Experts and Education

      60 Comments on Experts and Education

I’ll be spending tonight trying to finish up a system for one of those companies that hired me as a programmer despite my glaring lack of credentials, so this will be relatively short.  But my post(s) about experts and college degrees sparked a lot of comments, so I want to toss a few more of my own thoughts into the mix.

I went to college and I’m glad I did, but I haven’t used my degree for much of anything.  I worked at a small magazine for four years, and the degree in journalism no doubt helped me land that job, but journalism classes didn’t turn me into a writer.  Writing turned me into a writer.  I switched my major to journalism after I’d already landed a job with the college paper as a features reporter — and I landed that job because I applied for it shortly after winning a campus fiction contest sponsored by the newspaper.  My major at the time was psychology.

Since leaving college, I’ve had a strange assortment of jobs.  Some freelance writing, playing bass in a couple of bands, acting in commercials and industrial films (long before I took an acting class), composing music for a few industrial films (all through MIDI tracks; I don’t read music and have no formal training), several years of standup comedy, software trainer, and finally computer programming — again, self-taught.

Given my work history, it’s no surprise I don’t believe the only way to develop a skill or acquire useful knowledge is to attend classes.  And history agrees with me.  I mentioned Thomas Edison in my post.  Others have pointed out that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are college dropouts.  Same goes for Alexander Graham Bell, whose early interests were art and music and who, according to his biographers, used to entertain his family and their guests with vocal impressions.  I guess he was just a comedian for awhile.

Much as I admire Thomas Jefferson, I believe the greatest American who ever lived was Benjamin Franklin.  I can’t think of anyone else who succeeded in so many fields:  printer, author, humorist, diplomat, statesman, scientist, and of course inventor.  In addition to inventing the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, he was one of the top theorists and researchers of his day in the new field of electricity.  And he managed all this despite completing just two years of school.  (I’m currently reading his autobiography.)

All that being said, I’m not knocking formal education.  If I wanted to work in particle physics, I’d sure as heck attend a university and work towards a PhD.  Nor would I undergo an operation performed by a surgeon who hadn’t finished medical school, an internship, and residency. You get the idea.

My beef is with people who seem to believe experts with degrees should never be challenged by what my brother referred to as “the non-anointed.”  That’s utter hogwash.  Science belongs to everyone.  Math belongs to everyone.  Logic belongs to everyone. 

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned my college physics professor who told us, “Learn math.  Math is how you know when they’re lying to you.”  He said that as a guest lecturer in a humanities class.  This was a guy with PhDs in both physics and chemistry, but you’ll notice he didn’t tell us, “Learn math and then get a PhD, and then you’ll finally be worthy of questioning the experts.”  Nope … he was telling us that if we can do the math and apply some logic, then we can question the conclusions.

And we should.  If average citizens don’t question the experts, we’re all screwed.  Just look where the expert advice to eat a lot of carbohydrates and avoid fat has gotten us.  Look what happened when experts told us corn oil was good for our hearts.

If you tell me 5+5 =11, I don’t care if you have a PhD, I’m going to disagree.  If you tell me people with gray hair have a disproportionate number of heart attacks and that gray hair must therefore cause heart disease, I’m going to point out that we’re probably looking at an association, not a cause.  If you tell me a study proves that whole grains prevent diabetes and I discover while reading the study that whole grains replaced white flour in the subjects’ diets, I’m going to suggest that maybe it was removing white flour that made the difference. 

It doesn’t take a genius IQ to find the flaws in a lot of nutrition “science.”  It just requires mathematical literacy and perhaps some ability with Excel.  The American Heart Association tells us our LDL should be below 130 to prevent heart disease.  When I plugged their own data into Excel, I found that people with LDL below 130 account for more than their share of heart disease.  When I plugged the World Health Organization’s worldwide population data about cholesterol levels and heart disease rates into Excel and ran the CORR function, I found nothing except a very slight negative association (meaning lower cholesterol was correlated with a slightly higher rate of heart disease).  The math is what the math is.  If you disagree with my conclusions, do it with math.  Whether or not I have a medical degree is immaterial. 

