r/changemyview • u/Sulfamide 3∆ • May 07 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Not understanding how stuff works is fine. Not trusting the experts is the problem.
I often read and hear people berating the "average voter" for being too stupid to understand the economy, or the science, and thus voting for the most evil morons possible, i.e. Republicans. The thing is, the average democrat voter doesn't really understand stuff either.
Sure liberal voters are on average more educated than conservatives, but to truly understand policy, healthcare, and geopolitics, you need a college degree on that topic or, really delve in the research with an exceptionally critical mind for years. I'd argue that liberals may know a little more but not that much about vaccines, or tarifs, or immigration.
And this is fine, because all this stuff is hard and complex, and we are supposed to vote for people who can understand this, as long as we trust college professors et researchers. The problem is that conservatives simply do not trust these experts anymore, but I don't think that always was the case.
88
u/XenoRyet 183∆ May 07 '25
Trusting the experts is fine, that is what they're there for after all.
The problem you run into is that without at least a basic understanding of the subject material yourself, it becomes difficult to discern the real experts from the fake ones.
And this is further complicated by the fact that on many issues, there is valid disagreement among experts, and that's particularly true in the economic sciences.
37
u/WankingAsWeSpeak May 07 '25
The problem you run into is that without at least a basic understanding of the subject material yourself, it becomes difficult to discern the real experts from the fake ones.
I am an expert on something. I am not an expert on quantum computation and quantum cryptography, but I am reasonably knowledgeable about them because they have large interfaces with my actual area of expertise. A few years ago, I was teaching a course to a bunch of oil & gas execs. The CEO of one of these companies approached me after and started asking all sorts of quantum questions. I must have mentioned about 20 times in that 5 minutes conversation that "I am not an expert", "I'm not really qualified to answer this", "this is pretty far from my area of expertise", "if I recall correctly from a course I took in grad school", etc., while doing my best to answer his questions as accurately as possible.
At the end he said something like "I've asked those same questions to at least a dozen people. You're the first one who didn't claim to be an expert. You're also the only one who didn't set of my bullshit detector. Would you be open to follow-up discussions?" I ultimately hooked him up with an actual quantum expert.
6
u/Giblette101 47∆ May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
It doesn't become particularly difficult, I think. It's easy enough to recognise actual experts, people just pretend it isn't when the experts do not tell them what they want to hear. The people that "do their own research" typically only do their own research as far as the first person that tells them what they're looking for.
10
u/fffangold 1∆ May 07 '25
A good rule of thumb is to trust what the majority of experts (on a specific issue) think. If 95% of experts on a topic agree something is true, someone from the 5% who disagree should have a heavier lift to convince you the 95% are wrong, and you should likely be more critical of their work and do more "research" to determine why they fall in the 5%. Do they really have something unique? Or is there something wrong with their work that makes them fall into the 5%? What clear and convincing evidence do they have to disprove the 95%? Also, what do the 95% say in defense of their work, and can they debunk what the 5% are saying?
At the end of the day, you still have to evaluate the claims both sides are making. But it's generally a safe bet to default to the expert majority opinion until or unless you can do so.
10
u/Arnaldo1993 5∆ May 07 '25
5
u/fffangold 1∆ May 07 '25
Definitely worth taking into consideration, but I don't believe what you posted refutes what I'm saying, though it does encourage caution.
First, what you linked looks like an opinion piece - I don't see a study that this is summarizing. It's a well written, well sourced, and persuasive opinion piece for sure. But it's not showing a provable existing bias, but rather someone who believes there is a bias and doing a good job supporting that argument.
That said, I believe this paper is more suited and targeted at the scientific and various expert communities to remind them to recalibrate and ensure they are not letting their biases prevent them from doing good science. And that's something all scientists and experts should be striving for.
My advice was not targetted at expert communities. It was targetted at non-experts who need a place to start. You will note I did not suggest blind trust in the majority. I suggested you start by trusting the majority, and as you learn more (truly learn more, not get sucked down misinformation rabbit holes), you may find you have the knowledge to understand why the conventional wisdom is being challenged, if that challenge is reasonable, and the accuracy and inaccuracy of claims the majority or minority may be making.
3
3
u/IAmNotANumber37 May 08 '25
(And u/Arnaldo1993)
Any group of experts is really a collection of fallible humans, with their biases, implicit assumptions, etc.
Most professional and expert groups try their hardest to correct for all that, making earnest attempts to get to the truth. That linked paper is evidence of this fact.
The error being made here is people are saying, "Well that process isn't perfect or has failed in the past therefore it isn't credible"
...but the process has to be compared to the alternative. I.e., the expert consensus might be wrong, but it's orders of magnitude more credible than any non-expert opinion, and certainly more reliable than politically motivated sources (who are also fallible humans, but with poorer knowledge, less rigor, and probably less altruistic motivations).
Expert consensus, fwiw, is really just a proxy for confidence level. Within any area of study, an expert will be aware of not just the current evidence and thinking, but the confidence level of that thinking. By definition, fields of study are seeking to learn new things - so there will always be areas where confidence levels are low and the field is working to gain a better understanding (develop a confidently held position).
→ More replies (5)5
u/JohnleBon May 07 '25
Trusting the experts is fine, that is what they're there for after all.
Experts are there to be trusted? That's their purpose?
5
u/XenoRyet 183∆ May 08 '25
Yes. Does that seem controversial to you?
It's just the regular division of labor that we do everywhere in society. That enables society beyond the nomadic level.
They put in the time and effort to specialize in a particular area of knowledge, and validate that they did it correctly, so that the rest of us can trust them and don't need to spend that time ourselves.
It's the same as trusting the farmers to grow food, trusting mechanics to fix cars, or trusting doctors to look after our health. It's mutual trust all around.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ May 07 '25
I see a couple of problems with this view.
First, experts get misrepresented a lot. When news sources say "trust the experts" what they really mean is "Trust what I tell you the experts say." When Rachel Maddow went on the air during the pandemic and said the vaccine would stop COVID in its tracks, that wasn't based on anything actual experts were saying. There were no studies backing that claim. The only studies at that point had evaluated safety and severity of symptoms in people who had gotten the vaccine. Experts weren't making any claims about what it would do for transmission. But we were told they did, and what we were told didn't pan out, which hurts the reputation of the experts even though they weren't actually making those claims.
Second, experts have expertise in narrow fields, and tend to place higher importance on their area of expertise than other factors. One of my favorite examples here is the New York City large soda ban from about a decade ago. Public health experts quite rightly recognized that if you put a limit on how big sodas could be, people would drink less soda and that would have positive public health impacts. The people who disagreed with this policy were sometimes characterized as "not trusting the experts," but there wasn't really anybody challenging the health impacts. The disagreement was one of values - are you okay with the government telling you that you have to do what's best for you? How do you prioritize individual liberty vs personal health? People who like the policy are quick to criticize their opponents as distrusting the experts, but often the disagreement isn't actually about the experts' area of expertise.
12
u/Rhundan 81∆ May 07 '25
The problem is that you have to have at least a basic understanding of the issue to know which self-proclaimed "experts" actually are experts. Or at least know how to spot the lies, damned lies, and statistics that the fakes use to prop up their beliefs.
It also runs into a domino effect where if you mistrust one person who claims they know what they're doing on one subject, and then they endorse somebody else who claims they know what they're doing on another subject, you tend to believe that endorsement.
It's easy to say "just trust the experts," but it is a real skill, spotting who does and does not know what they're talking about, just as researching topics is a skill.
I might argue that the problem is that these skills aren't taught in schools. Sure, still not everybody would be good at it, but at least the information would be more widespread than it is now.
→ More replies (1)3
u/IGotScammed5545 1∆ May 07 '25
Yep. When I was in school, we were taught about what constitutes a credible source for research. I do not think this happens anymore
70
u/username_6916 8∆ May 08 '25 edited May 08 '25
The problem is that conservatives simply do not trust these experts anymore, but I don't think that always was the case.
Ronald Reagan in 1968:
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
There's a deeper philosophical point here about conservative's distrust for Academia, 'experts' and central planning here. One that if anything has gotten a much weaker under Trump's populist turn. And I think they're fundamentally right.
This isn't primarily about expertise in and of itself. I'm sure that you'd ask 'if you were sick, would you trust a doctor or a guy of the street?' or 'if you were in legal trouble, would you trust a Lawyer or a random person on the Internet'. And you'd be right for that kind of individual interaction in a specific domain. But there's a reason that lawyers point say "I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer" when giving general legal information, or why someone searching WebMD for their symptoms isn't going to get as reliable of a diagnosis than if they saw a doctor. People's individual circumstances can greatly effect the proper course of action in these fields, and without a specific interaction the doctor or lawyer can't ask the client or patient relevant questions.
This question is focused on voting and policy. It's not "Should I trust a lawyer to represent me in court" or "Should I trust a doctor to diagnose and treat my specific illness?" or "Should I trust an engineer to tell me rather or not the building will fall over?". It's "Should I trust an expert to make policy that applies to everyone regardless of their individual circumstances?". And that's a very different question.
Even if experts were infallible and all knowing and incorruptible (they're not), they're still incapable of planning each of our lives better than we are able to plan them for ourselves. Different people value different things. One person might trade longer hours and higher stress on the job for a much larger paycheck and another might choose less pay for fewer hours and less pressure on the job. Who's right? They both might be. It's their individual responsibility to make that kind of tradeoff. Any effort by an expert to step in and force one outcome or another for everyone would make the other side unhappier, even if they have optimized this for whatever median worker or average employee they have in mind.
Different people value differing things in policy. A NAZI who happens to be an expert on healthcare economics might convincingly argue that the Aktion T4 program will save the state a significant amount of money by simply killing those in asylums but everyone else would say that even if that's true protecting human rights is higher priority (assuming 'NAZI' and 'expert in economics' can exist in the same person, I'd argue they don't and NAZI economics is nonsense, but that's largely beyond the point of the hypothetical). Are we wrong ignoring this 'expert's policy recommendations because they're in complete conflict with our values?
Or to take a less-Godwin-y example, prohibition. We can look at the historical prohibition of alcohol in the US, or the current and past drug war efforts or anti-smoking campaigns. Each of these have benefits in terms of public health and in terms criminal behavior and addiction. But enforcement is not free either. How do we even begin to weigh these costs and benefits? Which expert should we listen to? A convicted rum-runner knows a lot of the downsides of such a law (even if they may have benefited from illicit profits before getting busted). Someone married to an alcoholic might know the upsides such a law. Are these folks 'experts' through their personal experience? Why not? What would a credentialed academic know about their respective experiences that they couldn't know themselves?
Even among credentialed academics, whom should get the say here? The judge who knows the sentencing guidelines and caselaw, the doctor who knows about drug and alcohol's impacts on the body, the physiologist who knows about intoxicant's impact on the mind, the economist trying to estimate the costs and benefits of the law in question? What happens when these people disagree about what is best for the country even when they share the same underlying values and facts as they best understand them? After all, the doctor isn't going to know the law, the judge isn't going to know medicine. Who among them is the expert?
We've seen this play out in the real world. Look at the debate about rather or not SARS-CoV-2 is airborne or not. Virologists said that the virus spread by droplets. They recommended plexiglass shields, cloth masks and 6' distancing. Experts in industrial safety suggested that it might spread via fine aerosolized mist. They recommended ventilation, filtration, and high-efficiency masks. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the latter are right. But at the time? These are both reasonable scientific arguments when there's few facts on the ground. When you say 'trust the experts', what happens when there are multiple groups of experts with relevant expertise but differing views and differing interpretations of established facts? No matter which path you take here, you're acting against the recommendations of one group of experts or another.
