stay vigilant against this toxic behavior in themselves. I've certainly fallen prey to it. So I think interpret "stay in your lane" as lifting the voices of the relevant experts, not staying silent.
o ifrit
•Aphrodite ☑️ :boost_ok:
•that’s what bullshitters do: they are the only fount of truth in the world they want others to enter so they can be controlled.
i’m just a hacker. i can and do come up with informed opinions backed by evidence, but i’m not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a philosopher, or whatev, and i admit i’m probably wrong.
i like being told i am right.
i love being told i am wrong.
Tony Stubblebine
•Bike Berlin
•Jonathan T
•An awful lot of harm has been done in the area of eg climate science and medical science (vaccination and epidemiology, for recent example) by experts in unrelated are only partially-related fields commenting as though they're also experts in those fields.
halcy:icosahedron:
•Stuart Moore
•Loy
•Dave Cridland
•Rabbit Cohen
•Paul Wilde :blobcatnim_new:
•Evan Prodromou
•Craig Nicol
•I've seen experts here in the UK given TV shows and newspaper columns to rant about things they're definitely not experts on.
aeva
•Patrick V. 🇧🇪🇹🇭
•Evan Prodromou
•I am a strong yes. I am much more interested in following real, three-dimensional people than I am in following The Inventor of Staplers or The World's Greatest Chef.
The people I respect the most in technology and other fields bring a lot more to the table than august pronouncements in their area of expertise.
I occasionally get called on this by people who follow me expecting me to be some kind of Elder of the Fediverse. I don't meet that expectation very well.
jph
•Evan Prodromou
•Evan Prodromou
•When a vulcanologist posts about how women have a special bone structure that lets them play backgammon better than men, or whatever, and they are roundly chastised for it, the best ones learn from their mistake.
The ones who double-down and found the Women's Backgammon Skeleton Institute, and blow up their own careers, well, they were probably also bad vulcanologists.
Hannah Copestake
•Holly Brigstocke
•steve
•Evan Prodromou
•I realise that misinformation sucks really badly and costs lives. I'm also really averse to powerful people developing bad ideas and executing them without the rest of us being involved.
It's not posting online that makes that cinematographer an anti-vaxxer; they already were one. But it might be how they stop being one.
johanna, cafe proprietor
•It takes skill, experience, time and effort, both to be the one to respond to mis/disinfo and to be able to follow up on what gets spewed out there and read the skilled and effortful debunking.
Not everyone has the wherewithal to *realize* their exposures.
axel.
•But we can observe that is not enough. I do not have a solution either, I just note that it is not enough.
Fifi Lamoura
•The spread of disinformation is more often helped by the "debate the controversy" gambit for a variety of reasons (and it's actually a tactic used in propaganda and deployed by Big Oil, Covid deniers and all kinds of purveyors of pseudoscience that want to create doubt to prevent action).
Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth
•Kansas Grant
•axel.
•This sounds true in principle, but it can be observed that they are NOT roundly chastised and attract a certain bubble who shares their belief. See also Elon Musk.
Evan Prodromou
•axel.
•Fifi Lamoura
•Phil L.
•Even if their knowledge in that field is much higher than the average person
Bad vulcanologists have no such compunction
Evan Prodromou
•https://eupolicy.social/users/whvholst
•Evan Prodromou
•I like this quote, via Wikipedia: 'As described by his Los Angeles Times obituary, "He went from being a physicist with impeccable academic credentials to amateur geneticist, becoming a lightning rod whose views sparked campus demonstrations and a cascade of calumny."'
Evan Prodromou
•I think being good in your field means not only doing good research, but also being a leader for future generations, providing important support for your peers, and giving good advice to policy makers.
I think people who are racist, homophobic, or sexist are likely to also be bad at these skills.
I'll concede that could be theoretically untrue, but I'm not aware of it.
Evan Prodromou
•I'd also much rather have a Shockley who exposes himself for what he is, than have that same person foisting their beliefs onto students, asserting them quietly in the faculty club, or worming them into policy suggestions for the university.
I agree that the best thing is for these people not to have these ideas.
I think the second best thing is that they air them, get corrected, and learn from them.
The third best is that we know what they're doing and can stop them.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
•Did William Shockley invent the transistor? Sure.
But if white supremacy was not benefiting from immense privilege at the time, would somebody else, who might not have been a white supremacist, invent the transistor? I'd say: probably!
Ideas and breakthroughs happen not just due to the specific person, but also due to the social, financial, and scientific conditions.
https://eupolicy.social/users/whvholst
•Evan Prodromou
•Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth
•Fifi Lamoura
•axel.
•But, I put qualified, because there are some examples of otherwise highly respected people making utter fools of themselves and taking their followers with them (“the fool who Leads or the fool who follows” discussion).
It is a basic human trait, and I think people should at least be aware of that.
Stephen Sekula
•"Yes, as long as you are clear about the scope and limits of your own expertise so that you are aware of your limitations, as is your audience. Ok, let's talk!"
Physicists are plagued by "I am expert in one thing and so expert in all things" thinking. I find a little honesty about your own self assessment paves the way for a marvelous conversation on other subjects.
Lyle, a walking haunted house
•I've also found that the FLOSS community seems to be better than others about seeing our "superstars" as real people and not unapproachable idols.
I've hung out (digitally/physically) with some of the biggest movers and shakers in some of these communities. They're just folks.
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
•It felt like it was trying to ask something more specific, but was phrased broadly to avoid skewing the results, but went so broad it kinda lost sight of the shore.
Evan Prodromou
•Carly Sagan
•Asbjørn Ulsberg
•