Korner: Experts, Laymen, and the Search for Truth
.
James' article today concerned the JonBenet Ramsey case. He has made it a public quest to exonerate Patsay Ramsey and he presents his own analysis of four handwritten documents. The "question" is whether a person like James, who has no "credentials" in handwriting analysis, is entitled to present his own arguments as to whether Ramsey's handwriting matches that of the ransom note.
I doubt there is any Denizen here who feels it is a bad thing for James to present detail arguments, for the layman's consideration, on any subject. Obviously his detail arguments are subject to rebuttal, whether by layman or expert.
We try to be sparing when quoting James' copyrighted material, but I'll bet he would prefer that we include his "preamble" in its entirety:
.
Handwriting expertise, more clearly than any other field that I know of, illustrates the difference between science and expertise. Science uses general rules and principles, understood by millions of people, to work toward increasing our shared understanding of the world in which we live, a key word being "shared". What is learned by the scientist is in no sense the property of the scientist, if it is truly science and not commerce. If in our field we were to discover, for example, that tall hitters do best against tall pitchers and short hitters do best against short pitchers, the value in this would not be to me, but to a baseball team by way of its manager. The manager would be as much the owner of this knowledge as the analyst who discovered it. Crucial to that fact—to the shared nature of its ownership—is how it is known. If I were to say that I know that tall hitters hit best against tall pitchers and you should believe me because I am an expert in this field, no one would believe me and no one should believe me. Others would believe me only if (1) I were to present evidence demonstrating that it is true, and then only if (2) others were able to study the same subject and reach the same conclusion. Studying the same subject and reaching the same conclusion or a different conclusion does not require expertise limited to a small cadre of persons; it merely requires that we apply the rules of scientific enquiry which are universally owned and widely understood. Shared principles yield shared knowledge.
Expertise, on the other hand, is the property of the expert. The only way that WE know that Document 1 and Document 2 were or were not written by the same person is that an expert says so. The only way to get a second opinion is to ask another expert. If the other expert cannot get access to the documents, you can’t get another opinion.
A couple of years ago here I wrote something about the handwriting in the Zodiac case; the Zodiac wrote several letters which were mailed to newspapers, and there are disputes about which are legitimate Zodiac letters and which are not. I argued that something which was allegedly said by an expert handwriting analyst could not possibly be true. The reaction of some of you, some readers, was "Why should we believe you, rather than the expert? You’re not an expert."
Of course scientists acquire expertise in science, just as mechanics acquire expertise about engines, ditch diggers acquire expertise about shovels, and bartenders acquire expertise about the behavior of persons under the influence of alcohol. Scientists sometimes move into being experts in the same way that comedians move into being actors. The law confuses the issue, and the legal profession confuses the public, by using scientists as experts. But science and expertise are natural enemies. Expertise is based on credentials, experience and on trust. A scientist is trained NOT to trust, and knows not to be in awe of credentials. The most highly credentialed scientists in the world in our generation will be proven in the next generation to have been dead wrong about major tenets of their work.
Handwriting, on the other hand, has NO field of free-standing knowledge open to the public and verifiable by the public. It could have; it should have. It just doesn’t. Handwriting analysis perfectly well COULD be done by scientific methods; it just isn’t. The field went in a different direction. It developed expertise independent of verifiable knowledge.
I should say . . ."handwriting identification" has evolved into "document examination" or some similar phrase, document verification. Document examination is a more scientific field than handwriting evaluation, relies more on modern science. Document examiners study things like the ink and the paper and the soil residues on the paper, and generally have more of a grounding in scientific methods.
Anyway, my view is, no one has to be an expert to speak the truth. If I say something which is true and which you can verify as being true through your own observation, why do I have to be an expert to say that? That makes no sense to me. The experts have seized control of the discussion, so much so that no one else is allowed to speak, even to speak the truth.
With that preamble, I’ve been looking in the last week at the handwriting in the JonBenet Ramsey case, which is not cursive writing but printing. I had never really studied it before. I had read about the handwriting in the case that there were many similarities between the handwriting of the ransom note and the independently known samples of Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting, but that no expert will testify that she wrote the note. Steve Thomas, the detective who wrote a book about the case, tries to create the impression that Patsy probably DID write the ransom note; all the experts agree there are many similarities between the handwriting of the note and Patsy’s handwriting, but they just unfortunately were never able to get an expert to cross that little bridge between saying there were many similarities in their handwriting, and saying that she actually wrote the note.