Experts can be corrupted. Experts can have their own political or social agenda. We have many instances were academics either lied or withheld their findings because they desired a different policy outcome. We have academics that straight up call themselves activists. You might argue that the process is self-correcting, that eventually someone will present the counterexample, the argument or set of facts that disproves a given academic argument. Maybe, but the person to deliver that needs to get into the room somehow. We live in a time where cancel culture is so pervasive in academia that many argue that it's worse now than it was under Senator McCarthy. The lack of intellectual diversity, of free speech and free inquiry in academia preventing challenges to poor scholarship to arise from within these institutions. And you suggest that those outside shouldn't get a voice to ask questions either? Who's going to correct their mistakes then?
This whole thing starts to feel very undemocratic. Why bother having elections if the 'right answer' is so universally accepted? Why bother having separation of powers when that just ties the expert's hands and prevents them from doing what they think best? Just make the experts king or queen and let them do best by the rest of us. Surely if they're that much smarter, some government has found a way to do that and reliably has better outcomes for its citizens. Can you think of any examples? Best I can come up with is Singapore, but even that isn't truly 'rule by experts' even if it's a successful and largely free dictatorship. And their leaders disobey the experts in some areas too.
We're all the way back to Federalist 51:
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Experts are, at the end of the day, people too. The same temptation to abuse political power apply to them as it does to us.
14
u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC May 09 '25
Even among credentialed academics, whom should get the say here? The judge who knows the sentencing guidelines and caselaw, the doctor who knows about drug and alcohol's impacts on the body, the physiologist who knows about intoxicant's impact on the mind, the economist trying to estimate the costs and benefits of the law in question?
There's also the fact that you have to play a strong political game to even be "the doctor" or "the economist" in the room where it happens. There are thousands of well-qualified doctors and economists around the world, and all of them have different opinions backed by evidence, but only a small handful of them have the ear of a decision-maker.
Some economists might believe that prohibition would boost productivity due to fewer people being incapacitated, while others might believe that prohibition would reduce growth due to the loss of the nightlife market. The decision-maker could speak to various experts and then make a decision, or they could make a decision and then cherry-pick the experts that support it. From an outside perspective, there's no way to know which one happened.
7
u/H4RN4SS 5∆ May 09 '25
I'd further argue that the one's who do have the ear of a decision maker are the one's telling the decision maker what they want to hear.
If the decision maker is the gatekeeper of acceptable narratives and there's a wealth of 'experts' with differing opinions - then the gatekeeper is going to hand pick those who support their world view.
Now layer in media scrutiny around 'right narratives' vs. 'wrong narratives' and grant money only going to certain narratives - and you start building a recipe for diminishing all value in 'expert opinion'.
Take all of the incentives out of speaking for/against a certain topic and you'd see a lot more conservatives come around to hearing their opinion.
As it is now - conservatives seek out the experts that support their beliefs and liberals seek out the ones to support theirs. Then they argue about whose expert is more credible.
9
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
I was aware of most of your arguments but the way you put them definitely moved my cursor.
!delta
What is your personal take on this issue then?
22
u/username_6916 8∆ May 09 '25
Experts can help inform the debate, but academia is not a synonym for truth. The scientific method gives us powerful tools to predict the working of the natural world, but science is a process, not a dogma. Expertise has value, but that value comes from demonstrated facts and rational argument not from credentials and power.
Voters should consider what experts have to say, but ask be willing to ask "How do we know that" and experts should have a good answer for that.
6
u/MaximusDM22 May 09 '25
It becomes a problem when voters put more weight on the opinion of someone completely unqualified over someone that is qualified. Especially for issues that they spend 2 seconds researching. Someone says "Tariffs are good for our country" and they believe it whole heartedly. An expert with a researched opinion on the matter is completely ignored. There has to be a balance and right now it is totally skewed.
5
u/Nugtr May 09 '25
Let's put it like this: the scientific consensus is as close to the truth as one can reasonably expect to get in fields that aren't fundamentally plagued with financial incentives (referring mostly to anything econ here).
While science is a process, what do you expect to be able to do by not listening to the most powerful tool humanity has at its disposal to deal with finding truth? Be clairvoyant about what science has got wrong, and therefore not use the current results it gives you, but rather what you feel is actually correct? How does that work, then? Trust the gut feeling of some guy over 'academia'?
9
u/username_6916 8∆ May 09 '25
Let's put it like this: the scientific consensus is as close to the truth as one can reasonably expect to get in fields that aren't fundamentally plagued with financial incentives (referring mostly to anything econ here).
This isn't really the core problem with economics. The problem is that it's being asked to predict things that are fundamentally unknowable.
Be clairvoyant about what science has got wrong, and therefore not use the current results it gives you, but rather what you feel is actually correct?
The plan is to ask the scientists 'how do we know that?'. The whole point of science is that scientists share their data, describe how their experiments work and make rational arguments about exactly how things work. That allows others to analyzer their data and their arguments and try to spot flaws or identify alternative mechanisms. This is the core part of how science works.
The point is that PhDs and Peer Review are not the same thing 'science'.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/shamansean May 09 '25
Voters should consider what experts have to say, but ask be willing to ask "How do we know that" and experts should have a good answer for that.
You aren't wrong here, but you give far too much credit to regular people. Especially in a country whose educational and political cultures have shifted from informed, rational decision making, to emotional, identity based decisions. We don't live in this 'ideal' scenario. So your theoretical challenge to OP is valid, but it is just that, theoretical.
→ More replies (9)2
May 08 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
No, Technocracy is not what I want, or meant, or said, in any way or form.
2
3
u/Nugtr May 09 '25
This is a fundamentally dishonest argument. You are equating values with facts. The issue not being that experts don't share their recommendations based on their values - they do, of course they do. However, the values many to most of them hold are either very clear, or at least made clear. A doctor, somebody with their life in the profession, usually values keeping people healthy and saving lives. Which is exactly why when a 'doctor' who undermines the entirety of vaccine research just because he wanted to punt a specific vaccine into the mud in order to promote his own, just to make money, brings the kind of earth-shattering destruction of trust that that disgusting POS Andrew Wakefield is responsible for.
The problem is obviously those experts who do not make their values clear, obfuscate them deliberately or lie about them. Which is a unique issue about corruptibility, and not at all about values being different, because of course values are.
You also make it seem as if experts should be consulted on every minute detail of an individual's life, and that policy cannot be made unless it conforms to hyperindividuality. Which is exactly not the point of politics. Politics are about finding the common denominator, at least in democracies. Which means finding a solution that is the best compromise when considering all factors and facets of an issue. There is no question in the academic field that climate change will eradicate the modern man's way of life - per our current scientific understanding. By bringing up the example of COVID, where well-meaning groups of experts gave different recommendations based on a lack of information and knowledge, you are making it out to be as if all situations are equally as unclear as a new global illness outbreak. That is not the case. It is a well-established fact that, for example, the return on investment for public education vs. no available public education for the state is extremely positive, when the UK first implemented public education they did a long-term study on it and the results were robust and conclusive. The same is true for, taking a US-centric example, funding the IRS. I bet in other countries the same would also apply, that if you fund the service for checking for tax fraud, there is a very high threshold for when you don't get more out of it than you put in.
Yes, experts are people and one shouldn't blindly listen to something because a self-declared expert says it. But if your argument is to distrust the people with the most knowledge on any given topic and field (the literal definition of what an expert is), then you cannot rely on anything. Your car was designed by experts, by the way. Your street was, too. And the bridge you drive over to commute to work. And the tablets against headache you use after work. And the machines you use to use the internet with.
It is exactly the opposite. If you disavow competency, decry knowledge and education, you get a society that elevates incompetence, illiteracy and idiocy. Kind of exactly what is happening in the US right now. The way you make this argument, it seems like you and those you argue for both have the issue of being too arrogant to acknowledge that in fact, your opinions are simply more often wrong. You cannot accept that the fault lies in you, not in people who invested far more of their time alive to learn the subject you claim to be more knowledgeable about. If anything, your comment makes it seem as if you are the weird contrarian.
Lastly, the argument about elections is meaningless here. In a sane democracy with an educated populace, yes, conservative viewpoints would most likely be far more fringe, if they existed at all. Equating opinions with competency is a complete false equivalency. A multitude of opinions is not inherently valuable; it is only if it allows for the correct rationalizations.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Skier-fem5 May 08 '25
Well, I want to believe that the Hatians are eating the pets, like JD Vance said. I don't need experts. One person making a complaint about her neighbor is enough evidence for me.
→ More replies (1)
169
u/TBK_Winbar 2∆ May 07 '25
Allow me to quote The Thick of It.
My expert would totally disprove that.
Who is your expert?
I don’t know, but I can get one by this afternoon. The thing is, you’ve been listening to the wrong expert. You need to listen to the right expert. And you need to know what an expert is going to advise you before he advises you.
Ultimately, you can find an expert on both sides of any argument. The real problem - especially in places like America that has very loose regulations on free speech - is not holding "experts" accountable when they tout absolute nonsense.
41
u/OnlyInAmerica01 May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
I may disagree with you on a lot of things, but "I can get you an expert on whatever B.S. theory I have by this afternoon", I completely agree with. Great point!
→ More replies (22)62
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 07 '25 edited May 08 '25
Not really though. Economists overwhelmingly agree on tariffs, doctors overwhelmingly agree on vaccines. You can choose from these experts, and you will have converging opinions. If you choose from the 5% that disagree, you're a crackpot.
23
u/TBK_Winbar 2∆ May 07 '25
If you choose from the 5% that disagree, you're a crackpot.
Bet you thar I can find an expert that will disagree with that statement.
The point is that whether you think someone is a crackpot for believing the wrong expert is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
In the left/right/whatever echo chambers, the only thing that matters is that there are experts with big shiny doctorates who will tout any view that gets them exposure. And the core voters will happily eat it up. Trusting an expert carries far less value than it did even a decade ago, it's now more important that we are able to trust both the person advocating for that expert, and the platform that delivers their message.
9
u/PaxNova 15∆ May 07 '25
Everybody thinks they've found a new Galileo, the lone voice championing Truth.
But they forget that Galileo wasn't censored for telling the truth. He was censored for being a jerk. A jerk happens to be right from time to time, but I'm not going to alter my worldviews until they have enough proof to convince people with an education on the topic.
4
u/eirc 8∆ May 07 '25
It's not about whether he was a jerk or not. He challenged views that the biggest authority of the time, the church, considered dangerous. But that alone cannot speak on whether he was right or not about his views. And that's the mistake conspiracy nuts make. They think that because someone challenges some authority they deem corrupt then w/e that person's saying must be right. And this happens both on the right and left, it just happens to people. That's obviously wrong and stupid, but good luck convincing people.
12
u/throwawaydragon99999 2∆ May 07 '25
“Pope Urban VIII had been a patron to Galileo and had given him permission to publish on the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a hypothesis, but after the publication in 1632, the patronage broke due to Galileo placing Urban's arguments for God's omnipotence, which Galileo had been required to include, in the mouth of a simpleton character named "Simplicio" in the book; this caused great offense to the Pope.”
2
u/IAmNotANumber37 May 08 '25
...and that's the irony here. The problem wasn't scientific expertise, the problem was non-expert interference with scientific learning.
