Last weekend I went to Atlanta for a debate tournament. I didn't grab any reading for the plane (my mistake), but I was able to steal a peak at a book one of my Freshman friends had on him, Passionate Declarations by Howard Zinn.
He was eager to share one particular passage:
'There is in orthodox thinking a great dependence on experts. Because modern technological society has produced a breed of experts who understand technical matters that bewilder the rest of us, we think that in matters of social conflict, which require moral judgments, we must also turn to experts.
There are two false assumptions about experts. One is that they see more clearly and think more intelligently than ordinary citizens. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. The other assumption is that there experts have the same interests as ordinary citizens, want the same things, hold the same values, and, therefore can be trusted to make decisions for all of us.'
I continued to read the next couple pages (5-7), which are highly relevant, but I omitted them for brevity's sake. Instead, I wanted to challenge my readers to come up with their own reasons why this reliance is bad/unnecessary.
However, to help inspire you, I'll reference another source Zinn mentions:
'In John Le Carre’s novel The Russia House, a dissident Russian scientist is assured that his secret document has been entrusted “to the authorities. People of discretion. Experts.” He becomes angry:
I do not like experts. They are our jailers. I despise experts more than anyone on earth…. They solve nothing! They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us…. When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats.'
What's persuasive to me here is not that experts are bad, but the over reliance on them is. Experts may try to advance their own agenda, whether they realize it or not. Their own agenda may not be "technical", but rather, it may be influenced by money or personal opinion. Zinn calls it the end of democracy, since it shifts decisions away from the public. A democratic society is one that has society make decisions, not an elite group of "experts."
Now, your turn. :]
I think that the danger does not lie in experts but in a small group of similarity minded experts. In most fields today you can find experts that support every position from each end of the spectrum. It is dangerous when the general public rely on the experts to an extent that they cannot think for themselves and look into the matter themselves. The internet offers a strength of our time in that I or anyone else can learn independently and consume information and opinions of many different people - and then make my own decisions. Or, if I sill need experts to help me, which I think will probably always be necessary, I can reference multiple experts and what other consumers like me have to say about these experts. Being proactive is the key. That's my two cents. Nice Post Alyssa!
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response! I typed up my comment a few days ago only to have it get deleted...
ReplyDeleteTake two.
I largely agree with you; however, do you think there are exceptions/circumstances where less variance is a good thing? When I think of the global warming debate, everyone(as in all people) need to be involved to make a significant impact. Scientific consensus is on the side that warming is 1) real, 2) anthropogenic. At the same time, a majority of Americans think it's a myth. More complicated statistics talking about alternative causalities (such as solar spots, methane burps, etc) could provide justifications for people who are lazy and don't want to change their consumption. Should the media "one-sidedly" cover the "warming real" debate? The people who want all sides should be able to find it easily enough through research; just how many people are actually concerned about issues unless media forces their hand?
Alyssa, great post! I agree that we sometimes put too much stock in experts-- scientific data can have an agenda-- and think Whimsy's comment was dead-on. The problem is when we cease to look at multiple sources (including independent ones) critically and apply our own experiences and common sense. I know a globally-renowned doctor who was asked to do some research for an organization (I'm keeping him unnamed for privacy), but when he didn't find the results the organization was looking for, he was told not only to not publish his findings but that if he told anyone it would destroy him. Shortly after that, another study was published in support of the organization. Now, I'm not saying that this happens all the time-- I believe in science and that people truly want to disseminate accurate information-- but hearing this story definitely made me take "expert" advice with a grain of salt. Finally, on a side note: so you're aware, your claim that the majority of Americans believe global warming is inaccurate is actually false (see this article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx). The majority actually believe it's real, and according to a 2009 Gallup poll, only 41% believe it is exaggerated. Overall, great post. You got me thinking.-- Kate H
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing that to my attention. What is still alarming is no that the majority of Americans believe warming isn't real, but the number that believe it isn't an issue for them. Here are portions from your article that more accurately represent what I meant (but unfortunately, did not convey clearly)
ReplyDelete"The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly."
"the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes."
"Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not."
This quote also plays into hypothetical -
"The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997."