Conflicting expert claims make it hard to know how much trust to vest.
Evidence
The mix of risk and opportunity is so complex in many of the circumstances involved that it is extremely difficult for individuals to know how far to vest trust in particular prescriptions or systems, and how far to suspend it. How can one manage to eat “healthily,” for example, when all kinds of food are said to have toxic qualities of one sort or another and when what is held to be “good for you” by nutritional experts varies with the shifting state of scientific knowledge? — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 354
Categorization
- XREF: The nutrition example is a perfect everyday analogue to Stevens’s dilemma: what counts as ‘good service’ and ‘dignity’ keeps shifting with the moral expert consensus (the gentlemanly ideal), yet he keeps vesting trust in it. — connects to: Confidence in expert systems can be catastrophically misplaced — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 13; Lay trust in expert systems founders when experts’ own ignorance surfaces — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 316; Expert professionals can perpetuate unfounded beliefs through their actions. — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 1602 (+2 more)
Related
- Controlling system trust becomes the exclusive work of experts (similarity 0.80)
- Even pragmatic faith in expert systems still implies trust (similarity 0.80)
Broader Connections
- Confidence in expert systems can be catastrophically misplaced
#expands(0.60) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 13 - Lay trust in expert systems founders when experts’ own ignorance surfaces
#exemplifies(0.60) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 316 - Expert professionals can perpetuate unfounded beliefs through their actions.
#complicates(0.55) — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 1602