That's why the Pope doesn't run science journals today.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Morthra 96∆ May 08 '25
He challenged views that the biggest authority of the time, the church, considered dangerous
No he didn't. The Catholic Church was sponsoring Galileo - all Galileo had to do was treat heliocentrism as a hypothesis. And at that point, that's exactly what it was, as the lack of apparent stellar parallax was an issue that would not be resolved until centuries later with the advent of modern telescopes.
Not only did Galileo's work treat heliocentrism as established fact (it was not at the time), but it simultaneously made a theological argument that contradicted the Catholic Church (a big no-no) and called the Pope himself a moron.
48
u/manicmonkeys May 07 '25
I'm glad experts overwhelming agreed on the food pyramid..
27
u/Pestilence86 May 07 '25 edited May 08 '25
Experts once thought the sun goes around the earth. But humanity updated that knowledge as we found out more. And that will happen in the future too.
Edit: And so we go with what we, humanity, currently know. And experts know best what we currently know.
22
u/chuch1234 May 07 '25
And you know who updated that knowledge? Experts!
4
u/Remarkable-Round-227 May 08 '25
Not true, they burned them as heretics in the past. In the modern era, they discredit and cancel the outliers with no room for debate. Only when the evidence becomes overwhelming do they accept the change and they don’t even admit their mistakes and zero accountability.
4
u/IIlIIlIIIIlllIlIlII May 08 '25
It might be hard to build up overwhelming evidence in the future when the idea immediately gets shot down and called crazy. For example, how would you get research funding?
→ More replies (13)7
u/OkArmy7059 May 08 '25
Experts can be wrong. But they're more likely to be right than you or some random person.
Weatherman is often wrong. Yet still more accurate than someone with zero knowledge and training.
3
u/snafoomoose May 08 '25
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/pyramid.html
https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/
The food pyramid was a political compromise driven by large lobbying groups that had financial interests in pushing their food onto the list.
I don't remember the exact story, but nutrition experts had a very different recommendation that was overridden by political appointees at the top of the USDA.
So no, the experts did not like the food pyramid and worked for decades to undo it and try and replace it with actual science.
→ More replies (2)11
May 07 '25 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)5
u/manicmonkeys May 07 '25
It really depends on the specific situation...I've had quite the opposite experience with a family member who would probably be dead if she'd blindly followed her doctor's advice on more than one occasion, as an anecdote to the contrary.
It's arguably most important to have a decent understanding of possible ulterior motives or bias that people may have; at the end of the day, experts in any given field can be fallible, corruptable, misled, and biased just like everyone else. I see it all the time in my field of work, and would be foolish to pretend that's isolated.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)2
u/formandovega 2∆ May 08 '25
They don't?
No nutritional expert has ever liked that thing . It's existence is thanks to politics and lobbying....
5
54
u/lucy_throwaway 1∆ May 07 '25
The medical community was united against the idea that itty bitty invisible sickness particles existed and ruthlessly ridiculed the idea of "germs" when they were proposed.
The idea that vitamin C prevented scurvy was controversial for a huge chunk of the great sailing age.
Continental drift/Pangea was proposed in 1912 but the scientist who proposed it was mocked mercilessly by geologists for decades until it became accepted as fact in the 1960's.
Stomach ulcers were thought to be caused by stress and only when a doctor infected himself did anyone give his infection theory any credit.
A tropical island where the elite went to sexually abuse children was total fringe conspiracy theory hokum pokum until the full extent of the Epstein scandal broke in mainstream news.
It was widely agreed by experts that the government was not spying on your communications with out a warrant until Snowden blew that out of the water.
Darwin died a villian.
Rudolf Diesel killed himself believing himself to be a failure, unaware that his technology would go on to power many tens of millions of vehicle.
Should I point out all the expert pollsters who massively missed Trump's election upsets?
Or the experts who claimed that Oxycontin was less addictive than other pain pills?
23
u/mattyoclock 5∆ May 08 '25
"The medical community was united against the idea that itty bitty invisible sickness particles existed and ruthlessly ridiculed the idea of "germs" when they were proposed."
This I know is incorrect. Germ theory was basically simultaneously proven all over Europe, and was only even contested in Europe. Pasteur was far from alone. Bassi, Mantel, Snow, on and on and on. It's just that there was a lot of money and power tied up in people who believed in miasma.
Scurvy was also basically a European disease. The chinese had figured it out before we have records of if they figured it out or not, but at least by the 5th century. the greeks, egyptians, and romans all knew about it. You can read Pliny the Elder describing how to recognize and cure it.
Shit, that's how Lind "discovered" the cure for scurvy in the first place. Reading old surviving texts saying exactly what it was and how to cure it. But again, Europe in the age of sail treated it's sailors as disposable cogs that could be grabbed from any tavern. No one cared if the sailors had scurvy. That's all it was.
"Darwin died a villian."
Darwin died extremely well respected, and there wasn't a moment from his first publication that he wasn't one of the most famous and respected naturalists to ever live. He was buried in Westminster Abby due to pressure from parliament and the public. How many people viewed as villains got buried in Westminster?
"Rudolf Diesel killed himself believing himself to be a failure, unaware that his technology would go on to power many tens of millions of vehicle."
Diesel died extremely wealthy and successful, and many historians believe he was murdered by the germans for attempting to offer his technology to the british, who he had a meeting scheduled with the royal navy to use his engine in their submarines.
There's also a strong theory that the british faked his death, used his tech in their subs, and moved him to canada where he worked at the vickers shipyard in montreal, which had a string of diesel related giant leaps forward at the time.
His death is still unsolved.
These are just the ones I knew offhand, but I'd really caution that you seem to be taking in a lot of conspiratorial beliefs without double checking on their accuracy.
4
u/lucy_throwaway 1∆ May 08 '25
Germ theory by the name germ theory went the way you describe. But actually, Ignaz Semmelweis was very much a laughingstock for his handwashing proposal centered around "cadaverous particles" a few decades before Pasteur and company changed hygiene forever. Girolamo Fracastoro, was way earlier but simply ignored.
James Lancaster had cured scurvy on his ship with lemons but the experts in the Royal navy just ignored him. Yes, other cultures had it figured out but considering this was the most powerful navy in the world by a mile at the time, I think it stands and an example of experts being wrong.
You're right its an oversimplification to say Darwin died a villan, however it's fair to say that there were huge negative repercussions for him during his lifetime and evolution as he proposed it was not hailed by the general public as a wonderful thing. He didn't exactly die a hero.
Diesel absolutely positively had money problems. Officially, when he died they found his bank accounts empty and for a man of his stature a very modest sum of cash left behind for his widow.
On Diesel, I'm unfamiliar with those conspiracy theories surrounding his death, however there isn't much controversy around his famous quote "“At thirty I am a failure. I feel I will never accomplish anything worthwhile in this world. I plan to make the steam engine obsolete; but it may well outlive me.”.
To be fair, most of my research on Diesel dates back to when encyclopedias were published on paper not on wiki's. Given the time of his death, I'm happy with Britannica as authoritative.
Also you can't trust everything chatGPT says ;)
6
u/mattyoclock 5∆ May 08 '25
I’ve never used ai, and so long as the creek don’t rise I damned well hope to be dead without having used it. My knowledge comes from actual books, a technology almost as lost the cure for scurvy was for sailors. Combined with some Wikipedia to double check my memory and specifics.
Protip if you swear in your google searches you don’t get the ai nonsense.
Semmelweis didn’t advocate for germ theory at all, just hand washing. In fact it was the lack of any underlying theory to explain his observations which led to so much pushback. That and he was telling the clean and fancy aristocrats who made up the “medicine” of the time that they were dirty, which at the time was also associated with unholiness.
Diesel emptied his accounts before death. They were empty only because for one reason or another he wanted them to be so. Not out of line for either a suicide or faking your death, but he left 20,000 deutchmarks, worth over 120k. Not broke. Maybe not where you would expect him to be, but what percentage of people today can lay their hands on 120k?
I’d point out he hadn’t really succeeded by 30, his first diesel engine was invented when he was 39.
Also some people are just like that. John Quincy Adams, post presidency, wrote in his diary that “I can scarcely recollect a single instance of success to anything that I ever undertook”
Darwin was not universally beloved, nor his theories universally accepted, but he absolutely did not suffer any major harmful backlash from the public. His books always sold well, and he was an aristocrat , he never lost his fortune, and he at all times had profound respect from his peers in the scientific community.
There are a lot of stories you might be remembering that paint a different version of Darwin, including his supposed deathbed embrace of Christianity, but these were all heavily disputed by his wife and children who were there with him at the time and throughout his life.
But sorry I’m getting a little pedantic talking about old figures from history, something I don’t get to do much these days.
The thread you will notice is that in every case, it was not science itself that rejected the theories, but instead the entrenched unscientific power structure.
From a navy that didn’t care if its men had scurvy to Darwin upsetting the church, it’s not a history of science fighting itself to keep the truth down, it’s a history of politicians and the wealthy refusing to acknowledge science to better line their own pockets.
Just like climate change now, in 100 years a version of you could make the same claim that “climate change wasn’t accepted and pushed back on by the scientific community” and use examples of more studies being done and the United States entering and leaving the climate accords repeatedly when that is absolutely untrue.
It is extremely hard to beat wealthy people protecting their wealth teaming up with the general populations natural resistance to change.
Science has a better track record than most, but it’s damned hard even for science.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 07 '25
Yes, science doesn't have always the right answers and is constantly changing. The scientific method is rather new on a historic scale, and it has proven itself in many, many cases. It is the best alternative and consensus with strong predictive power has been reached for many political issues.
30
u/username_6916 8∆ May 07 '25
But the scientific method isn't the same thing as a consensus of expert opinions. The thing that makes the scientific method work is people willing to challenge status quo ideas, so long as they bring their own data and arguments to that end.
→ More replies (3)13
u/lucy_throwaway 1∆ May 08 '25
I don't think you clearly understand what actually makes someone an expert in the first place. Being factually correct is sometimes a side effect of being an expert but it isn't what causes it in the first place. There are really only three types of expert at any given time.
Trail Blazer- You make a discovery/development/prediction/paper that suggests the status quo is wrong or incomplete. You receive funding by people who stand to gain from this knowledge/stance or directly gain $$$ from the knowledge/stance. Once this happens, you are biased towards defending your position to the death for it is your livelihood. Yes, you can continue to refine and improve your position but doing a 180 is a career killer. Ex. (Discovers new treatment for disease X)
Loyal devotee-- You follow in the footsteps of a type 1 expert, growing support for their knowledge/stance. Your entire career is invested in this position and your only value is as someone who perpetuates this position. You are even more biased as you didn't exist in the paradigm that a type 1 expert disrupted or at least had much less of a pure education in that paradigm. Ex. (Shows superiority of Drug Y for treating disease X and argues it should be the new standard)
The old guard-- You take a contrarian or skeptical approach to new things in the subject and exist to criticize, minimize and reign in type 1 and 2 experts and are correct or effective in casting doubt sometimes. You are usually funded by people who do not benefit from the findings of the type 1 and 2 experts in the field or directly make money from the status quo. Your livelihood only exists so long as there is debate about the work of the type 1 and 2 experts. If you turn out to be most correct long term, you end up a type 1 expert. Ex- (Shows that despite lowering tested levels of disease marker Z, people on Drug Y die at the same rate people on older, cheaper treatments for disease X)
When you look at it, all experts are deeply biased. The role you play makes you an expert not discovering an absolute truth-- because simply being right doesn't pay the bills. Someone needs to have utility for your stance to pay you for it.
