I'm unequivicolly stating that you folks who admit to having no education, you have some nerve telling scientists that you know more than they do in their field. It's beyond moronic.
Okay, first I want to honor her demand for my credentials. I've stated them before and they are posted in my profile, but for the convenience of those not accustomed to VOX, here they are. Ready? I woke up. That is, I accepted Jesus' plea to commit my life to Him. I seek the guidance and council of the Spirit of God and I employ the parameters of prescribed behavior as laid out in the Bible. Soon after, I noticed the blatant, open prejudice against my religion. The religion, by the way, who's values formed our great country and culture and created an environment which had not existed in recorded history where power, liberty and wealth are in the hands of the common man as much as possible for a peaceful co-existence. The religion which formed most all of those institutions of higher learning who are now disparaging those same values. That's it. I don't hold any degrees from the majestic ivy towered universities. I'm not going to go get one just to impress egg heads. Either the truth I present will stand on its own merit or it will collapse under its own weight OR you can disparage or ignore my testimony to observations and investigations the same way the IPCC's 'experts' disparaged and blocked dissenting voices from their own ranks. I am in no way ashamed of my education level because I have a curious mind and am capable of finding the information I need and I know the universities to be centers for blinkering the promising young minds in our society. Some intellectuals overcome their indoctrination, most do not. Those who do, I seek out to read and honor. Those who do not, have themselves ruined any respect for their hard-won degrees I may have held in the past.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine critically the accuracy of expert judgment, drawing on empirical evidence and theory from multiple disciplines. It suggests that counsel offered with confidence by experts might, under certain circumstances, be without merit, and presents approaches to assessing the accuracy of such counsel.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper synthesizes research findings on expert judgment drawn from multiple fields, including psychology, criminal justice, political science, and decision analysis. It examines internal and external factors affecting the veracity of what experts may judge to be matters of common sense, using a semiotic structure.
Findings – In multiple domains, including management, expert accuracy is, in general, no better than chance. Increased experience, however, is often accompanied by an unjustified increase in self-confidence.
Practical implications – While the dynamic nature of decision making in organizations renders the development of a codified, reliable knowledge base potentially unachievable, there is value in recognizing these limitations, and employing tactics to explore more thoroughly both problem and solutions spaces
Originality/value – The paper's originality lies in its integration of recent, multiple-disciplinary research as a basis for persuading decision makers of the perils of accepting expert advice without skepticism.