Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Experts vs Facts & Reality

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby Doly » Sun 08 May 2022, 12:14:06

Was it because they didn't know statistics? Or was it because they didn't know much about the underpinnings of the system they were trying to analyze?


If by "underpinnings of the system", you mean that when you are talking about stuff that is essential for the functioning of the world, such as energy, there are plenty of vested interests and complexities under the surface and using the scientific method won't necessarily guarantee that you will be listened to, I have to agree. We saw another such example during the pandemic.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 08 May 2022, 14:48:27

Doly wrote:
Was it because they didn't know statistics? Or was it because they didn't know much about the underpinnings of the system they were trying to analyze?


If by "underpinnings of the system", you mean that when you are talking about stuff that is essential for the functioning of the world.......


...like resource economics and geologic underpinnings of it...certainly essential for the functioning of the world....

Doly wrote:.... such as energy....


.....in the case of peak oil it wasn't about energy but peak oil...but I understand that an energy modelers thinking is more wide band on the topic...and not about just oil at that point...

Doly wrote:.... there are plenty of vested interests and complexities under the surface and using the scientific method won't necessarily guarantee that you will be listened to, I have to agree. We saw another such example during the pandemic.


Predicting stuff is hard. You would think smart people would learn this basic fact prior to attaching high levels of temporal certainty to their predictions, wouldn't you? Which then begs the question, are they really smart if they don't know even the most basic precepts of logic and science as they apply to predicting in the future? Or are unfamiliar with stochastic modeling and can't for the life of them incorporate uncertainty in their inputs and outputs in any other way than doing run of the mill scenarios?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby Doly » Mon 09 May 2022, 14:42:47

Predicting stuff is hard. You would think smart people would learn this basic fact prior to attaching high levels of temporal certainty to their predictions, wouldn't you?


That would depend on the prediction. A pretty good level of temporal certainty is possible for a surprisingly high number of things.

If you mean that peak oil didn't happen when it was initially talked about, it's because the forecasts were based on conventional oil and the amount of shale oil that could be commercially produced was initially underestimated. But let's not forget that so far, the peak of production happened in 2018, and it's unclear at this point that the peak is going to be surpassed. If peak oil turns out to be, in fact, 2018, that would be within the range of predictions of those that warned about peak oil.

Or are unfamiliar with stochastic modeling and can't for the life of them incorporate uncertainty in their inputs and outputs in any other way than doing run of the mill scenarios?


I discussed modelling with ASPO people and most of them had only limited knowledge of the subject. This said, the logistic curve (which is an easy approximation of a Gaussian curve) effectively incorporates the Central Limit Theorem. So stochastic modelling wouldn't be required. All that would be needed is to add some dispersion calculations to indicate bounds of confidence. Which I think some people did at various points.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 09 May 2022, 21:02:06

Doly wrote:
Predicting stuff is hard. You would think smart people would learn this basic fact prior to attaching high levels of temporal certainty to their predictions, wouldn't you?


That would depend on the prediction. A pretty good level of temporal certainty is possible for a surprisingly high number of things.


Yes Doly, those who do it for a living understan that. The Sun will probably rise tomorrow. I'm betting in the east.

Doly wrote:If you mean that peak oil didn't happen when it was initially talked about, it's because the forecasts were based on conventional oil and the amount of shale oil that could be commercially produced was initially underestimated.


Correct. Another way of putting it is, "When I made the prediction, I didn't know how much I was completely ignorant of."

Doly wrote:But let's not forget that so far, the peak of production happened in 2018, and it's unclear at this point that the peak is going to be surpassed.


Indeed. Let us not forget that #6 of just this century still holds. Let us also not forget that some accepted authorities claimed the prior 5.

Doly wrote:If peak oil turns out to be, in fact, 2018, that would be within the range of predictions of those that warned about peak oil.


What range? Folks picked years. One a day, albeit a bit facetiously. The only existing claim not discredited by time, contemporaneous to the time when it wasn't the joke it became, is that of the EIA. And interestingly, they did provide a range, based on initial estimates of volume. Apparently they aren't as ignorant of the basics as all those others?