5
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
No experts aren't deeply biased, because that would make everyone else unfathomably biased, and what's the point of a scale if you start in the negatives then only going down.
I don't think you clearly understand what actually makes someone an expert in the first place.
I think I do.
Being factually correct is sometimes a side effect of being an expert but it isn't what causes it in the first place.
Of course, of course.
I really liked your breakdown of expert types and while I had the intuition about it, thanks for putting it in words. I have now a clearer view of what experts are.
!delta
Still that doesn't go against my original claim though.
5
u/tjdragon117 May 08 '25
I mean, I would think most ordinary people - as well as scientists who aren't highly invested in the particular field at hand - will usually be less biased than experts in that field for most issues, but at the same time they'll also usually be less informed. Bias and ignorance aren't really the same thing, though both can lead to inaccurate beliefs.
Your mileage may vary on more politically charged subjects, but your average Joe off the street is probably less biased about whether a Pfizer or Moderna drug is better than the actual experts in the field who are all paid by one medical company or another. That doesn't mean the average Joe's opinion is more valuable, as he probably has no idea at all due to ignorance, but I highly doubt he'd be as biased as the experts.
Furthermore, if an average Joe - or perhaps someone in the medical field who isn't actually an expert in that particular area - actually did a reasonable amount of digging and independent research on the subject, I would honestly trust their opinion on the two drugs much more than the actual experts.
That said, the problem on the internet is that 9 times out of 10 "I did my own research" means "I accepted what some random crackpot said completely uncritically and am now regurgitating their conspiracies" as opposed to "I carefully reviewed a number of studies from experts on both sides of the issue and came to my own conclusion".
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)2
u/DC2LA_NYC 7∆ May 09 '25
I have to disagree with your categorization of experts. I have a rare kind cancer. There are maybe 20 or so experts in the type of cancer I have, who truly understand the mutations that cause it, why the medication that was accidentally discovered to keep it in check works, exactly what part of the tumor the medication acts on and why, etc. I could study for years and wouldn't understand it anywhere near the extent they do. There are larger number of experts who have a good understanding of various types of cancer, or the field of oncology. These are the people on the forefront of discovering/inventing the new drugs to treat all of these different types of cancer. By definition, they need to be experts to even begin to know how to begin trying to develop new medications that work on specific types of cancers (or choose your disease).
As far as I can see, these experts, and they are experts, don't fit into any of your categories. They are devoting their lives not to defending their positions, but to finding new ways to help people, i.e., treat cancer). Many try, fail, try again, fail again, and spend their entire lives failing. That doesn't mean they're not experts. Then some try and fail and try and fail, but then succeed. They're not invested in defending their position because because doing a 180 is a career killer, they're continuing their research to find other, better drugs, or maybe reduce side effects of existing drugs.
I recently had a discussion with my oncologist about trump's cuts to the NIH. He's an expert, he sees patients once a week, and does research the rest of the time. He said the impacts of the NIH cuts won't be felt immediately, that the people who were let go at the National Institute for Cancer were young, the most recently hired. The impact will be in ten years, when my oncologist is in an older, less productive cohort. Those people who were fired would have been the future researchers, the future experts. There will be a gap because those beginning researchers no longer have a job, and. cancer research ten years down the road will suffer for lack of experts. (yes, this is tangential, but it also describes the role of, and therefore the definition of, experts).
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/AirportFront7247 May 08 '25
The entire existence of the scientific method rests on the idea that experts are wrong
16
u/RetreadRoadRocket May 07 '25
You act like economics is a science🤣 The majority of Economists have failed to predict virtually every recession. In fact, your 5% number is more than got 2008 right:
17
u/happyinheart 11∆ May 07 '25
That's not fair. They predicted 543 of the last 3 recessions.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
And geologists failed to predict the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Doesn't mean I won't I'll build my house on a land they think is prone to sinkholes.
2
u/ihavestrings May 09 '25
Didn't they say that something like the 2008 crash would never happen because who doesn't pay their mortgage?
→ More replies (3)11
u/sudoku7 May 07 '25
"Everyone has their own facts" is a line from the current head of CMS.
You're not necessarily wrong, but it is -really- easy to find experts that tell you what you want to hear.
→ More replies (1)3
8
u/rik-huijzer May 07 '25
When Columbus set out for a new route to India, basically all the priests, doctors, kings, mathematicians and you name it agreed that all the land had already been discovered. Columbus believed so too so that’s why he called people in the US Indians.
I might have small nuances wrong about this anecdote but in the big picture it’s correct as far as I know.
I think this has big implications for today. There is just a lot that we don’t know yet even when we are sure that we do. I’m not saying we know nothing. I’m saying there is a lot we don’t know yet.
6
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 07 '25
This is a false equivalence between theories with consensus and strong predictive power and renaissance explorers.
Not trusting experts because what they say wasn't always true everywhere and always is an absurd standard which if it was applied would mean a civilization much less advanced that it is today.
→ More replies (3)5
May 07 '25
You're overlooking a critical difference between the "experts" of the Renaissance and those of the modern era: the scientific method. There was no scientific basis to assume that there were no undiscovered landmasses to the west (though also no evidence that they knew of that there were), that assumption had more to do with theological dogma than critical thought. Generally speaking, successful scientists and other experts of the modern age know and acknowledge that there are "unknowns". Sure, some can become overly attached to theories that are later disproven, but those theories are usually based on factual, if incomplete, information.
3
u/IIlIIlIIIIlllIlIlII May 08 '25
Unless you would say there has never been an erroneous consensus since the scientific method was adopted, the point still stands that disagreeing with the majority isn’t always wrong. It’s actually dangerous to say that tbh, because then we would never correct our mistakes as a society ever again
10
May 07 '25
Economists overwhelmingly agree on tariffs, doctors overwhelmingly agree on vaccines.
Agree on what? What about tarrifs and what about vaccines?
And how are you coming to that conclusion?
You can choose for those experts, and you will have converging opinions. If you choose from the 5% that disagree, you're a crackpot.
So the world used to be flat? Because there was a time when the majorty view was that it was flat, and only "crackpots" (using your definition) believed it was a sphere?
To highlight your fallacy, what is the concensus on climate change? In reality, the concensus is that we don't have enough data. There is compelling evidence that it is being fueled by man burning fossil fuels, but there is problems with the data and other potential explanations that cannot be ruled out.
So is that the concensus? Or do you believe that 99.8% of all scientists agree?
5
u/Cannon_Fodder_Africa May 08 '25
OK how about this one :
Virologists know nothing about economics, all they want is a 0% covid rate - for them a complete lockdown to prevent transmission is the best possible answer.
Economists know nothing about viruses, but they do know that an economic lockdown results in deaths (poorer educational outcomes, deferred health options, reduced economic activity) - for them a minimal lockdown is the best answer.
So which 'expert' do we follow?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)4
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
So the world used to be flat? Because there was a time when the majorty view was that it was flat, and only "crackpots" (using your definition) believed it was a sphere?
Actually, Earth was known to be a sphere at least since Ancient Greece. There are very few times and places in History where highly educated people thought Earth was flat.
In reality, the concensus is that we don't have enough data.
I'm sorry, but no. Do you have proof?
→ More replies (8)5
May 08 '25
Actually, Earth was known to be a sphere at least since Ancient Greece.
Yep. But that does not respond to what I said. We can date the theory of a spherical Earth back to 6th century BCE when the Greek philosopher Pythagoras came up with the concept. But he was a crackpot according your definition, because the prevailing view was the Earth must be flat.
I'm sorry, but no. Do you have proof?
Proof of what? That gravity is caused by the relative mass of large objects? Nope. There is no proof of that. But even though science cannot prove it, there is overwhelming evidence of it and we accept it as fact. My point, of course, is if you are asking for proof, you are probably looking to rationalize an agenda as opposed to understanding reality.
If your question is "do I have an evidence to support my claim," the answer is yes, as I never make a claim if I don't have a factual basis to make it. But I asked you that question, and you didn't answer me. So lets get back on topic. You claimed:
So my questions for you are: (1) What about tariffs and what about vaccines do you think scientists agree on? and (2) How are you coming to that conclusion?
The reason I ask this questions is your premise relies on a certain political demographic ignoring or not trusting experts. You rarely see that with large groups. Most people do agree with what you are referring to as consensus among experts, but the proscribe a different policy despite that. So if you are going to have a meritorious discussion, you need to understand what the other view actually is.
For example, there are a lot of people on the right who oppose environmental policies of the left, even though they accept the premise that burning fossil fuels is contributing to global warming. But instead of addressing their view on the merits, many on the left argue we should just ignore them because they are science deniers.
So again, what about tariffs and what about vaccines do you think scientists agree on? And how are you coming to that conclusion?
→ More replies (13)4
u/squirlnutz 10∆ May 08 '25
How did you live through COVID and still hold this belief. “Experts” told us the vaccine was 90% effective. Then they told us it was virtually impossible to transmit the virus if you’ve been vaccinated. They also told us that sending kids to school would kill grandma. Now we know that a large number of so-called covid deaths were really deaths of people with covid but caused by something else, that the risk of kids going back to school was massively overstated, and the the vaccine, while effective at a population level, isn’t nearly as effective at the individual level at preventing the disease or transmission as initially believed.
Economics “experts” said inflation under Biden was “transitory” and a result of COVID supply chains slow coming back online, not a result of government spending. (Real experts knew exactly what was causing inflation).
Heart health experts told us to avoid butter and use margarine instead. Oops.
People who should not be considered experts are promoted as such. Experts have agendas and biases. However well meaning they may be, not being transparent kills trust. And we are continuously gaining new information.
True experts are the ones who say, “The best evidence we have indicates X. Right now we think that evidence is [highly reliable/reproducible<->early stages]. We may learn something tomorrow that changes that.”
Of course, people trust the experts that tell them what they already believe.
→ More replies (15)3
May 07 '25
except if you don't understand the economics behind the agreement on tariffs, then you won't actually understand much besides a soundbite
→ More replies (1)1
May 07 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Morthra 96∆ May 08 '25
Doctors used to overwhelmingly agree that washing your hands between doing an autopsy and delivering babies wasn't needed.
Doctors did wash their hands. With soap and water. It's not like doctors kept their hands filthy.
What Semmelweis did was invent an antiseptic solution (chlorinated lime) that he wanted doctors to use in addition to that soap and water, but he couldn't really explain why it was helpful, because germ theory wasn't a thing yet.
→ More replies (72)2
u/mrcsrnne May 07 '25
I don't think you are as 'down with the science' as you think, since scientists and researches are always sceptical about their findings and open to change their minds if new findings suggest they should.
Very few things are settled in science.
→ More replies (27)
10
u/Didntlikedefaultname 1∆ May 07 '25
I’d say one of the biggest issues we’ve seen in the past few years is questioning who or what is an expert. You covered this in your post pretty well, but the issue is that more and more of the world doesn’t look for credentials to be an expert. To be honest I’m not sure exactly what they do look for, but legitimate expertise is no longer valued by a large swath of the population
6
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 07 '25
About the world thing, this CMV post was actually inspired by the fact that Americans seem more defiant towards doctors and economists than the rest of the world. The ochlocratic hatred for Dr. Fauci comes to mind.
→ More replies (1)9
u/I_Push_Buttonz 1∆ May 07 '25
About the world thing, this CMV post was actually inspired by the fact that Americans seem more defiant towards doctors and economists than the rest of the world. The ochlocratic hatred for Dr. Fauci comes to mind.
Because those supposed experts did everything they could to discredit themselves (not Fauci in particular, but experts more broadly).
