If you must trust the experts...
I came across a quote from Alexander Pope recently: "A little learning is a dangerous thing.”
I think this danger is particularly relevant these days. On the one hand, we have more knowledge available to us to access easily than ever before and that’s a wonderful thing, but I do fear that it can also give the illusion that we are more expert at knowing things than we really are. There’s a reason why some things take years and years to master. Not everything, but some things. The rest of Pope’s poetic passage continues:
“Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
As well-read and as curious as we may be, there are some topics that we'll never be knowledgeable enough to fully grasp unless we dedicate our entire lives to their study. Some people do. Indeed, some people might choose to spend their days monitoring a single sub-species, a bacteria, or even an atom. That’s not most of us.
That's why, from time to time, we should go to experts.
I know, I know. “Trust the experts” is a phrase that has been riddled with ridicule and skepticism these days, but just because there are issues there, doesn’t mean that we should override the knowledge and wisdom base that has been cultivated by our society in favor of just Dr. Google and our own self-sufficiency.
Of course, not all experts are alike. Gibson’s Law states: "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." So how do we know who to trust? Here are some of the things that I look at:
First of all, there should never just be ONE authoritative voice. Find several, and see where they agree and disagree with each other.
What are their educational backgrounds? Real world experiences? Reputations?
How free are they to speak? Do they have institutional or financial ties that might limit them from being able to speak freely and openly?
Do they have any agendas or something that they might be wanting to promote (eg. product)?
How flexible are they with their views when presented with new evidence? I don't tend to trust anyone that's too dogmatic.
What is their track record of being correct? Even more importantly, when they've made errors, how did they react? Did they try to cling to their positions and play defense, or did they voluntary concede that they've made errors and quickly corrected them?
Google Scholar is a good resource for checking on papers that they may have published. How often are they cited by others? What's the quality of the publications? Do the subjects that are covered in their publications match the claims of their expertise?
How recent is their experience? They might have an incredible background and past achievements, but are not up-to-date with all the latest changes because they haven’t kept up with new innovation and developments.
Pay attention to how they conduct themselves when making arguments. Are they rational? Are they specific and factual? Do make appeals to emotion and make vague claims? Do they switch subjects quickly when asked difficult questions?
Assess whether their statements are consistent or if they frequently pivot. Do they admit when they don't know something? Do they continue to speak as an expert on things that fall outside of their domain of expertise?
Ultimately, there's no such thing as a "perfect" expert, but these are some of the parameters that I look for in figuring out whose opinion I find particularly valuable.
What are your tips for evaluating who’s a trustworthy expert? Or do you believe that there’s no such thing? Leave a comment below.
NOTICE TO READERS: Thank you for keeping me company. Although I try to make many posts public and available for free access, to ensure sustainability and future growth—if you can—please consider becoming a paid subscriber. In addition to supporting my work, it will also give you access to an archive of member-only posts. And if you’re already a paid subscriber, THANK YOU. Please also share, like, and comment. Got ideas for future posts? Email me.
☕️ Want to support my work by buying me a coffee? Here’s how.
Enjoy FREE Premium Membership for a Week! Sign up.
Who am I? I’m a writer with an overactive imagination and a random mind. Outside of Substack, you’ll find my work in publications such as Newsweek, WIRED, Variety, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Esquire, Playboy, Mashable, CNN Travel, The Independent, and many others.
How can you trust anything or anyone, when we no longer know how to trust? What is truth and how can we know who/what to trust?
I’ve asked this question many times across platforms, and have yet to see anything substantial come from it, including this article (love your work).
It’s not that you, me or others get it wrong, it’s that the concept of trust, comes from the truth. Truth is meant to be an absolute (proven, vetted, tested and confirmed without a doubt). Yet, 100% transparent and flexible, in the event, if and when, a new truth becomes available.
Certain truths won’t change, ie the laws of the universe and many concepts proven, vetted, and confirmed by science especially in the field of physics. But some truths, naturally will, as we learn, grow, test and experiment.
I remember sitting in an economics tutorial in Uni, we had a replacement lecturer in for the sesh, and one of the questions he asked was, “what is the only truth we have in the universe?”, or something along those lines. We grappled with it for over an hour. In the end, debating the answers and left even more confused, he suggested that the only truth- is the past.
That has always stuck with me. Does it help us move forward and answer the lingering question as we navigate this era of (mis)information becoming a weapon of control, all the lies and deceits, gaslighting et al.? Fuck no.
The COVID debacle, debunks pretty much all the points above as well as what we’d expect to be truth from the trusted sources, or those most qualified to speak the truth.
The world trusted blindly, only to find out later, we’ve been lied to and there is now evidence of deliberate deceit and misleading having taken place.
Spice that up further with how deep it went into the “trusted” establishment, whom were the experts and meant to have our best interests at heart. Not even talking about the US, try New Zealand where I am from and we can then see how it snowballs into what it became with everyone singing the same song.
It’s almost as if we experienced a live experimental parody of the movie “Don’t Look Up”. But we don’t see it for what it is, as we didn’t have the entire picture throughout (back to “the only truth is the past”).
The very folk who were shunned and labeled as tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorists, or those who refused et al., ended up pretty much spot on and as purveyors of “real truth”… Now you open up an even bigger head fuck of further information/truth, from said truth-sayers, and back to square one you go- as some of their other theories are, and put quite lightly, just a big no thanks- that’s too far...
We all love the concept of a person who is able to acknowledge when they aren’t sure and be transparent with their words, beliefs, and reasonings. It naturally promotes trust. Even better when they are able to say they got it wrong in hindsight.
But it’s not the case and “truth” proved to be deceit, deceit-betrayal, and real truth so far fetched from reality, we can no longer stick to the formula or trusting we were taught to, when we were young.
I believe this topic deserves far greater respect, research, insight and real debate in order to do justice to the word trust, let alone truth.
Thoughts?
I think we also have to consider the context too.
In my field (physics) you'd get pretty near unanimity when discussing things like Newton's Laws. You get far less unanimity when discussing, say, interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Physics, in some sense, is actually 'easy'. There are relatively few fundamental laws - although working out the *consequences* of those laws can be very difficult and fraught with error. I don't think this 'safe' and well-established foundation carries over (fully) into other fields, such as medicine. The human body, and its biochemistry, is horrifically complex. I wouldn't *expect* anything like the same degree of unanimity and certainty - just on principle. And we've all seen many examples where medical 'experts' have got things disastrously wrong.
I think when someone has spent years gaining expertise in some field, they should certainly be *listened to*. But simply 'trusted'? No - not even in physics.