I think part of the problem is that people don't know what they're an expert in.
Imagine a CEO of a car company. Does know a lot about manufacturing cars? Maybe. But maybe he's just an expert in politicking is way to the top of an organization.
Or your example about education professors. Maybe they know a lot about education (sign point to "no"). But maybe they're an expert in saying the right things to get their papers cited by their peers
Just finished David Wooton's "The Invention of Science" which spends a bit talking about how, prior to the 16th century, there wasn't really even the concept of "fact" the way we think of it now in the context of science. Expert and authority were one and the same. He spends a bit too much time defending science from Wittgenstein (all points of view are social constructs and equally valid, including scientific facts, etc.) and the book is overall too long. But the first few chapters are great, recommended.
People were both surprised and annoyed at me back in the 90's when I was skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. As a scientist/chemist I was supposed to be "on board" from day one. But I found the literature at the time poorly presented, and couldn't seem to find the facts, other than "well, the atmospheric experts say it's so, so we should believe them!" I can recognize an accelerating bandwagon when I see one. But skepticism only means I'm not yet convinced, and would like to review the data. That bandwagon turned out to be true (that happens!) but that doesn't excuse the multitudes who made their decisions pro or con without having any idea about what the experts were talking about.
Enjoyed this very much. Do you happen to have noticed that intellectual humility also seems to decrease anger and contempt for those who believe things that you don't? I know that's a leading question, but it certainly had that effect on me. It seems to improve one's overall well-being.
A smart column--The NY Times just had a front-page story on how drinking any amount of alcohol is bad because it increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. I pulled up the studies they referred to, which did not prove that. The studies showed that excessive alcohol use increases the risk for a myriad of health problems. This was a front-page story that was essentially fearmongering. It bothers me because overhyping results to make dramatic claims leads people to doubt "expert" opinion about health care, which we saw too much of during Covid. That kind of fear mongering also makes people feel bad. I care about this particular issue because when I hear arguments about the dangers of drinking any alcohol at all I worry that I gave myself breast cancer by having wine with dinner a few nights every week. I know that's nonsense, and yet. Health education by press release or articles in major newspapers is not good health care.
On a lighter note, I had to laugh at your description of The NY Times recipe columns and the responses to them. People seem to glory in saying how they changed the recipes to make them better. I find the impulse to do that odd, but I guess it's harmless, and it can be fun to read others' recipe ingenuity.
What I find remarkable, among my university colleagues, is a lack of skepticism coupled with a reflexive fealty to the argument from authority. As a recovering Catholic, this looks to me a whole lot like faith. The church decrees that certain things are true, therefore they are true. And it's simply inappropriate and bothersome for anyone to raise questions. In the olden days, it would be very dangerous to raise questions.
They would say it's about "trusting the science", but they're not "doing" science, which would necessarily involve skepticism especially when considering something extremely complex that has enormous political dimensions, such as theories of anthropogenic climate change effects.
What must be happening is that they work backwards from political policies or solutions that they prefer. You start from how you want things to be, and then seek ways to justify the actions necessary to achieve that. I think that's pretty much exactly how religion works.
It's true that I have been a sort of habitual contrarian and skeptic since about 5th grade, but I'm surprised that there aren't more people like me in academia.
Hi Mari, kudos to you for yet another brillant and very informative Happy Wanderer. I don't know if you would put academics in the same category as "experts", but I have a big beef with people who write books, hold talks (or both) or just people I worked with in new jobs and are incapable of formulating what they do, or else what their thoughts or theories are in a few simple, understandable sentences that laics might also understand. I have posed this "academics test" a few times and so many people sadly fail, thus proving-at least to me-to me that they don't really know what they are talking about.
A feedback about education in the US: a high school math teacher I know recently shared that at her school, they tested the math skills and that some kids had only 4th or 5th grade level skills (!!!) I would also advocate music as one of the subjects that should be mandatory, aside from the hands-on things. It is downright tragic to see young people nowasays who can't do anything unless they have a button to push.... and they don't even know how to think of or come up with any alternatives.
I think part of the problem is that people don't know what they're an expert in.