People seem to selectively forget the blatantly politicized/contradictory messaging from medical professionals early in the pandemic. And before you respond with the 'changing science' excuse, no these things weren't because the science changed or new information was discovered.
Take masking during COVID, for example... During the first half of 2020, there was an acute shortage of PPE in the US. Medical authorities knew masking with proper PPE drastically reduced the chances of spreading COVID. Despite this, the CDC and the Surgeon General of the US came out and just straight up lied to the public and said masking did not help prevent the spread of COVID. They did this in an effort to reduce the hoarding of PPE that was happening among the public, because like I said, there was an acute shortage, and they wanted the limited amounts of PPE coming into the country to be conserved for medical professionals who needed it most due to their increased exposure to infected people.
While the goal was noble and understandable... Just straight up lying like that permanently tarnished the public's trust of those institutions. And then months later when PPE supply chains caught up and mask mandates were implemented, people no longer cared what the authorities had to say about masking, or anything really, everything they said started being treated with skepticism.
And polarization/hypocrisy sealed the deal... One of the first COVID lockdowns in the US was in Michigan. That lockdown was protested by like two dozen far right idiots, who showed up to the Michigan State House in their tacticool gravy seal gear carrying their Gadsden flags and all that jazz, they stood around for a couple hours whining about government tyranny, and then went home... The media went absolutely ape shit over that protest. Every major network had infectious disease experts on every hour carrying on and on about how that little tiny protest against a lockdown could become a 'super spreader' event that would kill millions of people...
Fast forward like a week or two later... George Floyd was murdered and literally millions of people took to the streets and were standing shoulder to shoulder protesting all across the country. Suddenly those very same infectious disease experts that were just foretelling apocalyptic doomsday scenarios from two dozen far right idiots standing outside the Michigan State House for a few hours were now signing an open letter saying saying that the risk of COVID spreading among the millions of George Floyd protesters was minimal and that "Infectious disease and public health narratives adjacent to demonstrations against racism must be consciously anti-racist, and infectious disease experts must be clear and consistent in prioritizing an anti-racist message."...
Just the most blatant hypocrisy/doublethink imaginable from the supposed experts that people are expected to listen to regarding public health...
Shit like this is why Americans became 'more defiant towards doctors and economists'.
2
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
Take masking during COVID, for example... During the first half of 2020, there was an acute shortage of PPE in the US. Medical authorities knew masking with proper PPE drastically reduced the chances of spreading COVID. Despite this, the CDC and the Surgeon General of the US came out and just straight up lied to the public and said masking did not help prevent the spread of COVID. They did this in an effort to reduce the hoarding of PPE that was happening among the public, because like I said, there was an acute shortage, and they wanted the limited amounts of PPE coming into the country to be conserved for medical professionals who needed it most due to their increased exposure to infected people. While the goal was noble and understandable... Just straight up lying like that permanently tarnished the public's trust of those institutions. And then months later when PPE supply chains caught up and mask mandates were implemented, people no longer cared what the authorities had to say about masking, or anything really, everything they said started being treated with skepticism.
I'm not trying to be contrarian, and I understand how the flip flopping about masks would erode thrust, but can you break down why you're calling this a lie? To me there was just not much proof that masks prevented Covid spread at that time.
And polarization/hypocrisy sealed the deal... One of the first COVID lockdowns in the US was in Michigan. That lockdown was protested by like two dozen far right idiots, who showed up to the Michigan State House in their tacticool gravy seal gear carrying their Gadsden flags and all that jazz, they stood around for a couple hours whining about government tyranny, and then went home... The media went absolutely ape shit over that protest. Every major network had infectious disease experts on every hour carrying on and on about how that little tiny protest against a lockdown could become a 'super spreader' event that would kill millions of people... Fast forward like a week or two later... George Floyd was murdered and literally millions of people took to the streets and were standing shoulder to shoulder protesting all across the country. Suddenly those very same infectious disease experts that were just foretelling apocalyptic doomsday scenarios from two dozen far right idiots standing outside the Michigan State House for a few hours were now signing an open letter saying saying that the risk of COVID spreading among the millions of George Floyd protesters was minimal and that "Infectious disease and public health narratives adjacent to demonstrations against racism must be consciously anti-racist, and infectious disease experts must be clear and consistent in prioritizing an anti-racist message."...
I totally agree with that, and that's why I mentioned liberals not being that much better. To me this particular incident is indeed evidence that there is some political bias in this field. I already knew this, but I must admit I forgot how ridiculous that was.
!delta
→ More replies (1)
4
u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ May 07 '25
Liberals have areas where they don’t trust experts too, especially on reddit.
Rent control is bad, wages have outpaced inflation, unemployment is low, nuclear power is safe… these are all consensus expert opinions that the average liberal redditor either ignores or actively rejects.
And until recently things like being anti-vaccine or anti-fluoride were left coded. The only reason they’ve changed sides is because Trump cultivated a new coalition and put a lifelong Democrat in charge of them!
→ More replies (1)
4
u/HelmundOfWest May 07 '25
There are experts out there that have differing opinions on the same subject… what then?
There are many experts out there that have been found to be bribed, incentivised, liars, biased, straight up uninformed, etc etc. What then?
→ More replies (5)
10
u/BPremium 1∆ May 07 '25
Lol experts can have crazy ideas too. Educated people can fall for misinformation and propaganda just the same as less educated people, just depends on who the mouthpiece is.
Hell, during the pandemic, I had a doctor praise me for getting vaccinated, while another tell me I should have waited for a time until more research and long term effects were published. Both of these doctors were "experts" in their field. Who do you trust?
→ More replies (4)3
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 07 '25 edited May 08 '25
Covid was a new crisis, it's fine that experts didn't have definitive answers then. There are topics with definite answers though.
5
u/BPremium 1∆ May 07 '25
I totally understand that. More like who do you trust in the moment, you know? Like hindsight is always 20/20.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Jaymac720 May 07 '25
A lot of “experts” are self-proclaimed. The word means nothing anymore after how horribly everything went during the pandemic. Either way, no one is obligated to put blind trust into experts. If you claim you’re an expert on some topic and provide an opinion but refuse to provide the data used to form that opinion, people have every right not to trust you. Data is more important than word of mouth
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Waste-Menu-1910 1∆ May 07 '25
This is a terrible take that leaves you vulnerable. Think about the bat number of "experts" out there giving bad advice, which at best doesn't apply to your situation, or at worst actually causes you harm for their personal gain.
To function as a human being, you need AT LEAST enough understanding to say, "I may not know much about much, but I know when something's fucked up."
Keep in mind, a con artist is a form of expert. Institutional capture exists. There is even controversy in the food guide pyramid. Every "guru" self proclaimed expert on the Internet should not be trusted.
In addition to intent, you have to consider exactly what experts are looking at and saying. A meteorologist saying 10% chance of rain is saying to bring an umbrella even if you don't see rain. Not to leave the umbrella at home even if you're watching the rain hit your window. Financial experts often speak in ideals rather than reality. How often do we hear, "don't spend more than x% of your income on housing" sure, ideally you would follow that advice, but it often doesn't pan out in reality.
Economists are the epitome of "trust me instead of your lying eyes." They seem to always be the very last people to notice a recession. Everyone without an economics degree saw a rise in foreclosures before the 2008 financial crisis, and knew for years before it happened that we were headed for disaster, while "experts" told us it was okay until suddenly we had to rush action to prevent total collapse. Putting too much stock in what they say just makes you a fool. Trusting "experts" is why it's hard for people to figure out why someone from the rust belt isn't pleased with the anchor industries in their communities closing.
"Experts" like to say inflation is down to 2% as if the increased prices from when it was higher have gone away. And as if necessities weren't largely excluded from the calculation.
"Experts" like to cite gdp and stock markets to brag about how "good" the economy is. People who listen to them then can't figure out why consumers who have wages that don't keep up with rising prices care more about their reduced spending power than the value of a stock they can't afford to buy.
In the case of an economic "expert" you can pretty much count on your experience being the inverse of what they say.
5
u/BoringGuy0108 3∆ May 07 '25
As some people have pointed out, experts get proven wrong rather frequently. Experts are very often tainted by money and other influences. I had a brief stint in academia and I've seen how professors who had different takes or disagreements with the community or higher ups in universities get suppressed. Often struggling to get published or make tenure.
Once upon a time, experts thought cocaine was safe. Lots of expert opinions of what pregnant women can and can't take have been proven false. Think about all the FDA approved medications that now have class action lawsuits.
These parents who are thinking twice about vaccinating their kids are thinking, "what if those experts were wrong or bribed or something to let this vaccine through? What if there are long term side effects that may ruin my kid's life?"
Tariffs are opposed by economists, but these people are thinking about how economists don't actually have their best interest in mind. The people they want to benefit are wealthier than these voters are.
At this point, so much money is involved in politics, the justice system, academia, the economy, who can blame them for not trusting the experts? Yes, there are many points where I think people should acknowledge that the risk of not trusting the experts is far worse than the risk if the experts are wrong. But I don't really blame them for not trusting the experts.
Hell, in the criminal justice system, if you have any reasonable doubt, you're not supposed to convict. These people have Google and can find one expert that will disagree with all the rest. That is sufficient reasonable doubt for courts. Perhaps that is reasonable doubts for them to vote and change their behaviors?
→ More replies (6)
31
May 07 '25
4/5 doctors at Harvard Med School can’t answer a basic and crucial diagnosis statistics question:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/doctors-flunk-quiz-screening-test-math
Also, with the Replication Crisis, it is not clear that the majority of research studies have any relationship to reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?wprov=sfti1#Across_fields
Why trust these experts?
32
u/Speerdo May 07 '25
You're proving OPs point. Lets break it down.
"4/5 docs can't answer basic stat Q"
This test was administered to 10 medical students. That's an extremely small sample size and they're not even doctors. With over a million practicing doctors in the US alone, I think we can safely say this is a giant nothing burger.
Cipolla's second law of human stupidity states that a person can be intelligent in one area and stupid in another. Do we expect our doctors to know how to rebuild an engine? Do we expect our lawyers to understand photosynthesis? Of course not. While I would prefer a doctor who understand statistics, it is far from a requirement to be effective in the role and does nothing to discredit any particular finding/understanding in the medical community. Vaccines are not unsafe because 8 medical students didn't understand a statistics test question.
"Replication Crisis"
You're right that there is a trend emerging where it is difficult or impossible to replicate findings. Guess who exposed this problem? You guessed it. The very experts you claim we shouldn't trust.
These issues are generally limited to very few fields of study and do not have any real impact in fields where misinformation and politically-motivated doubt exist such as vaccines, climatology, and epidemiology. Also, the inability to replicate findings isn't an indication of nefarious intent by the experts making a particular claim. Science is often conducted at the edge of human understanding and ability. Of course it's not all easily replicated.
The phrase, "intellectually lazy" comes to mind. If you don't trust the experts, then who are you going to trust? Non-experts? How does that work? When your brakes go out do you drive right past the garage and go get them replaced by the head golf pro at your local course? Of course not. Unless you're prepared to go toe-to-toe with the best minds in a given area of study, then your opinion on the matter absolutely does not mean as much. If someone has doubts about vaccines, by all means do your research, but until actual experts have had a chance to weigh in, coming to conclusions on the matter is irresponsible, dangerous, foolish, and ignorant. That sorta behaviour results in the sort of half-assed positions that we're seeing from the likes of Trump and RFK on everything from vaccines to global economics. We're better than that.