And that’s what some of the experts with degrees (and their awe-struck followers) can’t stand, especially in today’s digital age:  we can call them out publicly.  We can find and call attention to the errors in their data or logic.  Knowledge and publishing have been democratized.  When they react to criticism by hiding behind their degrees instead of defending their conclusions, you should be very, very suspicious.

That’s exactly what happened when Denise Minger ran the numbers on T. Colin Campbell’s data to show his conclusions don’t hold up.  She didn’t even claim that plant-based diets aren’t superior — in fact, she said specifically that her numbers didn’t prove anything conclusive about diets and health.  She merely pointed out that Campbell’s data doesn’t prove anything either.  Toss in a variable here and there that Campbell left out, and some of his ballyhooed correlations disappear or start going in the other direction.

Campbell reacted by saying he sincerely doubted a young woman working in her spare time could have performed such a sophisticated analysis (then who did, Dr. Campbell, and what does that have to do with anything?), that she probably doesn’t fully comprehend the research, and that he’s too busy to answer her anyway.  Boil it down, and you get this:  I’m a researcher with a PhD and she’s 23-year-old, so don’t listen to her.

And of course Campbell’s True Believers have been jumping all over every blog that praised Minger’s analyses, acting like Taliban members who heard someone diss Allah, and all saying pretty much the same thing:  Do Not Question The Master.  Here’s an excerpt from one I received today:

So for those of you who choose to discredit the science and want to believe your bologny, it is for one reason and one reason only because you like to eat dead parts of animals, because you do not want to believe the truth, because you want to keep eating animal products. Go ahead and do what you want. I am so sick and tired of people like you trying to discredit the truth and having the large corporations obviously coining the billions of dollars from you, go ahead! You can all spend your lives taking medications being owned by the pharmaceutical industry. Keep making the cruel corporations rich, keep supporting the pharmaceutical industry. But, leave the truth alone!!!

So the only reason to question Campbell’s math would be a desire to eat dead parts of animals and support big pharma.  Can’t argue with that logic.  Here’s another:

It is not appropriate for a critic like Ms Minger to publish a technical critique of a scientific work without first subjecting it to evaluation by her peers through a peer-reviewed study because the public is not as equipped to analyze it as well as trained professionals. It is not appropriate to scribe equal credibility to her statements and those of the author either. If and when she does that I will be happy to read her critique and compare it to the original work and the peer review.

Ah yes, I’m sure Ms. Minger would have no problem convening a scientific committee to peer-review a blog post, so please don’t strain your brain reading her analysis until that happens.  And why exactly is it “inappropriate” for her publish a critique?  Once again, the math is what the math is.  A blessing by The Council of Elders doesn’t morph it from blasphemy into truth. 

Minger ran the same statistical calculations that Campbell ran, using his down data.  She merely pointed out correlations within his data that he chose to ignore.  Rather than thinking, the commenter is sticking his head in the sand … after hiding behind Campbell’s degree and some nonsense about how “the public” isn’t equipped to evaluate her work.  (Hey, that’s weird … she’s a mere member of the public, and she did quite an analysis of The Master’s work.)  In fact, despite all the comments posted on this blog by Campbell True Believers, I have yet to read one that disputes her math. 

Perhaps it’s because math is how you know when they’re lying to you.  And math belongs to all of us … brilliant 23-year-old bloggers and PhDs alike.

Share

60 thoughts on “Experts and Education

  1. Walter Norris

    I just tried to post it again here since it would apply here as well. Looks like it dod not work so I’ll try again. If there is a duplicate, it is unintentional. That’s why I asked if it was still waiting moderation to avoid a duplicate post. I’m not putting titles in quotes this time to see if that was the problem. If that makes this hard to read, sorry.

    I seconded the recommendation of Mistakes Were Made. I also recommend the books Predictably Irrational and its sequel.

