David Kyle Johnson

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Yeah, but that's where the nuance is.

So yeah, just saying that lacking the expertise calls into question, you know, you citing yourself as an authority or saying...

that your judgment or whatever is reliable, et cetera, doesn't mean that somebody who does have expertise is automatically correct.

And if further, when we talk about expertise, and I think you're probably gonna get to this, we're often talking about consensus.

Scientific authority or scientific expertise or the consensus of opinion never rests on an individual person, because any individual, no matter what their background, no matter what their expertise, can be horribly wrong.

The more people you have sort of agreeing with each other, the more likely those biases will average out and you'll have sort of the wisdom of the crowds kind of effect applied to expertise.

But even then, getting a second opinion is a good idea if there's a high stakes or- Yeah, it's about risk and benefit.

Yeah, absolutely.

But there's also the assumption in there that that lone expert is themselves listening to expert consensus, which doctors explicitly do.

That's what the standard of care is.

The standard of care is built upon largely consensus opinion among experts.

And if you violate that standard of care, you're, you know, you could, you're liable to get sued for malpractice.

And the other layer here, because I don't think they're all lying.

I think many of them are.

I think most of them are bullshitting, meaning that they are not following a process of due diligence and logic and evidence to make sure that what they're saying is actually true.

Whereas physicians, as you say, are highly motivated to do that because there's a lot of downsides if they get things wrong.

Okay.

And again, when we appeal to an expert or to a consensus of experts, in the label expert, there is the... It shouldn't be an assumption.

Sometimes it has to be explicit.