Not exactly the most logical thing I’ve ever said before but It seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb.
Are there any exceptions to this? It’s sort-of the rule that “the experts are mostly wrong”. Would you follow it?
Makes sense to me. I’d add that in dietary matters the mainstream is totally wrong (hence the increased obesity and diabetes rates), and the marginalized low-carb folks have it mostly right (if a bit extreme in some cases).
Ah, a fellow traveler. I noticed how poor john murtha died after getting a routine procedure done at a navy hospital. I’m not saying that austrians can predict the future but this is just getting scary…
It made me wonder, do politicians age worse because they are so connected with their own reforms (socialized medical care, socialized bodyguards, etc).?
If so, then power corrupts, literally.
I’ve found this a good rule of thumb as well. For medicine, politics, economics, and history definitely.
I actually have a more detailed rule: In areas where there is influence from the State, do or believe the exact opposite of whichever way that influence is pointing. In finance, invest in the opposite of whatever the State-fed “gurus” say to. In medicine, it’s not “don’t go to doctors ever” but be suspicious of medication and the establishment in general (because there the influence of the State is heavy). Definitely don’t take anything mainstream in those areas for granted. Question and investigate everything that’s of any consequence to you.
And for mainstream thought in the areas where the State has relatively little influence, don’t always do the opposite, but realize that the mainstream is always at least a little bit wrong in a way that will make things needlessly unpleasant and/or inefficient. Like, don’t buy nice shoes to impress girls. Think for yourself. Don’t read more than you contemplate. Don’t give in to all the mind viruses floating around out there.
What is the medical philosophy you have?
I’m not as much of a contrarian as you are.
All this double think can be pretty crazy sometimes. The only time that I’d say there’s an exception to the rule is when the mainstream is actually right (like with foreign policy, economics, etc), and they accept the classic liberal view, or the libertarian view… and when they do that I’d try to figure out why they’re doing it and why they’re sending out the correct view (usually it’s just for partisan reasons). What ends they have in mind… but as a general rule I would say that’s fairly accurate.
haha its funny i was actually have a conversation at lunch about this (except in the context of global warming). My general rule of thumb (for scientific matters anyways) is pretty much to accept mainstream conclusions unless I have very strong reason to do otherwise.
For example, how do I know if global warming is real or not? Well, I am not a climate scientist and I really don’t have the time to try and become one. So, I essentially outsource the task and let a climate scientist do the research and tell me whether global warming is real. Of course, if I am not a climate scientist, how do I know if any given climate scientist is credible? IOW: How do I know if my scientist isn’t a dishonest nut job whose opinion on the issue is determined by ideology and not a good understanding of the evidence and theory? I can’t.
But not all hope is lost. Why wouldn’t I assume that nutjobs are distributed randomly across the system? I can’t see any reason nut jobs would be more likely in one directon or another. So their wack job opinions should average out in the aggregate. So the best way to get at the “right” answer (the one closest to moder understanding of the theory and evidence) is through a survey. And what do I find? The vast majority of climate scientists surveyed believe in Global Warming. And now so do I!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Of course, this reasoning isn’t perfect. For example, if there are institutional factors providing researchers incentive to willfully misunderstand the evidence, then this approach will get you in a lot of trouble. I know some people on this board appear convinced that most climate researchers are lying through their teeth to get government funding. But I really just don’t buy that idea. What is NSF’s or EPA’s incentive to fund bad research? “Because they would fund anything to increase the strangle hold of government over the people, man!!!”. Honestly, I don’t find “villany” a very convincing explanation.
That is a lot of text to basically say that unless I have a very good reason, I tend to follow the mainstream for these types of questions. Why? Because I need to make decisions with very limited knowledge of particular subjects. Climate change is just the example I was thinking about, but medicine would probably have more practical significance. I know very little about medicine, but I still need a way of finding a good doctor. What to do? Follow the mainstream.
Wonder if anyone will agree. [H]
Ah, you made me think of Dorian Gray 
While I honestly have 0 opinion on actual global warming, I think the potential problem lies when science becomes politicized. As in, politics tends to be a massive public consumer good that can be used to enforce an aesthetic or belief.
What do you think is apt to attract less cranks with obvious agendas (for either side): People researching “The Late Bronze Age Crash” or “Global Warming”?
But yeah as a rule of thumb it would seem obvious to accept scientific conclusions that you do not specialize in. The problem lies though when it seems to have a high potential to be manipulated for political purposes.
Dondoolee,
I agree that political bias would draw in the cranks, but so long as it draws in an equal number of cranks across the political spectrum, then I think their wacky opinions would average out.
Of course, to the extent I am wrong about that assumption, the more risky it will be following group opinion. So you’re probably right that my approach probably holds better for less political issues. Medicine I think would be a good example of an area where I think the reasoning holds well.
Lol, “crank equilibrium in a democratic society” now that is a study I would love to see done. But yeah medicine is probably a safe bet where the reasoning holds
I’m partial to Jon Barron’s baseline of health philosophy.
[Y] hehe, good episode.
I know this isn’t directed at me, and a question like this can start a whole new topic, but I’ve become a fan of the whole caveman/paleo thing. It goes against the mainstream diet-heart hypothesis (more calories and saturated fat will make you fat and give you bad cardio health) and sounded crazy enough that it had to be true.
I’ve been on this over a month now (with some cheating here and there) and shed 30 pounds of fat. Just about everything concerning my health is better. Meat and veggies is 90% of what I eat.
I’ve learned a whole lot from that blog, the blogs he links, and from members of the forum there. It’s good stuff.
You do realise pro-liberty perspectives were generally commonplace and mainstream once upon a time, and even Friedrich Hayek won a Nobel Prize back in the day?
The mainstream tends to be right more often in the fields of engineering and architecture, because those are fields where output determines the worth of your ideas and not other originators of ideas.
The mainstream also tends to be right when talking about how to raise one’s own children. Granted that this is a more normative field, but societal values in tradition and mainstream tend to be a lot saner than people realize. Leftists complain that sex is seen as evil and violence in movies glorified as entertainment by families. There is a difference between immorality that is harmful and immorality that people are likely to act on. A 14 year old boy is not likely to go buy himself an AK-47, and do a Jagged Alliance game style shootout and liberation. He is, however, likely to go to an equally shy girl and slowly persuade each other into doing something that has drastic potential for use as a tool of abuse, something that can result in deep emotional self-loathing, and something that can even lead to teenage pregnancy if he is even stupid enough to do it without protection.
I’d have to disagree with you there. Sending our kids to jail every day (public school) isn’t really doing them much good.
I have to say that this line of thinking makes me very uncomfortable. To me it implies that extremes are somehow suspect and averages are more accurate. If this were a true principal, democracy might not be such a horrible idea.
Same here. I think it makes a lot of sense. And I definately feel/look better when I eat this way.