Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2022 March 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 14

How to pick an expert opinion?

Today's Dilbert's strip left me thinking. After you admit your own ignorance in a field, how are you supposed to deal with a problem in a hypothetical situation where experts themselves disagree with each other? Would your research be more valuable than an expert opinion? Should we just pick one expert at random? Or pick the most common opinion? In Dilbert's word: "Is that how science works?" --Bumptump (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's usually easier to discern which experts are more likely to be correct if you have some knowledge of the merits. If not and you lack enough expertise try to select reliable sources. Science itself is empirical, hence it is based on what can be shown by observations and experiments or by whatever models work (if only hypothetical) and progresses accordingly. --Modocc (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

One approach is to see which experts are prepared to fully disclose their methods and sources of data. Then you can back check their working. I (occasionally) work in a safety related field of engineering, EVERYTHING gets fully documented and is repeatable by a 3rd party of sufficient skill (hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to in the future, to be honest) , and can easily be handed over to a co-worker (usually happens at least once in a given project). Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Given comparable a priori credibility, I am inclined to give more attention to the opinions of people who admit they have no certainty and give them with some hesitation as the best they can offer, given the state of the field and the available information. But how credible are these experts really? Are the people offering these "expert opinions" real or merely self-styled experts? In what area are they experts? Have they published peer-reviewed articles on subjects that are germane to the current issue? The opinion of a neurophysiologist is not more relevant than my grandmother's if the topic is the proper way of storing dry beans. That of a microbiologist who has published studies on the microbial hazards associated with bean sprouting may be more to the point.  --Lambiam 08:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See also Gibson's law.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes, you just don't know. Besides wondering which is right, you might even wonder if either is right. You can have two experts that believe different things for good reasons, and they can both be wrong. If you need to pick the best option it depends on why you are picking the best one. Ideal case is to look into their research and become a bit more educated yourself. If it's for some decision you might also want to consider the risk/reward with both options. If it's for an explanation it might sometimes (after mentioning experts don't all agree) be best go with the one that explains the point you are trying to make best. El sjaako (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The archives here from 2017 have more debate and relevant articles to look at. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The pragmatic way is to get in more experts. Depending on the topic, Google Scholar can give you a quick overview of publications in the relevant field. In some cases, respected scientific bodies have synthesised the evidence on an issue and given authoritative (though, as always in science, preliminary) statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Starting state of Rubik's cube in speedcubing

Does Rubik's cube have some standard starting arrangement in speedcubing, similar to that in chess? Because I assume that the solving speed would depend on how the cubes' sides are arranged by default and some arrangements may require longer time to solve than others. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, unless you mean a non-standard chess variation like Fischer random chess. According to the article linked by you: "Puzzles are scrambled using a computer-generated scramble". --Bumptump (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think about it, always starting with one configuration of the cube would mean that cubers would only have to learn how to solve that particular puzzle, which would obviously be much easier than learning how to solve all possible configurations. Competitions are run so that everyone has to unscramble the same (typically five) starting positions but those are set up in advance by the judges, often using computer-generated methods since these tend to produce more "random" outcomes than a human would. The same principle is used in competitive duplicate bridge tournaments. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The exact opposite of Speed climbing which has been using the exact same course for decades.

Probably because making a mistake solving a Rubik's cube has no adverse physical consequence, but a mistake while climbing might easily be fatal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Modern speed climbing is on artificial walls with bomb-proof belays, so not as dangerous as it might look. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)