View of the "adjacent specialist" and critical thinking

It is no secret that in the modern world much has to be taken on faith, without the ability to verify the accuracy of the information. Therefore, you should trust the professionals who have devoted their life to some aspect. However, I really want to see reasonable criticism and verification of facts, despite the authority of the source.



I didn’t want to write this self-evident text, but I noticed that usually quite a critical-minded audience instantly turns off if you refer to the authoritative opinion of a representative of an external discipline. Below I have cited several arguments against this development scenario, since it seems to me that it is necessary to check the insufficiently supported conclusions. Immediately, I note that I was absolutely rightly noted that it is better to overestimate the danger - you will be more whole .



Examples are selected on the example of the toxicity of Bombastium , but it is not at all about toxicity.

')

Who can you trust when it comes to the toxicity of Bombastium?

1. any chemist / biologist / physicist



Obviously the wrong answer. Where does such confidence come from that someone was engaged in this very question and is an expert (or at least read relevant literature)? Another thing, if someone dealt with this issue for a long time. And even in this case, it is necessary to recognize that general vocational education does not provide the complete picture necessary for assessing the toxicity of compounds.



2. Toxicologist, or rather clinical toxicologist is better.



Bingo! Profile education surpasses only a narrow profile (* true in cases of searching for the exact answer to a correctly posed question).



Of course, more and more specialized education in related fields is a good fit (examples: medical chemist, biochemist, metal organic chemist, etc. - their knowledge is often very extensive and usually completely covers such simple topics as the toxicity of simple substances). But this does not guarantee anything.

In addition to specialization, there are still some unpleasant features that are also better taken into account:

• Profdeformation. Roughly speaking, this is when an owl is pulled for any occasion.
• Effects of overconfidence, Lake Wethegon, Dunning - Kruger, duckling goose.

It's good to remember that:

• It often happens that the information becomes outdated and becomes incorrect (yes, you understood correctly - fundamental knowledge also needs to be checked and sometimes revised). The practitioner constantly checks his professional knowledge (* in theory) , but for a specialist in another (related) field this is not possible.
• The human brain is not a notebook - once memorized, it can be changed, randomly and invisibly to the individual.
• If you see that someone puts a quotation on some work, it does not mean that he read it (usually read the title, introduction and conclusions - there is always little time) .
  
  

What to read in order not to be trapped?

• "Profession" A. Azimov.
• The topic on Wikipedia, and with viewing sources.
• Search engines for scientific articles (Pubmed and others). It is necessary to look at the year of publication, type of publication (research, review, meta-analysis, systematic review), country, institution level, number of cited articles, etc. This is a topic for a separate large article.

And what about Bombastium toxicity?

And nothing, the toxicity should be considered separately in each case:

• amount of toxicant (important)
• possible ways of access (and how much is ingested directly)
• component toxicity and constituents
• The ability to accumulate in the body (cumulative)
• component toxicity and constituents
• toxic mechanism
• etc. etc.

That is, when they talk about the toxicity or carcinogenicity of the substance, it is not necessary to immediately panic and look for a replacement. Substitution may be worse (cumulative effect or bioavailability).

Nb. Separate anecdotal research examples to indicate toxicity are not appropriate, since upon closer inspection, it may turn out that, for example, there was only one case, when Bombastium c hit together with some 4-methylpyridine, which itself is “toxic and irritating,” be healthy! Other sources are very old and contradictory, while fantasizing further, for example, before Bombastium was even used in dental fillings instead of harmful mercury.