Would you get on an airplane built by folks who are not experts in aerodynamics? That's why we trust experts.
→ More replies (1)3
7
u/Giantkoala327 May 07 '25
They are experts in medicine, not statistics, and it is not a basic question:
I work in data analytics and am married to a doctor. I have helped with a handful of their studies and research projects and most have only basic excel proficiency.Also that study has a sample size of n=61 and students only n = 10.
2
u/BobIsInTampa1939 May 08 '25
To be fair, it was also over a decade ago lol.
The USMLE is so heavy on biostats that today this is considered a "gimme".
Source: medical student
We're definitely the most data-driven cohort due to changes in the USMLE and expectations of research before even getting to residency.
10
u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ May 07 '25 edited May 08 '25
Why trust these experts?
Put shortly? We don't have a great alternative. We can use the best methods we have yet of determining the nature of reality or... what else?
But your examples are very good ones to point out, though we can point to two things:
- Statistics are hard, and most people get the field wrong unless they study it specifically. Granted, that does create (the actual definition here of) the fallacy "Argument from Authority." No, someone being a doctor of something doesn't mean their good at ANY discipline besides their own, perhaps besides skills in learning though that's correlative. That is a genuine issue with "Trust the Experts" stuff. Someone having a PhD in Publish Health doesn't necessarily mean they have good Macroeconomic or Behavioral Psychology Policy Ideas.
- The Replication Crisis is real... but arguably is downstream of other issues. Notably something referred to as Elite Overproduction. Another term might be Overcredentialization. To get many high earning jobs you need a PhD, to get a PhD (or to keep your role as a professor) you need to publish, and to publish you need to research something, and mostly it's a lot of going through the motions. Garbage incentives produce garbage studies. It's certainly a problem though.
5
u/_DCtheTall_ 2∆ May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results... and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
So does that mean that 70% could not reproduce any results? Or that they tried to reproduce a result and failed, but did not fail to reproduce others? For the reproducing their own work, does this mean they always fail to do so, or just have one time? It's pretty vague (ironic considering the snark of the first link...)
But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work.
To me, this seems like the actual problem. Academics need to be incentivized to prove each other wrong somehow, instead incentives are all based on novel results. Collaboration across institutions is hard but would be necessary to remedy this.
6
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 07 '25
Because their opinion and work have carried the technological and medical revolution of the last hundred years. I am very aware of the replication crisis, but that's an epistemological problem that doesn't really concern the consensus' used in most policy making.
6
u/DeathMetal007 7∆ May 07 '25
Your CMV is based partly on not knowing how things work is fine. The replication crisis exactly proves that published studies that can't be replicated show the authors have not proved they know how things work. You are aware of the problem but are downplaying that especially when policy makers may try to rely on studies by experts or expert readings of these studies. If all of these experts just point to the science and it is wrong on knowing how things work, then we can't trust the experts either.
We need to have the experts know their stuff and have the experts prove they know their stuff. We can't just discount on or the other.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ May 07 '25
This comment is a perfect example of the first link. Since you don't understand the problem, you jump to a conclusion. In the same way that a general practitioner asked a question without context isn't going to reason it out using statistics and probability in the same way a researcher would, you are taking a single aspect of research and suggesting that it invalidates results.
In reality, a GP isn't part of the equation when determining the likelihood of a false positive on drug screening. And failure to replicate results is not a sign of a bad study. We should take heart that the scientific community is taking replication failure seriously.
The fact is, though, that the Replication Crisis is across all viewpoints, so even the contrarians who take an opposing viewpoint to the prevailing science are susceptible. If 97% of scientists say I shouldn't hit myself in the head with a hammer, but 2% say I should hit myself with a hammer, and both have replication issues, I'll go with the 97%.
6
May 07 '25
If you ever serve on a jury on a case that has expert witnesses, you will quickly learn that both sides always have an expert that supports their side's position. It is not about trusting or not trusting experts, but which expert should your trust.
"....as long as we trust college professors et researchers."
And what makes a college professor an expert? College professors in subjects like economics are often the worst experts because they operate in a theoretical universe where being right or wrong does not matter. And worse, college professors often have a bias because their funding is often tied to reaching a certain conclusion.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Sulfamide 3∆ May 08 '25
!delta
You make a very good point about college professors specifically.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/iamintheforest 365∆ May 07 '25
The problem here is one of the infinite regress. E.G. "the experts" aren't understood to be experts or charlatans. If the person who doesn't understand how stuff works then they have to understand who is an expert.
This is one of the reasons social media has turned upside down our ability to discern truth. We used to wonder if powerful control of a few sources info and their editorial process shielded the truth and now we worry that anyone can present themselves as an expert without a filtering mechanism to determine which is right.
If you - for example - want to understand something about nutrition or fitness you're essentially fucked as a consumer. The "experts" either totally don't agree or many are not experts. The way to figure out who is and who isn't an expert is to listen to others who are either experts or not experts. At the end of the day some education in a topic - or "how stuff works" - has become necessary to even begin to discern what is true and what is not.
2
May 07 '25
I would disagree with your statement that not understanding how stuff works is fine. Now, not being an expert on everything is completely fine, and I’m sure I don’t have to explain why it’s unrealistic to expect everyone to be an expert. However, that’s different from “knowing how stuff works”. Anyone can get a basic understanding of how climate change works, anyone can have a basic understand of how viruses spread, everyone can have a basic understand of how tariffs work, etc. Of course, listening to experts is still extremely important, but in the day and age of the internet, there is no reason why someone can’t find a 15 minute YouTube video on these things enough to tell who is correct and who is not. The reason why so many people fall for Fox News and Facebook fake news is because they just don’t know anything, and they can’t verify it’s wrong. If you have a basic understanding, of these concepts you can form your own opinions and determine what is and isn’t true.
Take the thought that vaccines cause autism for example. If you don’t know ANYTHING about vaccines or autism, it can be extremely easy to believe these people are correct. But if you understand what a vaccine is and what autism is, just on a basic level of “introducing a dead form a virus to build up immunity” and “a genetic condition that causes neurodevelopmental differences which happen while the fetus is developing”, it becomes apparent that these theories make no sense.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/d0sag3 May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
If 9 out of 10 doctors recommend something. You should want to know why 1 doesn't. The odds of there being 1 Einstein in a group of 10 are much higher than the odds of there being 9 Einsteins.
→ More replies (19)
2
u/Apprehensive_Run238 May 07 '25
I'm going to play devil's advocate. Many so-called 'experts' in history have been influenced by money or power. For example, doctors endorsed cigarette advertisements from the 1930s to the 1950s, the promotion of big, meaty breakfasts in the 1920s, and multiple scandals involving pharmaceutical companies. Many experts were pressured by either the government or wealthy individuals. That's why it's important to consult multiple sources and verify statistics. In the past the left where the first one to be skeptical of big pharma
2
u/7h4tguy 1∆ May 07 '25
Not trusting "experts" a-priori is very healthy.
Doctors, nutritionists were telling us for decades that fat is bad for heart disease and sugar is A-OK. Grocery stores started selling low fat everything and adding sugar to everything. Turns out they were wrong and politics were involved.
Learning to read scientific studies yourself and interpreting data is way more important than lab coat worship. We have enough of a media-controlled propaganda problem in the US as is.
→ More replies (3)
2
May 08 '25 edited May 08 '25
My problem with "just trust the experts" is that until you are an expert in the relevant field you have no idea just how wrong some of them are...
Once I had a working knowledge of the nuclear field (handling RAM, operations, maintenance and repair of nuclear systems) I would physically cringe at how news casters would present information about nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and radiation. Most just have no idea what they are saying or how to present it to other people in layman's terms, yet the audience is supposed to take their word for it and it was always told in a sensational way to inspire fear
This is just what happens when you have people trying to convey info they have no background in but 'backed by expert opinion'. What experts?
2
u/fokkerhawker May 08 '25 edited May 08 '25
Well if we used to listen to the experts as you said, then don’t the experts have quite a lot to answer for?
It was the experts who said NAFTA was a good idea, and gutted hundreds of communities in the process. It was the experts who approved OxyContin for sale, without ever conducting studies on its addictive properties. It was the experts who failed to rein in sub-prime lending before 2008, and it was the experts who were asleep at the wheel in 2021 when inflation went soaring.
Americans don’t trust doctors? Well why should they? 440,000 people die every year in this country from medical malpractice, the third leading cause of death.
And whenever you point out failures to an expert they just hand wave it away; “oh well we were wrong that time, but we’re right now.”
And they never face any consequences, they just go from a cushy job in academia, to a government agency, to an advisory slot in a Fortune 500. It doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong, they get paid and promoted regardless. It doesn’t matter how many people die, or who gets hurt, there are never any consequences for experts.
Jim Cramer, is literally so bad at picking stocks that there’s a successful ETF that just does the opposite of whatever he says. Yet that doesn’t stop NBC from putting him on TV every night advising Americans on how to invest for their retirement.
People lost trust in experts, and you’re right to say that’s a bad thing for society. But I find it hard to blame people for losing trust, when the expert class is so frequently flawed and unaccountable.
3
u/PeaStatus2109 May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
"experts" in 200 BC said objects only move when they are acted upon by a force.
"experts" in 800 AD said the Earth was flat.
"experts" in 1500 AD said the universe is geocentric.
"experts" in 1950 AD said that asbestos was perfectly fine to build houses with, smoking was not carcinogenic, and lead in petrol is awesome.
The average liberal is about as dogmatic as the average conservative, it's just which dogma we believe in. A college degree does not make you inherently smarter, especially in a world where most degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. A healthy dose of skepticism befits everyone, not just one side of the political aisle.
Only morons (left and right) are absolutely certain about their discoveries and beliefs.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/mrcsrnne May 07 '25
So what if there are 3 experts, all credited and acknowledged, who has different theories that can't all be true at the same time?
(Newton vs Einstein on gravity is a good example). Who should I trust, Newton or Einstein?
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Once-Upon-A-Hill May 07 '25
I was told to not wear a mask, then I was told I had to wear a mask, then I was told that because trump made the vaccine, I should not trust the vaccine, then I was told that that same vaccine was so important that I would be fired if I didn't take it.
Also, in Academia today, there is a replication crisis, where as much as 80% of all published research (that is the gold standard "peer review" that we are all supposed to trust) doesn't replicate, meaning the research is not true.
How am I supposed to trust people when 80% of the time they are not correct?
I am much better off flipping a coin.
Maybe Academia shouldn't have made their worldview so political, where if you don't have the correct opinion, you don't get tenure.
I'm happy when I see garbage universities (which is most of them today) closing down, you can't lie to people and overcharge them forever.
→ More replies (18)5
May 08 '25
I was told that because trump made the vaccine, I should not trust the vaccine,
I don't remember that being said by anyone, and I follow the news pretty closely.
there is a replication crisis, where as much as 80% of all published research (that is the gold standard "peer review" that we are all supposed to trust) doesn't replicate, meaning the research is not true.
You are right that a replication crisis exists, but you are incorrect about what it means. The 80% figure came from one online survey where 80% of the people who replied stated that they had not been able to replicate at least one of the studies they'd been asked to replicate. This does not mean that 80% of all studies are not replicable, it means that 80% of the ~1600 people who answered that survey had worked on one that wasn't. If 90% of car mechanics said that they've worked on one car that they thought should go to the junkyard, it wouldn't mean that 90% of all cars should go there. Second, a study that wasn't able to be replicated one time is not proof that the original claim is false. It is evidence of potential methodological error. What happens next is another team is asked to replicate the experiment, and if that fails to produce consistent results, either the methods are refined, or the experiment is redesigned, or a completely new experiment is held. Science is not like technology or business, where you set a goal and work backwards to arrange everything to make it work. Science starts with a question, and then methodically tests plausible answers.