Doly wrote:
Or are unfamiliar with stochastic modeling and can't for the life of them incorporate uncertainty in their inputs and outputs in any other way than doing run of the mill scenarios?


I discussed modelling with ASPO people and most of them had only limited knowledge of the subject.


Obviously. They don't know much about resource economics either. As they demonstrated for the better part of a decade before changing careers, changing the names of their reports, fleeing their websites, or lying low until the next change in geopolitical events allowed them to repeat themselves.

Doly wrote: This said, the logistic curve (which is an easy approximation of a Gaussian curve) effectively incorporates the Central Limit Theorem. So stochastic modelling wouldn't be required.


Yes. It would. The Central Limit Theorem isn't what you think it is, if you think it can apply to some basic geologic based dependencies to distributions that violate the underlying assumptions of the Theoreum itself. One of those details that matter when doing this work.

Doly wrote:[quote="Doly']
All that would be needed is to add some dispersion calculations to indicate bounds of confidence. Which I think some people did at various points.[/quote][/quote]


Just for starters, bounds on confidence...on what? The costs, demand, price or amount of resource? And when it is on all 4, how does it incorporate the uncertainty in the correlations themselves?

I am fascinated with the use of dispersion equations when dealing with 5 correlated physical rock properties though, have you seen that anywhere within the reservoir engineering world, or just top down modelers applying theories without knowing the detail? Are you familiar with Paul and Dennis's book? Paul was always a riot, right on this website. Dennis appears to have a far better grasp on the particulars necessary to solve the problem, but lacks the means to acquire all the necessary information.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Experts vs Facts & Reality

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 18 Jun 2023, 11:03:04

Relying on Experts: A Proven Path to Failure



The warning lights on the dashboard of your car suddenly light up. You naturally take it to a mechanic to diagnose and repair. Cars are complex. You don’t have the time or accumulated expertise to figure out what is happening or to fix it.

We rely on experts daily. In a complex world filled with busy people, it is impossible for any one person to know and do everything. So, we outsource. By doing so, we of course rely on others’ expertise, but we also subject ourselves to their biases or simple mistakes. We are in the dark. They are in the know. When the stakes are limited to your car’s functioning, you are probably inclined to accept that occasionally you’ll get overcharged or have some unnecessary work done. That cost is small compared to the effort that would be required to become an automotive repair expert. So, you accept the cost.

Expertise is now everywhere. As complexity has risen, there are experts on virtually everything. Gone are the days when Newton could be relied upon by the masses to know philosophy, math, and physics. Today, one does not have expertise in philosophy. One has expertise in feminist social epistemology or racial ontology. School administrators considering whether to implement a new acronym in our schools seem to have no choice but to rely on the experts.

In evaluating the costs and benefits of relying on an expert to help with a decision, not all decisions are created equal. If an artist needs to build a bridge, he is probably wise to hire a trained engineer. If an engineer wants to pick a painting for his wall, he may not get the same benefit by hiring a trained artist.

At the center of the debate about expertise is the nature of knowledge itself. Understanding the differences between knowledge, preference, and opinion is critical when assessing the usefulness of expert advice. An expert’s client is subject to far more risk when seeking advice in an area subject to opinion or preference. The situation is compounded when the client is not able to evaluate whether the claimed expertise is knowledge or opinion.
Plumbers and Diversity Experts

Plumbers have an easy time making the case that they have the ability to make decisions that benefit their customers. If your pipes are leaking and the plumber comes and fixes the problem, you feel confident that he actually did something you didn’t know how to do. Self-proclaimed experts in fields such as culture, education, philosophy, or history (“theorists”) have a more difficult case to make. In fact, very rarely does a plumber proclaim that he is an “expert.” His observable work speaks for him. Theorists, on the other hand, are almost universally referred to as experts.

