Why Do Experts Disagree?

Jeffrey Friedman's Power Without Knowledge argues forcefully that there are inherent limitations to the predictability of human action, due to a circumstance he calls ideational heterogeneity. However, our resources for predicting human action somewhat reliably in the light of ideational heterogeneity have not been exhausted yet, and there are no in-principle barriers to progress in tackling the problem. There are, however, other strong reasons to think that disagreement among epistocrats is bound to persist, such that it will be difficult to decide who has the right answer to a given technocratic problem. These reasons have to do with competing visions of the good society, fact/value entanglement, and the fragility of the facts of the social sciences.

Automated summary

Friedman argues that the predictability of human behavior is inherently limited due to ideational heterogeneity. Despite resources not being exhausted yet in reliably predicting human action in this context, there are no fundamental barriers to progress in addressing this issue. However, ongoing disagreement among epistocrats may make it challenging to determine who holds the correct answer to a given technocratic problem.