Yes, No, Don’t Know. They are the answers on offer aren’t they? Simply ask people. Count up the numbers and give an answer.
Err no. There are multiple issues here (aren’t there always?).
First – what is an expert? ‘A person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area’. That will do yes? Well again no. What do we mean by ‘very’? Who decided? I have heard so called experts talk absolute twaddle and others have, using evidence, appeared right on the mark. By being deferential and hierarchical the irony is that we accept who the expert is but might question what they say. Surely it should be made clear what parameters are being used before anyone is labelled an expert. A person may have a Phd but does that make them an ‘expert’? A person may have no qualifications but is much better suited to explain or demonstrate on a topic… than any number of qualifications can provide. Perhaps the way forward is to abandon our elitist tendencies and become more democratic in how we make our choices.
Second – the objectification of knowledge is impossible when multiple interpretations exist. A classic example is the recent referendum. “Is immigration good for the economy?” The consensus on this question is that the research is mixed, but most studies agree that the effect of immigration on public finances is small, and probably positive. Case closed. Except this kind of analysis ignores the people for whom immigration has a much greater impact. If you’re a in a low-skilled job, it’s likely that you’ll lose out from increased immigration. If experts only present the overall picture, without reconciling these different realities, it’s not unreasonable for the public to reject the analyses on offer. (Full Fact 16/9/16). Statistical analysis may point in one direction (objective) but personal experience points in another (subjective). Which one do we believe? Which one does the ‘expert’ rely on and deliver when asked?
Third – Experts require years of experience and application whereas our decision making on whether an ‘expert’ is right may take only seconds. Why? Because many people are conditioned by school testing (pre 16) and much of the media to apply a binary methodology. That is 0 or 1. Not a decimal mode where there are ten… different perspectives but the one that is based on emotion and prejudice and backed by a spine of morality. RIGHT or WRONG. Any so called expert is therefore appealing to an audience that mostly do not play by the same rules of intellectual discourse. They read The Sun or the Mail not the Lancet or the Journal of Physical Chemistry and Bio Physics. They expect the ‘expert’ to dumb it down for them and even then many have already switched off.
Fourth – The ‘expert’ is an abstraction to them. How many members of the public are invited on to a panel on the radio or TV to share their ‘expertise’ in furniture restoration or stamp collecting or the bias of their local MP? Very few and yet those who are are often university educated or from a specific social class background. Middle middle class or beyond. For many of them, in the words of Morrissey, ‘they say nothing to me about my life’.
Fifth – we need experts but they must not patroniose us. A doctor or a teacher can be valuable but even they can learn and not just from each other or books with long words. I once told a doctor who was treating me for pneumonia that I felt like I had the symptoms of high blood pressure. She assured me it was much more likely to be low blood pressure. When she measured, it was high. She had thus put her credibility on the line with her relative certainty when she could have kept quiet. My faith in her has been undermined. However, by keeping quiet she could then simply have replied ‘you are right’ and created a more democratic relationship.
Finally – selling their ‘expertise to the highest bidder. Recent research fully supports this:
Cut-throat academia leads to ‘natural selection of bad science’, claims study The destructiveness of competition is leading to ‘bad science’ in which we are fed quirks not accurate data and conclusions.
Corporate lobbyists regularly pay very high fees for ‘experts’ to persuade a specific group to agree or purchase something they would not have done otherwise. The same goes for those called in to courtrooms to give evidence. We no longer know whether they are there to enlighten us or bamboozle. In some cases it can be a difference between life and death.
In conclusion experts can be life savers or life takers. They can be genuine or frauds. They can be altruistic or greedy and driven by darker motivations. Who knows? However, if we become more democratic and less dependent it might not matter so much.
Douglas James
A great debate. Stick with it as the first audience contribution will or should blow your mind.
