For the last decade or so, there's been a huge, sustained war on expertise, and an effort to undermine the public's trust of experts. Quoting an expert isn't enough for people, anymore. Everyone's skeptical unless you point them to actual research papers, and even then, some people would rather stick to their pre-existing world views and dO tHeIr OwN rEsEaRcH.
Not defending this particular expert or even commenting on whether he is an expert, but as it stands, we have a quote from some company official vs. randos on the internet saying "nah-uh".
> Everyone's skeptical unless you point them to actual research papers, and even then, some people would rather stick to their pre-existing world views and dO tHeIr OwN rEsEaRcH.
I think saying things like "dO tHeIr OwN rEsEaRcH" contributes more to this deep distrust, because "do your own research" means different things to different people. To some people it means "read the same story from multiple sources rather than blindly trusting <whatever>" (which I think is good advice, especially nowadays), while to others it might mean "don't trust anything that anybody says, regardless of their qualifications" (which is bad advice). At a minimum, I think you should clarify what your actual position is, because the mocking way you've phrased it to me heavily implies that your position is the opposite, or "don't do your own research, just trust the experts." Don't forget that for most of history the "experts" were religious leaders. Where would we be today if nobody ever questioned that?
To be clear, when I mock "do your own research," I'm specifically mocking 1. the people who go out there cherrypicking only information that confirms their own preexisting views and 2. those who simply default to being contrarian for the sake of contrariness. Naysayers for the pure sake of naysaying. Both mentalities, I believe, are rooted in a belief that everyone is against you and a desire to be one of the few who Know The Truth That Experts Are Hiding From Us.
What gets more views/attention? Someone saying, "Yea, the consensus opinion makes general sense, although reasonable people can disagree about some details." or someone saying, "Scientists are trying to keep this knowledge away from us, but I know the truth. Keep watching to find out and join our club!"
I'm not asking people to blindly trust experts, but to stop blindly opposing them.
Appreciate the clarification! I think we're in complete agreement then
> there's been a huge, sustained war on expertise, and an effort to undermine the public's trust of experts.
I find your verbiage particularly hilarious considering the amount of media and expert complicity that went into manufacturing the public support for the war on terror.
The media has always been various shades of questionable. It just wasn't possible for the naysayers to get much traction before due to the information and media landscape and how content was disseminated. Now, for better or worse, they laymen can read the bible for themselves, metaphorically speaking.
Fifty four percent of Americans read below the sixth grade level.
They shouldn't be reading anything for themselves and should be trusting the experts, even if those experts are sometimes wrong they will be more accurate than the average American.
Teaching someone to think for themselves, without first teaching them how to think is an invitation to disaster.
You gonna complain that they drink light beer and eat junk food while you're at it?
Only showboating "english language for the sake of it" type use cases need much beyond middle school reading level. News and the like aren't that because they need to reach a mass market. Professional communication needs to reach the ESL crowd and be unambiguous it too isn't that. Even legal literature is very simple. Professional and legal communication just have tons of pointers going all over the place and a high reading level won't help you with that.
People who lack literacy are not just bad readers, they are bad thinkers.
It is fine to be simple, and to live a simple life. That does not mean that your ignorance is as good as an experts knowledge.
Worse, teaching people to think for themselves without first teaching them how to think does not just halt progress, it put's it into full retreat.
Exactly--it's not English language snobbery. It's just that the median person out there is simply not capable of doing a satisfactory depth of research to reach a conclusion about most topics. This is exactly why we have experts who dedicate their lives to understanding niche and complex topics. I consider myself a smart guy, and I know I don't have the time or knowledge to sufficiently research the vast majority of topics.
I agree with you 100%. Most people do not have the time or knowledge to become experts in all the fields they hold opinions in.
However, I actually AM being a bit of a snob as well. I'm proposing the deeply unpopular idea that not every person even has the capability to. It seems to have become a little-known fact that fifty percent of people are of below the median intelligence.
A lot of people are reluctant to admit that to themselves. They shouldn't be... It's an enormous relief when you finally realize that you don't have to have an opinion on everything.
You make it sound like the newspapers/companies are un-culpable for that effect. I believe it to be the case because I've seen cases were a newspaper presents a narrative as fact when those involved know very well it's just someone's spin for their own benefit. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect>.
It's been a failure from both sides, attack on expertise and education from regressive elements, media abusing 'experts say' to produce all sorts of clickbait, experts choosing political/PR/convenience over honesty/sincerity and people who are not experts claiming to be experts (the situation here, or where they ask a 'smart guy' like a pop-physicist to talk about something they aren't actually an expert in)
I mean, you are effectively defending this particular expert, with your insinuation that the public should be more trusting of people framed as experts like this. As someone moderately knowledgeable in this area and moderately skeptical of CrowdStrike, the claim a priori seems far fetched to me. You can't say there's a war on expertise and then turn around and say "whether or not the person portrayed by this WaPo article as an expert is an expert or is correct...".
The problem with expertise is anyone can be an expert. I would challenge the integrity of anyone claiming any field has precisely zero idiots.