Entry 2180, on 2021-11-02 at 17:41:20 (Rating 3, Comments)
A question I often hear today is how much can we trust experts. In the current context this applies to expert medical advice about COVID, of course, but there are plenty of other situations when the same question might be asked. It's tempting to come up with a yes or no answer here, but if it was that easy I wouldn't be writing a blog post about it, would I? So here's the nuanced answer...
Like most things in life, the answer to the question isn't just yes or no. The answer to any question of a fair degree of complexity is always better stated in quantitative terms, and by adding extra detail about the answer. So a better question might be: how much can we trust experts, and under what circumstances should that level of trust apply?
Let's have a look at this in terms of COVID. Many "experts" (there's another problem: how do we know who the real experts are?) take COVID very seriously and recommend quite draconian restrictions to minimise the disease's effects. Should be listen to these experts? Well, yes, but we should also listen to other experts, and even to non-experts as well.
So let's re-phrase the question in the way I suggested above: how much should we listen to these experts, and under what circumstances?
But first, who are the experts? Anyone who is a specialist in epidemiology is an obvious expert, so I think we should take them seriously. What about some of the people leading the discussion of COVID in New Zealand? I will look at a few of these and give them a score, because as I said, a simple yes or no is insufficient.
Michael Baker is a public health specialist, so I think that gives him good credibility in this situation. Clearly public health is an important aspect of this situation, so any opinion from an expert in that field should be taken seriously. Seriousness factor: 90.
Siouxsie Wiles is a microbiologist and media science commentator. This gives her partial credit, because microbiology is obviously related to the disease, and although science communications is a genuine field, it should be treated with some suspicion because many of its practitioners do let the pursuit of fame overcome the strict pursuit of accuracy. Seriousness factor: 60.
Shaun Hendy is a physicist, so that really doesn't make him an expert in the area. However, he leads a team dedicated to modelling and analysing the disease, so his expertise in modelling should be given some credit. Seriousness factor: 50.
At the other end of the scale, we have people with no real knowledge on science at all, but who might still make their opinions known anyway. A prominent example is Brian Tamaki, the religious leader who has been responsible for several anti-lockdown protests. It is tempting just to ignore him as a nutter who is out of touch with reality. OK, clearly his religious ideas are nutty and he has no clues about science in any form, but he does have a perspective shared by many people, so I think we should listen to his views and try to understand them, even if we disagree. Seriousness factor: 5.
And what about me? I have a science undergrad degree and take an interest in many areas of science as a non-expert. I am also interested in sociology, philosophy, politics, and many other related areas. Clearly my opinion on the underlying virology of the epidemic isn't as credible as Baker's or Wiles's, although I hope it is more valuable than Tamaki's, but my breadth of interest might be as useful as those others' depth. Seriousness factor: well, it's not for me to say!
But now I have to introduce an idea which leads to the idea that we should be a bit more suspicious of the experts than I have suggested so far. The problem with experts is that they tend to be focussed on one very narrow field. If our COVID response was simply a matter of immunology then sure, Baker and his colleagues in that area might be the only ones we should listen to. But it's more complicated than that, and because of that extra complexity in some ways experts opinions should be considered with less reverence.
So when an expert offers an opinion ask yourself two questions: first, even if the opinion is absolutely correct within the area the person works in, are there other parts to the story which that person isn't taking into account; and second, is the person affected by certain defects in their reasoning, specifically are they too concerned with having a significant public profile and the resulting fame, and are they concentrating on aspects of the problem originating in their area, and ignoring others?
I believe that both the "defects" in expert opinion I mentioned above are factors in many experts' opinions. It would be unfair to say which people I think are most affected, but you might be able to guess!
So when Baker suggests a level 4 lockdown for Auckland I say, sure that is his MO, and from a simplistic medical approach he might be absolutely right, but we do need to look at the bigger picture and give his opinion less credibility as a result.
And when Wiles supports severe restrictions and penalties for those who break them (unless it happens to be herself, of course) I wonder whether she is saying that because it fits in with the narrative the media want to hear, and helps ensure her continued fame through numerous TV appearances. Again, I listen to her points and think they have some merit, but I also look beyond what she is saying and often have less acceptance for her views as a result.
And what about Bishop Brian? Well, factually his statements have little credibility, but they do represent an increasing mood of frustration and concern around the country's response to the pandemic so far. So do I ignore them? No, again I look at the bigger picture and how his ideas fit into that.
Finally I should make a point which I have made in the past on several occasions, relating to potentially controversial ideas. If someone gives you the answer you really want to hear and which agrees with your preconceived notions, be more suspicious of it than you would be of other ideas which you are neutral about or support. It's easy to believe something you agree with, even when it is wrong, too simplistic, or biased.
So should we listen to experts? Sure, but don't take everything they say as if it were undisputed fact, and listen to non-experts too, then decide. The experts are important, but no one is perfect, and we live in a world where propaganda comes from all sides, not just from the obviously nutty people like Tamaki.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 22:35:28:
I agree with some of this, which is OK for you. By the way, your "seriousness factor" I would say about 20.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 22:36:00:
Oh, OK, seriousness factor 20. I'll take that. I beat a bishop!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE