Trust the experts - Stevie Berryman

Found on FB. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

This author wants us to believe that the experts must not be questioned, and those who disagree with experts have nothing to offer because they are not experts. Further, those who are experts but disagree with other experts are "discredited," apparently because he agrees with one side and not the other.

----------------
One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last 3 years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as anyone else. "Hear all sides. and judge for yourself!" No. I do not condone the death of Expertise, and neither should YOU.

I am an expert in very, very few things. But in those areas, my expertise is hard earned through study, work, experience, and aptitude. None of it comes from attending Google University. But unless you are an expert in exactly the same areas. your opinion is not just as valid as mine. It's not. And my opinion is not as valid as experts' in other fields. That is why THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. So if our leading epidemiologists largely agree that "A" is correct, and a couple of discredited doctors make a video that says "S" is correct, our response should not be "I'll listen to both and decide which makes sense to me." 

Confirmation bias exists, and only fools think they are free of it. To paraphrase Asimov, your ignorance is not the same as their experience. Genuinely smart people look for answers from people who are smarter than themselves. Only ignorant people believe their guess is as good as anyone else's.

***

According to the author, disagreeing with experts is dangerous. Having an opinion that differs from the experts is dangerous. Apparently, these dangerous things suddenly arrived on the scene 3 years ago, and we note this "coincidentally" coincides with Trump's election. 

But in actual fact, the idea that "all points of view are equally valid" is not new at all, it is loosely known as relativism, and has been around in various forms for thousands of years. Ironically, relativism has actively been promulgated by Leftists, especially in matters of morality. And the author is certainly a Leftist.

From asserting that "all points of view are equally valid" is dangerous, the author then makes a leap in logic, that this attitude will result in "the death of Expertise." This does not follow, however. Assigning value to other opinions does not come to bear on the possibility of expertise dying. As a matter of fact, expertise appears to be more visible than ever, with experts regularly appearing on TV and in government panels. There is little evidence that expertise in imperiled.

Further, acquiring knowledge is not synonymous with acquiring competence. And, critically, neither knowledge nor competence are relevant to the exercise of power, particularly in a political context. We are not governed by experts, we are governed by peers. 

This of course does not mean that these peers should not consult experts. That information might be useful to inform the decisions of legislators, but regardless, legislators legislate, not experts.

We would go so far as to suggest that the reason government requires experts is largely because government has exceeded its constitutional boundaries and is engaging in processes and programs it should not be engaging. There is very little expert input needed to run a limited government, but a lot of expert input is needed to engage in social engineering, wealth redistribution, and behavior modification.

The author mentions Confirmation Bias. Of course it exists. We would simply respond by saying that experts are subject to it just as much as laypersons. And political bias exists as well. It's even pervasive. With experts too.  And that can color their expertise. 

Lastly, we would assert that science is not established by consensus. Science is not derived from what our leading epidemiologists largely agree upon. They might agree and still be wrong. That's why scientists value the Scientific Method, and things like reproducibility. And reproducibility can only occur in an environment of skepticism, where the attitude is, or ought to be, "prove it by doing it again." 

So the author appeals to expert consensus while denigrating dissent. This anti-science.