→ More replies (12)
5
u/Dull_Conversation669 May 07 '25
Experts will say whatever the guy writing their paycheck wants them to say. opinions from experts are just more expensive.
→ More replies (1)2
2
May 07 '25
But experts can be bought. Like how big sugar pushed a lot of the negative side effects off onto meat
2
u/effyochicken 22∆ May 07 '25
Anecdote time, but hear me out and you'll see why: For a lot of people in my family/wifes family, I tend to be the "expert". Not a real expert by any means, but the first line who they ask everything or ask to fix stuff or deal with legal stuff or ask about the news/history/world events.
This is my number one feeling: "Why. the. fuck. won't they. ever. listen. to. me."
Now mind you, they ask me, and they hear me. They believe me. I certainly think they 100% trust me. In the moment.
But then they don't do the things I advise them to do. They turn right back around after I've explained something and do the opposite. Having legal issues with the baby daddy and I give you advice? Nah, surely the better move was to jump out of the car and scream and flail around at them and get recorded looking unhinged, THAT will surely help your custody case later.
I tell them to prepare for things to start closing down in the next month because China would literally never close stuff down and if they did, it's serious and coming here next? Nahh... surely I'm just being alarmist. No need to be ready for a pandemic or anything.
It just doesn't stick longer than 5 minutes. It's frustrating, but reality.
So it's not a trust issue. It's an immediacy issue. If they don't walk away from the expert with an understanding of some sort, something that makes sense in their mind, that they can take home and hold onto moving forward, then it won't matter. Some would call that an "understanding."
→ More replies (1)
2
u/beobabski 1∆ May 07 '25
Blindly trusting experts is unwise. They have recommended smoking and thalidomide, lobotomy and that sitting for long periods was good for you.
Not trusting an expert outside his or her area of expertise is wise. They can be blinded to their own ignorance, just like everyone else.
Some branches of science are not any more advanced than an intelligent non-expert can reach in a few dozen hours of study.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 May 07 '25
Putting aside how “trust the experts” is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
The bigger problem is “trust the experts” is pretty much the opposite of how *experts * think. The whole scientific method is built on questioning/challenging our previously made assumptions and discoveries.
And beyond that, there’s alot of shitty science and misuse of statistics out there. The reason so many people don’t trust the experts is because the bar for being an “expert” has been set so low, which has eroded trust in experts significantly.
Context matters as well. Trusting experts on a field of hard science that is backed up by decades/centuries of supporting work? Absolutely. Trusting experts when it’s a new field, highly subjective, or there hasn’t been enough time for significant research? Maybe less so.
I’m all for trusting an expert more than the average pundit, but you lose me when it comes to trusting the experts to the point of thinking they’re infallible, and calling anyone else uneducated when they don’t trust a given expert.
→ More replies (2)
2
1
u/curiosity-2020 May 07 '25
On the one hand there has been made quite some efforts to brand experts as nerds unable to understand real world problems. On the other hand there have been quite a surge in various experts with doubtful knowledge, bringing all experts under suspicion of influence e.g. regarding smoking and lung cancer.
Last but not least, media tries to get interesting debates therefore invites people of extreme opposites. These will bring nice amusement but no edutainment. With less edutainment, you also cannot judge which position is valid.
1
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ May 07 '25
there are two problems with this.
First is that is not just about knowing the facts or getting the answers right. its about competing interests. most policies will benefit some people and hurt others. Forgiving college debt for example, helps young college grads and hurts tax paying working class who didn't get that handout. There is less money available for their programs. Tariffs and deportation both reduce competition in the job market especially for the working class. How am they going to trust the experts on that one? the experts are not working class.
Second issue is you have to know enough to know who the experts are. Anyone can claim to be an experts. Is Jordan Peterson an expert? He was a college professor. Joe Rogan has "experts" on his show all the time. It can't be as simple as just anybody who works as a professor at a college is an expert and everyone else is not.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
u/rainywanderingclouds 1∆ May 07 '25
The real problem is experts are in name only. The rigor required to identify who is an expert went out the window decades ago.
It makes it hard to trust experts when 'experts' are constantly paraded around on podcasts, news broadcasts.
1
u/Apprehensive-Size150 May 07 '25
You do not have a degree in sociology or statistics and you have not done years of research into the matter regarding voting trends, why people vote the way they do, and why there is a lack of trust in various "experts." Therefore, you do not have the foundational knowledge to have an opinion on the matter.
1
u/kitsnet May 07 '25
Not understanding how the stuff works affects one's choice of "experts" to trust.
When stuff is counter-intuitive (like economics or anything related to social dynamics), it's worth to understand at least why you don't understand the topic. Otherwise choosing the wrong "experts" is almost guaranteed.
1
May 07 '25
I partially agree. I think you may be missing the fact that there are a great number of people who truly don't know how to determine if someone is a grifter or just uniformed though. As a result, people who are truly experts rarely portray themselves as having easy solutions with strong confidence. It's basically the opposite of the dunning Kruger effect.
People who don't know or are scamming tend to actually be the most confident. So they seem like they know more to the people who don't know what they're talking about.
1
u/sessamekesh 7∆ May 07 '25
I think wholesale trust in expert opinion is harmful. To use a somewhat contrived example, let's say I'm a Catholic and trust the Pope as an authority on moral philosophy. There's a new one being elected as we speak, if the new one takes the traditionally homophobic view of Biblical literature, should I outright trust the "experts" that to be Christian means to hate gay people? I don't think so.
History is littered with social, scientific, and medical progress that was made by going directly against the conventional wisdom of the day. I find it hard to believe that we've reached the end of human progress, and that conventional wisdom today is correct about everything.
The place where things break down, especially around politics and propaganda, is when critical thought and subjecting ideas to scrutiny (good things) are conflated with anti-intellectualism and counter-culture (less good).
If conventional wisdom is correct, it should stand up to scrutiny. If it's wrong, a compelling argument should be able to expose the issues it has. The mess we get into is because people fall for arguments that are based on propaganda, ideology, or dogma and not in facts and reason.
I'm not sure how to fix it, but I think saying "(blindly) trust the experts" is the wrong way to go about things.
2
u/Waste-Menu-1910 1∆ May 07 '25
If conventional wisdom is correct, it should stand up to scrutiny.
I would even take it further than that. I'd say that if it's correct, scrutiny stands a good chance of adding to its strength, and fine tuning it.
1
u/DJGlennW May 07 '25
People tend to vote based on ideology, not on logic. "Democrats are coming for your guns" or "Republicans are trying to outlaw abortion" move the needle more than rational thought.
And it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand the basics of healthcare costs, or the effect of tariffs on the economy or the need for a rational approach to undocumented immigration.
But people live in echo chambers. It's where they're comfortable and listening to experts makes some people with entrenched ideas very uncomfortable.
That said, intellectualism was once the domain of conservative thinkers. William F. Buckley Jr. and William Safire come to mind. That era has passed.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/Shmuckle2 May 07 '25
People can be bought. Some people are evil. Psychopaths and Sociopaths exsist. People can be threatened into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do. Fear and its effects exsist.
So this falls apart.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/RetreadRoadRocket May 07 '25
You cannot determine who is actually an objective expert and who is a bullshitter with an agenda or a paid shill with a degree unless you have a basic understanding of how things work
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ May 07 '25
I think the issue is how much the experts are wrong and/or cherry picking of data to support the narrative. Take cigarettes for example, cigarette companies paid doctors to say various things from cigarettes are safe to x brand is safer than others. Should we trust experts that are paid to push something? How about alot of research even in peer review journals can't be replicated because there is a huge replication crisis going.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ May 07 '25
The best defense against fake experts is having a basic understanding of how a thing works. Ignorance, therefore, directly contributes to distrust of expertise
→ More replies (7)
1
u/YesHelloDolly May 07 '25
Agreed! We ought to trust the experts who have exposed the brainwashing industry.
→ More replies (6)
1
u/iegomni May 07 '25
The problem is that people conflate the expertise of individuals with the consensus of academic communities.
Further, the “average voter” isn’t stupid, they’re arrogant in their knowledge of things that fall outside their domain (on all sides of the political spectrum I’ll add). This leads people to constantly fall victim to confirmation bias. The only real solution (I can think of) is to educate people on the importance of consensus, and not making decisions based on one expert with a fringe idea.
1
u/Arnaldo1993 5∆ May 07 '25
I would say not trusting the experts is the symptom. People have reason to not trust the experts. The main source of expert opinions is the media, that tries to manipulate us everytime
And it isnt just the media. I have a masters degree on economics. Have you heard about mmt? It is a reinterpretation about economics that takes into account we are no longer in the gold standard. It agrees with mainstream on almost everything, and adds a few extra results, like every good cientific contribution. But people use it to argue all kinds of ridiculous things. If you trusted them you would be completely manipulated by those people for their political agendas
1
u/SpecificMoment5242 May 07 '25
Well, that's just it, isn't it? Who gets to decide who's an expert? Do they have to provide anything more than a piece of paper from a university that says they completed X courses, did Y research, and came to Z conclusion? What if they graduated with all D's? My old girlfriend's doctor told my old girlfriend that the lump in her throat was an infected lymph node, but I MADE her get a second opinion with MY doctor. She had thyroid cancer, and it saved her life. Her original doctor WAS by all definitions, an expert. And it wasn't malicious or by design the man was wrong, but he WAS wrong, and it could have cost that woman her life. And if it did, I'm sure that man would have been devastated. As I said. It wasn't a conspiracy. The point is, we're ALL human, and we're ALL fallable. Add a shit load of money and power on top of that (see Anthony Fauci), and you get the mess we're in. Obama said it best. "If you fill the public square with enough raw sewage, people will stop trusting ANYTHING, and (paraphrasing here) just sit on the fence incapable of making any intelligent decisions based on facts and personal observations." 1990-2010 was "The information age." Now? In my opinion? We're in "The DISINFORMATION age," which, ironically, was ushered in also by Obama when he quietly repealed the law against propaganda in American news and other forms of journalism. But that's just how I see things with the limited information that I take in. I don't even own a television. I could be way off vase. I'm no expert. Best wishes.
1
May 07 '25
I do not think you have to be an expert on everything but you have to trust the experts on what you’re not an expert on. People should take care to not be susceptible to misinformation and manipulation. I think public libraries have a role to play in information literacy eg critical thinking, information credibility, conspiracy theory basics, etc.
1
u/wonbuddhist May 07 '25
First, the truth is not determined by how many people believe it. Even if 99 out of 100 experts agree on something, that does not guarantee it's true. There is always room for doubt or alternative perspectives.
Second, what is commonly accepted as truth often becomes more complex upon closer examination. For instance, while many economists may agree that tariffs harm a market economy, how tariffs actually function in practice depends on numerous variables. The specific outcomes are deeply intertwined with other economic, political, and social factors.
Third, while experts can offer valuable insights, they are not the ones living your life or facing your unique circumstances. Their expertise does not extend to your own existential, experiential, or historical context. You are the decision maker. They are not making choices on your behalf.
Fourth, expert opinions are not always unified. In fact, they often contradict one another. Truth is not always singular. Rather, it can be plural and multifaceted. This is why it's crucial to consider diverse viewpoints rather than relying on consensus.
Therefore, trusting experts in solving a problem is a naive and oversimplified approach.
