"The Death of Expertise"

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

I feel like the dumbing down of America has created a population that is threatened by educated people, particularly experts. People don't like to be wrong, but they are too lazy to learn what is right so they attack the expert in an attempt to discredit him or her. It's sad.

I partially lay the blame on the marketing industry (4 out of five "experts" agree!), and partially on politicians and corporate interests, who can all to easily buy their own "experts" without the average person knowing which expert is honest and which is a paid shill. It's a sad state of affairs really, I agree with you.

One thing about this though is that you can say your an expert even if you are not. If you claim that you are an expert on social science and public policy then you have to prove that you are too me in some way. I will not take your claim at face value. Finally, I think for myself this means that even if you claim to be an expert and then you state your opinion and back it up. Then I will evaluate your argument and decide if I agree with it based on it's merits. You do not get a free pass by saying that you are an expert on a subject. Now does this mean I am right and the "expert" if I do not agree with them is wrong. No, it does not. It means that with all the information available to me I have come to the conclusion that I disagree with them. Then at some later date either the person claiming to be an expert or someone else could present new information that proves that they are correct and I was wrong. Then I admit I was wrong and accept the evidence. Hence, why I am open to changing my mind on different issues. But I am unwilling to blindly follow the lead of anyone even if they claim to be an expert.

One thing about this though is that you can say your an expert even if you are not. If you claim that you are an expert on social science and public policy then you have to prove that you are too me in some way. I will not take your claim at face value. Finally, I think for myself this means that even if you claim to be an expert and then you state your opinion and back it up. Then I will evaluate your argument and decide if I agree with it based on it's merits. You do not get a free pass by saying that you are an expert on a subject. Now does this mean I am right and the "expert" if I do not agree with them is wrong. No, it does not. It means that with all the information available to me I have come to the conclusion that I disagree with them. Then at some later date either the person claiming to be an expert or someone else could present new information that suggests or proves that they are correct and I was wrong. Then I reevaluate my position and admit I was wrong and accept the evidence. Hence, why I am open to changing my mind. This usually applies to political and social issues rather than debates in technical subjects unless it happens to be in computer science for which I have the necessary background. But I am unwilling to blindly follow the lead of anyone even if they claim to be an expert. It should also be noted that many credible experts disagree with each other.

I don't think expertise warrants authority on a subject, but expertise represents the highest level of professionalism within established domains of authority. In that regard expertise outside of those domain's is an opportunity to do mainly two things; a. educate people in accuracy around details, and b. educate people about how to contextualize concepts more effectively to understand the relationships which allow a. to occur more easily.

Like how I'm reading in Buddhism at the moment in the that "what something appears to be may be either accurate or inaccurate, depending on whether or not it can be corroborated by further valid cognition of what things conventionally are. Similarly, how something appears to exist may be either pure or impure, depending on whether or not the way that something appears to exist corresponds to the way in which it actually exists". Which I thought was an interesting way to approach it, and to understand it and better learn.

I guess the topic approaches concepts of democracy, does every opinion count or should decisions be made by defined sets of people who have sufficient accurate (& pure lol) understanding... and then ensure transparency and accountability extends outside those groups to create some system of support. the problem might be that people don't know what they don't know so formulate opinions and associate them into their worldview which they then go onto use to define themselves! Which sort of risks bringing emotion into things sometimes.

OK, so I'm largely a person that defers to experts rather than trusting my own opinions. That said, I see a few assumptions with doing so:

1.) the assumption that there's a 'right' answer which the expert can provide. some questions don't have a 'right' answer.
2.) the assumption that if there is a right answer, the expert is going to be loyal to the truth and his/her answer not impacted by other concerns (this is why American environmental policies based on 'make the experts figure it out' back in the 1970s didn't work, the experts weren't immune to other influences)
3.) the assumption that a clear line can be drawn between experts and non-experts
4.) the assumption that experts are in agreement with each other, which is the case on some major topics like global warming, but not the case on many other topics.
5.) the assumption that the expert can communicate his/ her words in a way which can be understood, otherwise the expert opinion can be misunderstood and cause problems.
6.) the assumption that an expert is necessary to answer the question or perform the task. Oftentimes it is valuable to assemble facts for oneself or learn a new skill for oneself. Obviously there are many cases in which it's a dangerous idea not to draw on available specialists, but we're also quick to let others do our thinking for us because it's easier that way.

Adder wrote: I guess the topic approaches concepts of democracy, does every opinion count or should decisions be made by defined sets of people who have sufficient accurate (& pure lol) understanding...

"No. It's not your opinion. You're just wrong."

Archaic Smile wrote: That said, I see a few assumptions...

Your assumptions also make assumptions.

1. The assumption that some questions don't have an answer.
2. The assumption that people are inherently biased, regardless of the facts or their duty to report them.
3. The assumption that there are times expertise isn't clear.
4. The assumption that agreement is necessary for expertise to play a factor in discussion.
5. The assumption that experts are overly technical instead of their audience being less capable/more biased.
6. The assumption that experts are unnecessary.

steamboat28 wrote:

Archaic Smile wrote: That said, I see a few assumptions...

Your assumptions also make assumptions.

1. The assumption that some questions don't have an answer.
2. The assumption that people are inherently biased, regardless of the facts or their duty to report them.
3. The assumption that there are times expertise isn't clear.
4. The assumption that agreement is necessary for expertise to play a factor in discussion.
5. The assumption that experts are overly technical instead of their audience being less capable/more biased.
6. The assumption that experts are unnecessary.

You essentially just did a "nuh uh, infinity plus 1!", kind of humorous in a way. :lol: