An expert is a measuring device.

An individual expert appraisal - is not serious.

Quot;The group expertise - is not serious".

The Clark's "law".

An overcompensation.

Super pessimism in the long-term prognoses ("plus round").

Super optimism in short-term prognoses ("short round").

Note. When appraising the time of events which must, according to the opinion of the experts, happen in the near future the mistake is most often made to an excessive optimism. The research works on this subject were discussed by A. Marshall and U. Mekling. G.M. Dobrov in his work [26] affirms that the above regularity is correct for the short-term prognoses up to five years.

Note. This delusion is often connected with a lack of imagination and (or) "flair" of the experts. It is mentioned in the Aires’ list [122]. So, preliminary appraisals of the technical characteristics and demand, and not seldom those of the time of development of the long-term prognoses, have a trend to be super pessimistic ones [117].

In connection with this fact G.M. Dobrov indicates that a super pessimism takes place more often when studying long-term prospects for 20 and more years [26].

Note. This delusion is from the list considered by R. Aires [122] and it is illustrated by E. Yanch [117] in the following manner: "In our days the human genius may achieve everything".

This delusion is related first of all to the scientific and technological prognostication.

Note. If a competent and aged expert gives a verbal appraisal - "It is non-realizable" - then there are enough reasons to hope that he made a mistake. But if he gives an appraisal - "It is impossible" - then it turns out that he is almost always right (this is sited according to G.M. Dobrov [26]).

In confirmation of this situation they often mention phrase from "The Past and Thoughts" of A.I. Herzen: "What if Colon and Copernican put America and the Earth movement for voices?"

In confirmation of this situation it is often emphasized that any expert appraisal is just a subjective point of view.

Such a concept is not correct according to the following reasons:

¾ in the expert appraisals, in contradistinction to physical measurements when an error is less than one per cent of an average value, the numerical estimations given by the same expert are characterized with sufficiently greater deviations and the lack of the consecutiveness. In addition, according to the opinion of R. Lewis and E. Gallantry: "this inconsecutiveness is so great that from our point of view it is impossible to explain this fact while considering that the error of a deviation of the answer to a particular stimulus is sometimes 20 - 40 per cent of its average value" [52];

¾ the experts, while playing the role of a "device" may consciously distort their conclusions;

¾ in contradistinction to a device from which we can get a systematic error when measuring an object for many times, the experts often make the same mistakes when considering different objects;

¾ the experts may vary the form of their appraisals and may give their estimations not only in a digital form;

¾ when formulating a conclusion the experts may consciously or unconsciously include a great number of reservations and conditions while making it to be rather indefinite. (It is "a syndrome of their own security" among a majority of the prominent experts).