Fallacy/Cognitive Bias of assuming that being an expert in one field makes you an expert in other fields

Question

Assume that Bob is truly an expert in field A. He can voice strong opinions about A and his ideas are considered valid or worthy of consideration by all other experts of field A. Bob also believes that he is an expert in a totally unrelated field B. However he is not taken seriously by the experts of B. Still, Bob dismisses authorities of B by quoting himself.

If I quote Bob about something that falls on field B, it becomes appeal to false authority, because Bob is not an authority in B. If I dismiss authorities of B by stating that Bob is better than them because of his accomplishments in field A, it becomes appeal to accomplishment.

However, in my question Bob himself appeals to himself. The belief that expertise is transitive to other fields is obviously some sort of fallacy or cognitive bias.

I believe that it is not really Dunning-Kruger, because Bob, who is not an expert in field B still has a good understanding of the field B. He knows how deep field B goes, but still does not mind making sharp remarks about the field.

A better way to describe it would be successful natural scientists believing that they are well equipped to make assertions about social sciences. A more direct example is Celal Sengor, a world renowned Turkish geologist believes he is entitled to make strong assertions in philosophy like "Marx is stupid" or "Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is logically absurd."

My guesses from my long Wikipedia and Google searches are bias blindspot or false uniqueness bias. Yet, I don't think they stick well.

What kind of fallacy/cognitive bias is this way of thinking?

I am not sure if this is a fallacy or a cognitive bias, so I wanted to tag both of them.

Answer 1

Often people who attain expertise in a certain field have a certain stature and authority and this gives them a platform. Often people are then interested their opinion in matters related closely or tangentially to that field or even further afield if they have a media presence.

For example, a cosmologist working on exoplanets might be asked about the James Webb telescope even though this telescope isn't designed for seaching for exoplanets or climate change. Of course, one can see the rationale here. Exoplanets are in space, and cosmologists study space and whilst a cosmologist is not a climate scientist he is scientist and should be able to explain the scientific consensus if not the detailed rationale.

Of course its possible that people abuse the privileges that come along with having a platform, many do and also many don't. I think this danger is more common with people with a media presence because then they're often expected to give their opinion on a wide range of matters as they're seen as a spokesperson. Here, part of the responsibility is on the interviewer to ask appropriate questions and also on the audience to understand to what degree of factuality one can hold him to. After all, if an interviewer asks the cosmologist his opinion of Bob Dylans last album and he said he didn't like it much. This ought to be understood as a statement of personal opinion, rather than of objective fact.

Richard Dawkins was trained as an evolutionary biologist. And he write a series of popular books on evolution where he also smuggled in and evangalised his brand of hardcore militant atheism. Mary Midgely accused accused Richard Dawkins of a poor grasp of philosophy when he explained why genes were 'selfish'. Ethically speaking they aren't selfish simply because they aren't alive. Zoologists borrowed the word from ethics and changed its meaning.

This happens quite frequently, another example is work which physicists borrowed ordinary language to describe the work done by gravity when a ball falls from a tower even though gravity isn't working with a shovel or putting on a suit and tie and going to the office to work.

Finally, I think it's a cognitive bias to think that all mistakes in thinking should come named as a fallacy.