Do read the whole thing.As legal philosopher Joseph Raz writes in Authority (1990), the "authority of the expert can be called theoretical authority, for it is an authority about what to believe". Raz observes that unlike political authority, which "provides reason for action", theoretical authority "provides reason for belief". However, while it is valid to draw a conceptual distinction between these two forms of authority, historical experience suggests that expertise becomes politicised easily. With the passing of time the distinction between these two forms of authority becomes blurred. Moreover the fragility of political authority encourages a process whereby politicians outsource their power to experts.
A case in point, from the New Scientist: "Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter." I like the headline: "World's climate could cool first, warm later." Or maybe stay cool for longer than expected. Or ...
And, while we're at it: Fresh blow to organic as study says organic farms bad for songbirds. (Via An Englishman's Castle.)
Then, of course, there are financial models: Here is Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Report on The Risks of Financial Modeling, VaR and the Economic Breakdown. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
I'm wondering if your understandable skepticism about experts have more to do with the generalist vs. the specialist, rather than an intuitive anti-authoritarian impulse. The generalist -- meaning someone who is curious in any number of disparate subjects -- has recently fallen upon hard times. Maybe there's some halfway point between the two that we might all find acceptable?
ReplyDeleteHi Ed,
ReplyDeleteMy skepticism regarding experts derives from the fact that an appeal to authority is simply a weak argument. George Washington died precisely because of his expert physicians (who bled him). Ignaz Semmelweiss was right about the cause of puerperal fever and ended his days in a madhouse at least in part because the consensus in his field was against him. Sure, your doctor knows more about medicine than you do and you ought to take his advice seriously. But there's a good reason for seeking second opinions. Also, while your doctor is a scientist, that doesn't mean he is an expert on science in general. He likely knows no more about quantum physics than you do. Most of the scientists who add to the "consensus" regarding climate, for instance, have no expertise regarding climate. I actually think the generalist, who may in fact be acquainted with a wide range of expert opinions, may in some cases be a safer judge, at least in reminding people that a lot of things ain't necessarily so. Just think, though, if you had asked in, say, 1880, the leading literary critics and scholars in the U.S. who the two greatest American poets of the day were, how many would have said Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson?
Frank:
ReplyDeleteI agree in part with your general sentiments about expertise. I'm not necessarily against specialists. But I am against our continued reliance on nothing BUT specialists, which has become an increasing truth in our information age (and particularly as sciences and knowledge have become more specialized). Even courts have this idea right, juxtaposing evidence with expert witness testimony for a jury to have (ideally) a more complete portrait before they scurry into a room.
You're right to point to the hypocritical tendency of specialists to speak like generalists, while simultaneously deriding non-specialists from offering generalist statements. (While we differ on religion, I do think Richard Dawkins, one of your frequent punching bags, offers more constructive thoughts when he deals with evolutionary biology.)
Don't get me started on generalist charlatans of the Malcolm Gladwell/Chris Anderson/Gerald Celente variety -- the kind of technofascist hucksters who speak in Erhardesque marketing terms and collect bountiful speaking fees to communicate information to people that they could easily look up on their own. Not unlike many New Age movements or self-help books.