Imagine a CEO of a car company. Does know a lot about manufacturing cars? Maybe. But maybe he's just an expert in politicking is way to the top of an organization.
Or your example about education professors. Maybe they know a lot about education (sign point to "no"). But maybe they're an expert in saying the right things to get their papers cited by their peers
Socrates is the hero here, of course!
Just finished David Wooton's "The Invention of Science" which spends a bit talking about how, prior to the 16th century, there wasn't really even the concept of "fact" the way we think of it now in the context of science. Expert and authority were one and the same. He spends a bit too much time defending science from Wittgenstein (all points of view are social constructs and equally valid, including scientific facts, etc.) and the book is overall too long. But the first few chapters are great, recommended.
People were both surprised and annoyed at me back in the 90's when I was skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. As a scientist/chemist I was supposed to be "on board" from day one. But I found the literature at the time poorly presented, and couldn't seem to find the facts, other than "well, the atmospheric experts say it's so, so we should believe them!" I can recognize an accelerating bandwagon when I see one. But skepticism only means I'm not yet convinced, and would like to review the data. That bandwagon turned out to be true (that happens!) but that doesn't excuse the multitudes who made their decisions pro or con without having any idea about what the experts were talking about.
Enjoyed this very much. Do you happen to have noticed that intellectual humility also seems to decrease anger and contempt for those who believe things that you don't? I know that's a leading question, but it certainly had that effect on me. It seems to improve one's overall well-being.
A smart column--The NY Times just had a front-page story on how drinking any amount of alcohol is bad because it increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. I pulled up the studies they referred to, which did not prove that. The studies showed that excessive alcohol use increases the risk for a myriad of health problems. This was a front-page story that was essentially fearmongering. It bothers me because overhyping results to make dramatic claims leads people to doubt "expert" opinion about health care, which we saw too much of during Covid. That kind of fear mongering also makes people feel bad. I care about this particular issue because when I hear arguments about the dangers of drinking any alcohol at all I worry that I gave myself breast cancer by having wine with dinner a few nights every week. I know that's nonsense, and yet. Health education by press release or articles in major newspapers is not good health care.
On a lighter note, I had to laugh at your description of The NY Times recipe columns and the responses to them. People seem to glory in saying how they changed the recipes to make them better. I find the impulse to do that odd, but I guess it's harmless, and it can be fun to read others' recipe ingenuity.
The bit about recipes is so true!!!
What I find remarkable, among my university colleagues, is a lack of skepticism coupled with a reflexive fealty to the argument from authority. As a recovering Catholic, this looks to me a whole lot like faith. The church decrees that certain things are true, therefore they are true. And it's simply inappropriate and bothersome for anyone to raise questions. In the olden days, it would be very dangerous to raise questions.
They would say it's about "trusting the science", but they're not "doing" science, which would necessarily involve skepticism especially when considering something extremely complex that has enormous political dimensions, such as theories of anthropogenic climate change effects.
What must be happening is that they work backwards from political policies or solutions that they prefer. You start from how you want things to be, and then seek ways to justify the actions necessary to achieve that. I think that's pretty much exactly how religion works.
It's true that I have been a sort of habitual contrarian and skeptic since about 5th grade, but I'm surprised that there aren't more people like me in academia.
Hi Mari, kudos to you for yet another brillant and very informative Happy Wanderer. I don't know if you would put academics in the same category as "experts", but I have a big beef with people who write books, hold talks (or both) or just people I worked with in new jobs and are incapable of formulating what they do, or else what their thoughts or theories are in a few simple, understandable sentences that laics might also understand. I have posed this "academics test" a few times and so many people sadly fail, thus proving-at least to me-to me that they don't really know what they are talking about.
A feedback about education in the US: a high school math teacher I know recently shared that at her school, they tested the math skills and that some kids had only 4th or 5th grade level skills (!!!) I would also advocate music as one of the subjects that should be mandatory, aside from the hands-on things. It is downright tragic to see young people nowasays who can't do anything unless they have a button to push.... and they don't even know how to think of or come up with any alternatives.