Entry 2221, on 2022-06-08 at 22:02:48 (Rating 4, News)
In recent times it has become important to think about how we treat the opinions of experts. The most obvious phenomena where this has become critical are COVID19, social justice issues, and global warming. Many politicians, and other leaders, have claimed that the policies, rules, and laws they have imposed are "based on science" and that makes them justifiable, no matter how awkward the results of those rules might be.
Of course, I have always been a science supporter, and if you look back through this blog you will see my use of science to reject ideas like creationism, or to support controversial issues like global warming. But wait, you might say, I have specifically criticised some of these expert opinions, especially in relation to COVID, and to a lesser extent, global warming, so am I being hypocritical here?
Well, no, because I have a nuanced view on the opinions of experts. In fact, if you again look through this blog you will see I often use the word "nuanced" in relation to my various opinions.
In general it is best to listen to experts and assume that what they say is fairly accurate, at least as an interim position. Why? Well, obviously they have spent a lot of time studying the subject they are expert on, and it occupies the majority of their time, so it is only sensible to assume they know more than non-experts.
But I did mention the word "nuance" above, and here is where it is relevant, because there are times when expert opinions might not be reliable or relevant.
So here's my first issue, and it arises because of a strength of the experts I have already discussed. That is, they tend to be very focussed on one subject. To become an expert in their field they have often sacrificed knowing much about other areas of knowledge. Sure, there are some who have broader knowledge, but in general that is very limited.
So when they offer us advice, it might be extremely valuable within the narrow confines of their area of expertise, but the application of this sort of knowledge usually has multiple consequences from many areas, and a focussed approach might not be the best one.
For example, a climate scientist might advise us to eliminate the dairy herd here in New Zealand, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but an economist might then say that will destroy the country's economy, or a foreign trade expert might point out that the missing production will likely be moved elsewhere, very likely to a less efficient country where the problem is made worse rather than better.
My second issue is related to the same thing. It is that people often apply the tools of their subject area to problems which they are not well suited to. The old saying on this is that "if your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail."
We've had a lot of alleged experts offering opinions on COVID where they have no real expertise in the area of epidemiology. For example, we have seen the "models" created by physicists, which have been embarrassingly wrong. Why? Because models designed to solve physics problems are very different from those designed to simulate medical phenomena, and the initial assumptions that most models depend on might not be well understood by people from other areas of knowledge.
My third issue is bias. In past posts I have ranted about how politically biased academia is. However expert these people are, if there is strong pressure - both from the system, and from within the person's own personality characteristics - to conform to a particular view, that person will often comply, and this often is detrimental to getting a reliable and accurate perspective.
So the experts might be providing an expert view, which is essentially "true", but only from within a more narrow perspective which conforms with their personal or institutional worldviews. This is more prevalent with "softer" subjects, like the humanities and social sciences, where objectivity is harder to achieve.
This has become a significant issue in recent years with "woke" ideology influencing the perspective of many academics. The hysterical nonsense coming from institutions regarding alleged white supremacy, the supposed patriarchy, and the purported unavoidable deficiencies in capitalism are all popular subjects for extremely biased and, in my humble opinion, completely nonsensical extreme opinions.
Note that I'm not saying there is no merit in these arguments. What I am saying is that the supposed negative effects have been grossly exaggerated and the positive ignored, just to fullfil what is essentially a political purpose (and here I mean political in the sense of maintaining power and influence, rather than being related to national politics).
For example, I recently discussed colonisation with an academic. She has surprised to hear that I thought there were significant benefits to both the colonisers and the colonised, even though there were some negatives as well. But until then, it was as if she never even considered the possibility that the positives of colonisation might exist, even in a small way.
My fourth issue is that many experts work in obscure fields which are generally ignored by the public. If they get the chance to become well known public figures they might be prepared to compromise some of their principles to maintain that, especially once they have been the subject of public adoration for a while.
Many of the academic experts who have appeared on TV advising us on COVID seem to have let the fame influence their style and maybe even the content of their message. It's as if they need to ignore, or at least distort, reality in order to make the message more acceptable to those who might invite them to appear again.
And it sometimes goes beyond that, because there has been a conspicuous link between the people who state TV have invited to appear and those who are recognised as friends and supporters of the current government. There is no absolute requirement to abandon honest discourse because of this, but it must at he very least be a temptation!
Finally, there is the problem of experts who are primarily bureaucrats rather than researchers or academics. Large organisations, such as the UN, the IPCC, and WHO certainly involve real experts in their operations, but many statements come from these people only indirectly through bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats tend to be both ignorant and biased. Even if there proclamations are based on real science, it is likely they will indulge in simplification and other distortions, for both good and bad reasons, when writing their final reports, and in interviews.
So after all of this you might think I am advocating for ignoring all of the experts, and watching some Alex Jones videos instead. Well, no, not necessarily, although his material is incredibly entertaining, which is more than I can say for most experts.
What I am saying is don't automatically accept anyone's opinion without thinking about it and comparing it with other material which might have a different perspective. While science is ideally unbiased and objective, in the real world it rarely is. Again, don't get me wrong, the majority of science findings are accurate, but not all, especially those which are more susceptible to the influences I described above.
Especially on TV, be a bit skeptical of the "talking heads", even if they are presented as experts. Actually, better still, just don't watch TV at all, but if you do, be suspicious, be skeptical to a degree, but don't go full paranoid conspiracy. It's a fine balance to get right, but anything is better than automatically believing the experts or automatically rejecting them. The truth, as always, is somewhere between those extremes.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-08-22 at 10:13:28:
It must be exhausting being so doubting and having to check everything you hear. How do you ever get anything else done?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-08-22 at 10:35:08:
Oh yes, it is. But I still feel as if I have to do it! :)
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