About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, January 14, 2021


Just Finished Reading: The Death of Expertise – The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters by Tom Nichols (FP: 2017) [238pp]

It is arguable that we need our experts now more than ever. With a global Pandemic still raging across the globe, political unrest (and not just in the US) on the rise, with a world still reeling from a financial meltdown over a decade old and already feeling the effects of devastating climate change its understandable that people are looking for answers. What is less understandable is that our experts are increasing NOT being asked to provide them. In some quarters those who profess expertise in almost any area are seen as elitist (as if the idea of elites is in some way offensive. No one seems to have any problem with elite athletes for instance) and, once labelled as such, dismissed or denigrated. It is as if the democratic ideals of the sovereignty of the individual, equality before the law and one person, one vote has been extended into the knowledge sphere to state that all opinions are equally valid. Unfortunately they’re not. Firstly there is the obvious difference between opinion and informed opinion. Then there is the even more obvious difference between expert opinion and the opinions of random people being interviewed on the street or giving their opinions freely on Twitter, Facebook or even Blogger. They are not the same thing and are not equivalent. This is the argument, admittedly rather polemic at times, the author (a self-confessed expert) makes throughout this short book.

Interesting in the preface to the paperback edition he admits that he thought the rejection of expertise was a purely (or at least largely) American phenomena. Of course this is not true, although I do think that the US has gone down this road more than most other countries for a whole host of particular and cultural reasons. But America is definitely not alone in this. I still remember a government Minister saying during a debate on Brexit, in order to win his point against an expert in Economics, that the British public had had enough with experts. Unfortunately he won his point. The author points to several areas or trends that have ensured we have arrived at a place where there is apparently no final answer to anything. One I do think is mostly American is education (though I admit I have been out of the educational sphere for some time now so haven’t been exposed to some of the ‘culture’ apparently dominating University life presently). He proposes that because parents, and their pampered children, see their time in higher education as largely transactional that colleges and universities bend over backwards to ‘support’ students in their feeling of being ‘special’ which apparently includes not marking harshly and never telling a student that they’re wrong. We can all see how this can, and apparently has, get out of hand. Inevitably the Internet comes in for a lot of criticism here too. Having a question and Googling the answer (if it actually is an answer that is!) is not the same as getting an advanced degree in a subject and then spending 20-30 years researching it further and teaching it in university. Again the two activities are not equivalent. Likewise the proliferation of ‘news’ sites and, dare I say, Blogs that call themselves NEWS are not equivalent to global news agencies with highly trained, educated and experienced professional journalists. No matter how well you craft a Blog post that doesn’t make you the same as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist - sorry.

Despite its sometimes polemic nature and the fact that it was essentially preaching to the choir (not that I’ve ever been a choirboy!) this was an interesting read that deserves to be as widely read as possible if only to slow down the seemingly unstoppable advance of the uninformed majority who, most dangerously, actually think they know what they’re talking about. Acquiring knowledge and especially a level of expertise is difficult and takes time and effort – which is why experts are rare beasts indeed. Recommended. 

7 comments:

mudpuddle said...

science has always had a bad rap... the only time it was popular was in the 16th C., when Dr. Dee was working for Queen Elizabeth...

Stephen said...

How experts are received depends on context and results. If my plumbing is problematic, filling my tub and toilets with sewage, then naturally I'll hire an expert. Depending on the problem, though, I may opt to fix the issue myself, or enlist the help of relatives with the promise of beer and burgers afterward. There is a problem, though, when experts are imposed on people -- when we have no say in who is making decisions that effect our person, our home, etc. This is especially problematic when expert advice goes against people's own acquired knowledge, and backfires. Experts often claim to know something that isn't so; they have such a specialist knowledge about one aspect of the problem that they miss the context. But the KEY is imposition. No one wants to be told what to do, ESPECIALLY by someone who asserts that they're smarter than the one imposing.

CyberKitten said...

@ Mudpuddle: I've been meaning to read a book on Elizabethan occult philosophy - thanks for the reminder!

@ Stephen: Firstly I'd only listen to an expert that was giving advice inside their field. I wouldn't take advice from a world class expert in ceramics on childcare for example. But if a world class expert in Epidemiology was giving his considered advice within his field - he'd be worth listening to. As always though advice doesn't have to be taken - no matter who is giving it. The only way that experts get to impose their advice is through advising politicians who then create laws based on that advice. As before, in a liberal democracy, you can disobey/ignore that law if you're willing to take any consequences because of that.

Sure, just like everyone else, experts can make mistakes or bend the truth for a whole host of reasons. But, generally, they are much less likely to make obvious mistakes in their own field than the guy who hangs around the barbershop would make in any field outside of his knowledge or experience. Experts should not be dismissed or abused merely because they are experts.

Experts can be smarter than anyone else in the room. But generally their expertise comes from education, application and experience... usually LOTS of experience.

Judy Krueger said...

Could not agree more!

CyberKitten said...

@ Judy: Well, it looks like the new Administration is actually going to listen (and employ) real experts on real subjects so things should improve! It's difficult to see how things can get a great deal worse.... I've just Jinxed it, haven't I? [lol]

James said...

One difficulty with relying on experts' opinions is that they often disagree with each other. This does not mean we should reject expertise out of hand, but a healthy skepticism while attempting to balance competing views seems warranted.

CyberKitten said...

@ James: Indeed they do, often on the details and sometimes on the substance. So you listen, and then you have to think about what you've been told and make (or choose not to make) a decision. Often, at least looking at it politically, you can't simply *rely* on experts opinions because other factors are in play. But on the other hand, as you say, you can't simply dismiss all expert opinion out of hand. Skepticism is good. I definitely regard myself as a Skeptic - indeed more than once I've been called TOO skeptical. Balance is a laudable aim but at least in some instances (IMO) unwarranted. I think that the 'debate' about human caused Climate Change is over - for example - and we should be doing much more to address it rather than wasting much more time arguing over IF its happening or not.