    If you want to learn how to avoid being manipulated by compliance specialists, read Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion. The author, Robert Cialdini, is a Ph.D. Psychologist who started the research after being sold a candy bar by a boy scout, despite his not liking candy bars.

    I went looking in today’s spam folder, and there it was, along with another comment from you. Sorry; I don’t know why they ended up there. Nothing in the message that would trigger a spam filter that I can see.

    Predictably Irrational was excellent. I read that some months ago. I’ll check out Cialdini’s as well.

    Reply
  2. Walter Norris

    I just tried to post it again here since it would apply here as well. Looks like it dod not work so I’ll try again. If there is a duplicate, it is unintentional. That’s why I asked if it was still waiting moderation to avoid a duplicate post. I’m not putting titles in quotes this time to see if that was the problem. If that makes this hard to read, sorry.

    I seconded the recommendation of Mistakes Were Made. I also recommend the books Predictably Irrational and its sequel.

    If you want to learn how to avoid being manipulated by compliance specialists, read Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion. The author, Robert Cialdini, is a Ph.D. Psychologist who started the research after being sold a candy bar by a boy scout, despite his not liking candy bars.

    I went looking in today’s spam folder, and there it was, along with another comment from you. Sorry; I don’t know why they ended up there. Nothing in the message that would trigger a spam filter that I can see.

    Predictably Irrational was excellent. I read that some months ago. I’ll check out Cialdini’s as well.

    Reply
  3. Dan

    Don’t dispute her math? If you have no subtance to your arguments…attack!!! Discredit your opponent. Of course, I’m sure that’s all their fat-starved brains can think of. 🙂

    Reply
  4. Arlo

    As already alluded to, there is no way either Campbell or his “followers” (read: veg*ns) will change their minds. As someone else brought up “Mistakes were made”, there’d be too much cognitive dissonance going on.

    For the veg*ns, it’s ideological. On the one hand they have this solid feeling ideology of no suffering. It’s healthy, they’re saving themselves, animals, the very world. Any chink of doubt might start fraying their ideology. It’s much easier to put up defenses like, “You guys only eat meat because you are addicted to it.”, or to turn to conspiracies like, “You’ve all be brainwashed by big industry and big pharma”. Dissonance solved.

    For Campbell, to admit that he might be wrong would not only be professional suicide, but he’d have to admit to himself that all that time and effort of his life’s work was a waste. “I spent my life doing this, and I was wrong???”. And what if a vegan diet IS harmful… it’s the same as the whole medical community. Who is going to go back and say, “Sorry about all the heart-attacks, strokes, weight gain, inflammation, etc… but we were wrong”. It just won’t happen. Ego’s would be devastated.

    As you said, we need all the “little people” pushing out contrary views if they make sense. We have less ego wrapped up in our work compared to the big players and are more likely to take an even view of things. Hopefully. 🙂

    And once people start tossing around terms like “animal murderer!” it’s pretty clear we’re talking about a religious belief, not a health matter.

    Reply
  5. Dan

    Don’t dispute her math? If you have no subtance to your arguments…attack!!! Discredit your opponent. Of course, I’m sure that’s all their fat-starved brains can think of. 🙂

    Reply
  6. Arlo

    As already alluded to, there is no way either Campbell or his “followers” (read: veg*ns) will change their minds. As someone else brought up “Mistakes were made”, there’d be too much cognitive dissonance going on.

    For the veg*ns, it’s ideological. On the one hand they have this solid feeling ideology of no suffering. It’s healthy, they’re saving themselves, animals, the very world. Any chink of doubt might start fraying their ideology. It’s much easier to put up defenses like, “You guys only eat meat because you are addicted to it.”, or to turn to conspiracies like, “You’ve all be brainwashed by big industry and big pharma”. Dissonance solved.

    For Campbell, to admit that he might be wrong would not only be professional suicide, but he’d have to admit to himself that all that time and effort of his life’s work was a waste. “I spent my life doing this, and I was wrong???”. And what if a vegan diet IS harmful… it’s the same as the whole medical community. Who is going to go back and say, “Sorry about all the heart-attacks, strokes, weight gain, inflammation, etc… but we were wrong”. It just won’t happen. Ego’s would be devastated.

    As you said, we need all the “little people” pushing out contrary views if they make sense. We have less ego wrapped up in our work compared to the big players and are more likely to take an even view of things. Hopefully. 🙂

    And once people start tossing around terms like “animal murderer!” it’s pretty clear we’re talking about a religious belief, not a health matter.

    Reply
  7. KD

    I think it’s telling that Campbell chose to go with the “I’m too busy, just trust me on this one” route. It seems that people who really, really, really believe they’re correct will spend a lot of time trying to prove it, regardless of how busy they are or how much time they should be spending on it. Who among us hasn’t stayed up past our bedtimes to work on something we feel passionate about? For example, Denise and Ned. They have far, far less at stake in being correct than Campbell should, yet they’re the ones arguing so carefully. For me, then, the fact that he’s not willing to revisit his study and go over exactly why he thinks he’s right just shows me that he knows he’s wrong or was sloppy, not just ignorantly wrong. Then again, he sure looks like he eats how he talks, so maybe my whole theory is gone.

    Reply
  8. KD

    I think it’s telling that Campbell chose to go with the “I’m too busy, just trust me on this one” route. It seems that people who really, really, really believe they’re correct will spend a lot of time trying to prove it, regardless of how busy they are or how much time they should be spending on it. Who among us hasn’t stayed up past our bedtimes to work on something we feel passionate about? For example, Denise and Ned. They have far, far less at stake in being correct than Campbell should, yet they’re the ones arguing so carefully. For me, then, the fact that he’s not willing to revisit his study and go over exactly why he thinks he’s right just shows me that he knows he’s wrong or was sloppy, not just ignorantly wrong. Then again, he sure looks like he eats how he talks, so maybe my whole theory is gone.

    Reply
  9. Trenton

    My favorite quote lately:

    “It’s a shame that we live in a society that embraces the educated idiot, yet shuns the intellectual autodidact.”
    -Me

    Isn’t it fair to assume, that someone who investigates a subject because of their own personal prerogative, would be better qualified as an expert than someone who learns something because they have to. When I go to do research on something, my only motivation is my desire to know as much as I can about that particular subject. Most in scholastic environments, I would argue, only research topics because they have to do a research paper or something like that. I would argue that autodidact ism is more valuable than scholastic education, that is, until you actually try to use it in the real world. I guess the degree is a necessary evil, (regardless of what the degree is in.)

    As far as your fan listing of critiques, you should practice inserting the latin “sic” when you quote them, so you can draw attention to their ignorant or otherwise careless grammar and spelling. I’m pretty sure “bologny” is not a corrected spelling of the word.

    I like your quote. I don’t use [sic] because I figure people will spot the errors if they’re paying attention.

    Reply
  10. Trenton

    My favorite quote lately:

    “It’s a shame that we live in a society that embraces the educated idiot, yet shuns the intellectual autodidact.”
    -Me

    Isn’t it fair to assume, that someone who investigates a subject because of their own personal prerogative, would be better qualified as an expert than someone who learns something because they have to. When I go to do research on something, my only motivation is my desire to know as much as I can about that particular subject. Most in scholastic environments, I would argue, only research topics because they have to do a research paper or something like that. I would argue that autodidact ism is more valuable than scholastic education, that is, until you actually try to use it in the real world. I guess the degree is a necessary evil, (regardless of what the degree is in.)

    As far as your fan listing of critiques, you should practice inserting the latin “sic” when you quote them, so you can draw attention to their ignorant or otherwise careless grammar and spelling. I’m pretty sure “bologny” is not a corrected spelling of the word.

    I like your quote. I don’t use [sic] because I figure people will spot the errors if they’re paying attention.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.