The work of the theorist is obscure to the client who relies on him as an expert. The client is not able to disentangle the knowledge of the theorist from his opinions. The situation is made worse when the theorist shrouds his work with jargon or hints of science. His results are “evidence based.” The field of experts has reached a “consensus.” In the face of complexity and obfuscation, the client seems to have little choice but to accept the expert’s recommendation.
The Stone Mason Is Not Interested in the Theory of Pronouns

The average person who decides to pursue a career in gender studies or even education is not representative of the average person. There is an obvious selection bias in how people choose their careers. Only a person who is interested in gender studies will pursue its expertise. Furthermore, the process of acquiring expertise further enhances the initial selection bias.

A person who thought that gender studies was a fraud would be unlikely to devote his career to its study. A school debating whether to introduce gender studies into its curriculum, when seeking the advice of a gender studies expert, should not expect unbiased advice. It should expect to hear that, of course, gender studies should be added to the curriculum. The expert will cite numerous studies by other gender experts, scientific evidence, that outcomes will be improved if his advice is followed. The school will have no choice, having decided to defer to an expert, to introduce gender studies.
The General of the Army Thinks We Should Go to War

Why should a school or even an individual ask for an expert’s advice in areas dominated by opinion? One possibility is that the client of the expert believes that there is objective knowledge that is needed to make an informed decision. The client may lack the knowledge or confidence to assert that the decision can be made independent of domain expertise. A school administrator may have failed to consider that the decision in question is largely a subjective one.

There is no correct answer. People of different ideologies or belief systems may have different opinions based on their objectives. Experts may claim that there is analysis that can inform the decision, but the truth may be that there are fundamental differences in opinion that cannot be resolved by analysis.

A second reason that a client may rely on an expert in ideas is more nefarious. When a school, for example, hires an expert in some special type of “ideas,” they accomplish two things that cannot be accomplished without the expert. They appeal to the authority of the expert to legitimize the decision, and they reduce their culpability for the decision. A school administrator who has an agenda can hire an expert that is aligned with their agenda and make their constituency more willing to accept the decision and protect themselves should anything go wrong.
Does the School Know Best?

When faced with an administrator or teacher with domain expertise, parents may be reluctant to claim that the school’s approach is wrong. After all, the school is populated with experts. What can a parent be expected to know about the latest pedagogical trends? Most parents don’t even know what the acronyms mean. How can they argue against them?

The answer is simple. The school cannot and does not know your preferences and opinions unless you tell them. Decisions about the implementation of new programs in the schools are not scientific. They are deeply colored by ideological biases. Experts will claim “basis in data” or “proven approaches,” but in the realm of ideas, there is no disproof of a preference.

Parents who want their teachers and schools to take a different path should not expect experts in the field to fight their battle. Only the family can represent the family’s preferences, and when it comes to ideological disagreements, no level of expertise can resolve an underlying fundamental disagreement about values. The family is the only expert on its own values.


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Experts vs Facts & Reality

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 18 Jun 2023, 20:43:57

Quite a good point.

But I don’t see it being accepted easily, if at all.

School Admins are themselves professionals who come from a similar academic background, it is likely they will feel kinship with the “experts” as opposed to the parents.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Experts vs Facts & Reality

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 18 Jun 2023, 23:05:00

Newfie wrote:Quite a good point.

But I don’t see it being accepted easily, if at all.

School Admins are themselves professionals who come from a similar academic background, it is likely they will feel kinship with the “experts” as opposed to the parents.


I would hypothesize it is worse than that...the School admins would simply short circuit the process and consider themselves the experts.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Experts vs Facts & Reality

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 19 Jun 2023, 10:29:41

Khaneman discusses experts in Thinking Fast and Slow. His take, very briefly put, is humans make moat decisions with a highly emotional bias. It is so inate we do not even know it. This also happens to experts no matter if they are aware of the process, they Stull fail.

The way around is to create a process based upon past experience. The example he gives is a Groupe of expert Dr's. develop a process to treat some disease, and then they strictly follow that process, adjust it based on statistical outcomes. But human intervention will screw it up. Even the Dr's. who wrote the process will then over ride it and mess it up.

Which makes me wonder about our jury trial process. By my observation the deliberative process works remarkably well and frequently returns good verdicts, even when controversial. Not always but very frequently. Perhaps this is a good example of Khanamans process is action.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Previous

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests