One interesting question is whether you should believe what the experts do, or what the majority of people do, in situations where they differ. (See CronoDAS’s suggestion on this page about believing the experts.)
The fact that this policy may contribute to an information cascade is (mostly) a cost to other people rather than a cost to yourself. If your goal is the truth, the presence of this cost is not relevant.
The real question is whether the beliefs of others are a reliable guide to the truth, and if not, what is better. Judging the quality of arguments has IMO not been shown to be something that most people can successfully implement—too much opportunity for bias to creep in.
You can also replace “do” with ’believe”.
One interesting question is whether you should believe what the experts do, or what the majority of people do, in situations where they differ. (See CronoDAS’s suggestion on this page about believing the experts.)
No, you should not believe what others believe unless they presented serious arguments.
Otherwise
information cascades
memes
gain strength.
Doing is different here, as it is more costly than believing.
The fact that this policy may contribute to an information cascade is (mostly) a cost to other people rather than a cost to yourself. If your goal is the truth, the presence of this cost is not relevant.
The real question is whether the beliefs of others are a reliable guide to the truth, and if not, what is better. Judging the quality of arguments has IMO not been shown to be something that most people can successfully implement—too much opportunity for bias to creep in.