“…I really should have finished off my English degree and then I might know what I’m talking about”

Dunno about that. After three years of at least two economics papers every year I still don’t know what I’m talking about, at least according to the people who disagree with me 🙂

She was quoting from a post of someone else, which was pointing out that scientists shouldn’t have to feel that they need to “shut up” due to their position – which is fair enough. I was just adding the flip side where disciplines that have authority in the public eye do need to be careful regarding construction arguments/models of communication.

It is fascinating stuff, I really should have finished off my English degree and then I might know what I’m talking about 😉

I tend to distinguish two types of expert comment – those where the expert is speaking within their realm of expertise, and then when they talk on other stuff. I suppose a famous example of the second was Linus Pauling – amn who won a Nobel prize for his work on chemical bonds. But he was probably much more famous for advocating mega-doses of vitamin C, an area well outside his expertise. And people who became his followers were fond of saying ‘well, if a nobel prize winner thinks this… then it must be right’. But if an expert talks about something in their field, then maybe we should listen. Your tweet example – it was not clear really what Nicola wanted the scientists she was badgering to say – i suspect she wanted them to agree with her!

Indeed everyone should try to be transparent. However, both scientists and economists can (and do) call on authority to argue for their conclusions. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such persuasion when it is credible – but I think it implies that both disciplines have a responsibility to make their arguments transparent, to avoid us hiding our value judgments behind our authority.