Also, it is speculated in different places that the writer of the ransom note could have been attempting to copy Patsy’s style or to fake Patsy’s handwriting.
This was all I knew about the handwriting in that case until the last couple of weeks; I just accepted that the handwriting was somehow problematic for Patsy’s defenders, and let it go at that. But in connection with another project I am working on, I had to get into the details.
Wow.
Patsy Ramsey did NOT write that note. It should be obvious to anyone who studies the subject that Patsy Ramsey did not write that note, for reasons that I will outline later in this article. No expert will EVER testify that Patsy Ramsey wrote that note, because if they did, they would be torn to shreds on cross-examination so completely that it would end their career, absolutely and beyond any question. It’s never going to happen.
.
In my view this is some of the most important work Mr. James does, to chip away at the idea that "experts" are right by default, that the layman has a RESPONSIBILITY to BELIEVE experts until the expert is proven wrong.
Marisfan said:
++ [James] About this: "No one has to be an expert to speak the truth. If I say something which is true and which you can verify as being true through your own observation, why do I have to be an expert to say that?"
[Maris] Without meaning to imply that an "expert's" observation is necessarily terrific, if we're not highly knowledgeable and experienced in a field, we might not be good at knowing which things are relevant or not to observe. Taking this material here as an example, I'm not sure we can know that the specific things you identify in the handwriting are critically indicative factors. They sure look like they are, and I'd guess they are. I'm not sure I'd automatically embrace what an "expert" might say about those things either, but, I think this is an example of how "observation" by anyone isn't necessarily sufficient. ++
Democracy is the worst governmental system extant - except for all the alternatives.
An American jury trial is the worst possible mechanism for determining an accused person's fate -- except for the Russian system, the Iranian system, the North Korean system, and every other system.
....
If you think about it, SABERMETRICS itself is an example of the right way to investigate reality. A 23-year-old non athlete who is a math major is not an expert in baseball. But as a layman, he serves as the jury, in effect.
Adam (an ex-player) makes an argument that bunting in the first inning is good, citing his experience. Bob (a reader of James' abstracts) argues it is bad, and provides Run Expectancy tables for the "layman's" consideration. Cory (an ex-MLB manager) argues that it is good, making another argument that the layman can understand. Daniel (a bleacher bum with no college) comes up with a comparison between NPB runs scored per base gained and MLB runs scored per base gained. The layman considers this also.
Using this system, a system based on full disclosure to public laymen, do we understand baseball better than we do in 1967? Or do we understand it worse?
It wasn't a behind-doors exchange between James, Larussa, and Faye Vincent that achieved this advance in our possession of Truth, was it? Did fifteen baseball "experts" research the subject on campus, then publish their findings, and the rest of us nod approvingly as was our responsibility? Of course not.
.....
The priests of the Dark Ages fought claw-and-fang to keep "Laymen" from gaining literacy, because, Heaven Forbid the experts would lose control of the discussion and Laymen become a part of it. When we are "shushing" the Layman and demanding his deference to the Expert, we are descendants in spirit from the Dark Ages clergy.
Personally, my thought is that Truth benefits from ventilation. If a statement does indeed reflect facts and reality, let's hear it. From whomever.
Maybe, as a non-math major, I should know better than to discuss Fangraphs "studies" with SABRMatt, who is indeed a math major. But if I'm being presumptuous, wouldn't the math major demonstrate that pretty quickly, to the satisfaction of all? (Matty himself does a great job of bringing expertise to the table, but then relying on strength-of-argument rather than on credentials.)
.....
Meaning no snark at all: it MYSTIFIES me what it is, that people like about a clergy-laity separation. Perhaps you, gentle Denizen, can explain it to me, in psychological terms. There are quite a few people who are very comfortable with oligarchies, practical or theoretical. I've never understood the appeal.
And it seems to me that this is a big reason that America has done so well: any smart kid from Kansas can jump into the discussion and show you his best ideas.
Best,
Jeff