"Blaming experts for being wrong is like complaining that the economy is not yellow." Yes, but when the expert is advancing an argument, that argument - like any argument - is subject to the rules of logic and must be examined accordingly. Watch any TV news show and you can usually see an argument being presented as sound, not because it has withstood any logical scrutiny, but simply because some expert has advanced it.
Another factor is the media decision on what an "expert" is. In my area of knowledge - nuclear power - most of the "experts" used by the media are either academics, anti-nuclear campaigners or industry spokesman. Few of these have spent any time actually "doing" nuclear power. (Some spokesman have, but they are constrained on their talking points.) Yet, as these folks are on TV or in print, it is often assumed they must know in detail what they are talking about. Observing them sometimes feels like watching a group of non-drivers call the Indy 500, or folks without military experience critiquing a battle. There's some value there based on the perspective and knowledge they do have, but the high profile platform given to media "experts" adds a ring of authority and finality that may not always be real. And if that's the case in my field, I wonder how many other topics it also applies too.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing to me that I keep hearing economists after economist talking about the current crisis—as though they could do anything about it, as though they didn't completely miss it (okay, one or two did predict the outcome), as though as a class they could predict anything with accuracy or insight. It's amazing to me that people are still listening to economists. It's amazing to me that we haven't fired them all, at this point.
ReplyDeleteThe system is truly broken, and the insiders don't even know what flavor of kool-aid they're drinking.