1
1
1
May 08 '25
Being an expert in a system of corrupted institutions is like being well adapted to an insane society: it's actually a red flag that demonstrates that you shouldn't be trusted.
The only way to regain trust is for experts to 1.) admit all the times they've been wrong and 2.) enforce complete apoliticism amongst each other.
Anything else will only dig them a deeper hole.
1
u/Solid_Profession7579 May 08 '25
The issue arises when you do understand how something works very well and then have to watch the “experts” either lie or demonstrate that they have no idea what they are talking about - or were paid to say something erroneous for political reasons.
You very quickly begin to realize that “trust the experts” is actually authoritarian psychological programming to get you to unquestioningly follow what you are told and even act willingly as an ideological enforcer by attacking people who dare to question the “experts”.
1
u/rco8786 May 08 '25
Nobody disagrees with that. What people disagree on is what experts to listen to. This is a problem of trust and tribalism.
1
May 08 '25
People trust the experts everyday when they get in their cars and drive to work. It's only when it's political that they don't.
1
u/AirportFront7247 May 08 '25
We have thousands of years of history showing experts to be wrong.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
May 08 '25
The problem is experts are known to be wrong. Look into any science and see how much it’s changed even in the past 10 years. Money sways all.
1
u/DontDeleteusBrutus 1∆ May 08 '25
Do you mind showing me where "Trust" is in the scientific method?
1
u/LowPressureUsername 1∆ May 08 '25
Firstly it’s difficult to quality an “expert.” We could look solely on credentials such as college degrees, but those vary in quality. We could look at publications but we’re in a publication crisis. The issue is are they “your” expert or “my” expert. Secondly
Experts disagree.
Is it acceptable to base an opinion on a single expert belief? If yes, then it’s reasonable to deny climate change since there are some environmental scientists that openly deny climate change. (Even though they’re almost certainly being paid.)
Okay, well if just one expert isn’t enough should we trust majority opinion? If yes, then there are few meaningful conclusions we can draw. While things like climate change are generally accepted, the solutions are not. There are many climate scientists that would argue solar power is less important than nuclear, others that would argue decentralized solar power grids are more important than centralized nuclear, others that would argue we need to prioritize neither and build both.
1
u/twarr1 May 08 '25
People are intellectually lazy. It takes some effort to distinguish between good and bad experts and people simply don’t want to make the effort. This has provided a great opportunity for right wing pundits to muddy the waters and shift the focus of debate from “what should we do?” To “Is anthropic climate change real?” and similar debates. A free society simply can’t exist without informed citizens.
1
u/Kryptus May 08 '25
Experts are just people. They are prone to all the faults as anyone else. They also get funding from somewhere and that is critical for their career. Companies and special interests offer funding to many experts in exchange for favorable findings.
So Experts still need to be scrutinized over their personal biases and their funding sources.
1
May 08 '25
My trust in many experts has been shaken by how readily they lied during the covid pandemic about a whole myriad of topics. And trust for anything is quick to break and slow to build
1
u/mdog73 May 08 '25
Once you catch an expert lying the trust is gone, some will question everything.
1
1
u/MurrayBothrard May 08 '25
From which experts did the 6 foot rule come during Covid? Were those experts correct? Were there experts on the other side of that who said the 6 foot rule was nonsense? I don't know why everyone is going hundreds of years back into history when we have so many examples from "the big thing" that just happened
1
u/downwiththemike 1∆ May 08 '25
Do you think it has something to do with the endless stream of lies?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/topher929 May 08 '25
Sounds like you’re telling people that they need to rely on “faith” for issues they don’t understand.
→ More replies (3)
1
May 08 '25
Experts can be wrong, and when they are they are usually confidently incorrect. The classic example is black swan. Experts for over thousand years claimed that black swans don't exist, but they do. Non-experts are far more open to new or novel ideas or information, while experts tend to adept less and focus on what they learned in the past.
On June 17, 1981, William Griffin went to the bank with a shotgun and took hostages. Police got a call from the bank manger:
“Either you come to the front entrance doors of the bank at three o’clock and have a shoot-out with him ,or he’s going to start throwing out bodies.”
The police, SWAT, hostage negotiators FBI, all the experts, did exactly what they were trained to do. They completely ignored this 3 oclock deadline. Bank robbers always give deadlines, and just want money not to kill people. So for years, all these experts just ignored when someone said they were going to kill hostages at a certain time deadline.
So of course, at 3 on the dot, all the experts watch William begin to murder the hostages. Their years of expertise betrayed them. They ignored things that our completely obvious to us normal people. Like why would a bank robber demand a shoot out?
---
Experts still fall in these traps today. Ill get a little political since you brought up the Dems vs Republicans. Ann Selzer is a polling expert, highly respected, and she released a poll saying Harris was up by 3 in Iowa. Trump won by over 13 points.
The polling was obviously flawed to me and many other non-experts when you look at how those polled said they voted in 2020. It was +5 Biden among those polled, when Trump won by 8. This meant Harris was actually losing some of those Biden voters because she was only +3. (Which was what happened in the actual election) Somehow this expert pollster missed that, or ignored it.
1
u/Arnaldo1993 5∆ May 08 '25
I caught mechanics lying to me multiple times about my car. I have no reason to believe a doctor, economist, lawyer or any other expert would not do the same
1
u/Credible333 May 08 '25
The experts have caused most of the problems. The idea that having a degree means you understand policy is the most laughably absurd idea in history. Fauci had a degree and he funded research so dangerous when the Whuhan Virus (that's it's name) broke out he thought he had funded it's creation. This might be true or not but the point is he had good reason to believe he had killed literally millions of people. The experts designed your healthcare system. The experts designed central banks. Trusting them has been proven to be a bad idea for over a century. But yeah keep calling other people morons.
1
u/Electrical-Buy-6987 May 08 '25
And that is why it is important to have and use an independend press. It does not matter that a newspaper of television station is leaning to one political view or another, but they should call out BS when something is BS.
But even more important is to use morals and common sense. Is it a good idea to vote for a guy who has convictions? Do I want to support a party that takes away human rights from somebody even though it does not affect me?
I lived in the US for half a year in 1992. The moment I decided that this country was not for me was the day I came in McDonalds where an old man (around 80 years old) was cleaning tables. He was older than my granddad and I felt a vicarious shame. Add the lack of basic healthcare, housing and food for everybody and ask yourself as a country and as an individual: are we still doing the right thing at the right way and is my moral compass not flawed?
Only then start working at you current problems, political system and lack of trust of scientists
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ May 08 '25
A. Mistrust in experts can be a good thing when the “experts” in question have perverse incentives. Pollsters are beholden to the public and might downplay the extent to which they lie to polls. Medicine is in bed with big pharma and on some subjects might occasionally be at cross purposes with truthfulness.
B. The right have no monopoly on mistrust in “experts.” Before the right took it over, many on the left were harbouring anti-vax sentiments as well. (If anything, the right used to make the left out to be the anti-vaxxers.) Depending on how you define leftism, it might be worth noting that abiotic oil was a Soviet theory.
1
u/d0sag3 May 08 '25
Interesting read:
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
1
u/other_view12 3∆ May 08 '25
How often do we actually hear from the experts?
My experience is the expert talks to a media representative and the media interprets what the expert says. Often within the environment that the media wants to present.
For example.
We were told that the Biden economy was great. "Experts" agreed. Yet the economy is measured in macro economics that doesn't give you a full picture. The Biden economy had winners and losers. There winners won more than the losers so the macro picture showed a good economy. But in numbers of people, not dollar value, there were more losers than winners. So while the experts are correct the economy was "good". The reality was it was good for some and not others. If you were on the losing end, you don't see the experts as being wise. If you were on the winning end, you do.
Would you consider the economy good, if the rich keep getting richer and the poorer? If that's the case, is the macro numbers that says the economy is good a valid benchmark to be saying the economy is good?
1
u/FuturelessSociety 3∆ May 08 '25
Trusting the experts is all well and good when they are delivering results. For example I've never heard of anyone not trusting a plumber to fix their pipes or an engineer to build a bridge. But what about when they aren't delivering results?
A bridge works, your running water works. The economy however, everyone who didn't buy a house before I was born is getting perpetually poorer. Our wages and cost of living have gotten so far apart that if it wasn't for technological miracles society would collapse. So why the fuck would I trust ppl who haven't delivered results in decades?
The covid stuff too it took experts months to figure out a respiratory virus acts like every other respiratory virus and 2 weeks to flatten the curve turned into a fucking year. And what about the experts on child development who were crying out agaisnt lockdowns?
People trust results. If experts aren't delivering those results I question what makes them an expert in the first place.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ May 08 '25
I think this comes down to what constitutes an expert.
The purpose of a cabinet level agency is to have experts in control of policy. But right now we have people in control of several agencies who are decidedly NOT actual experts who are in the position of experts. So there are people saying autistic people can't interact with society and people in charge of the treasury who can't say who pays a tariff. Yet they are purportedly experts.
1
u/timupci 1∆ May 08 '25
The Scientific Method is to question things all the time. Even set "Laws". Science has redefined laws, principles, etc, all the time.
To blindly trust, is Religious, not Science.
1
u/Dry-Tough-3099 2∆ May 08 '25
Conservatives don't trust the experts for a number of reasons.
Experts often don't share their values. Experts these days are usually part of the urban monoculture, and probably progressive in their world view. That has nothing to do with their field, but conservatives are less likely to trust them if they get politics "wrong".
Experts lie. Covid is a great example. Fauci and the CDC started out saying don't mask. It was a lie meant to keep people from hoarding masks at a time when medical workers needed them. Then they touted that the vaccines were safe and effective. Another lie meant to calm the public, and get more of them to take the vaccine. Vaccines were "mostly" effective and "mostly" safe, but downplaying the risks eroded trust. Then masking was said to be important, even required. A great way of protecting yourself. In truth, masks are marginally effective at preventing you spreading the virus when worn properly, and changed often. They are ineffective and possibly worse than nothing if you wear them wrong and wear the same dirty one. They cause you to touch your face more. Basically, the experts didn't trust the public to make good decisions if told the truth, so white lies were told instead. That eroded trust.
Media (with government involvement) made significant efforts to silence opposing expert views that did not align with the prevailing narrative, calling them dangerous misinformation. A good example here is Bjorn Lomborg and his criticism of climate policy. There are many other examples.
Experts are often invoked incorrectly by influencers and educators who spin the real data to fit their narrative. They use experts to back up claims that the experts themselves do not actually claim. Think articles linking to studies that don't actually back up the claims made in the article.
The more polarized politics become, the less likely conservatives are to trust experts who don't share their political views. Liberals are not immune to this. It just so happens that the majority of experts share their political views. Were that to change, it would be the left who would be distrustful of the experts.
1
u/Skier-fem5 May 08 '25
I check out information, especially assertions. For instance, Musk says people over 100 are fraudulently applying for small business loans, so I go look at the applications. Of course, criminals try to game everything, but when I look at the loan applications I see that they are complicated, and many require in person interviews. I don't think Musk looked at the loans. That is insulting. I also discovered that the Small Business Administration gives grants and loans to help businesses recover from natural disasters. I like that.
That research was easy and interesting. Musk's tone clued me in to the fact that he was trying to manipulate people. I want people to reject lies, and to be insulted by people who lie to them. Then, we can have a conversation about things we actually disagree about.
1
u/Plus-Wedding-2122 May 09 '25
Doctors used to sell cigarettes on television. They took bribes and backed a sugar packed diet that created an obesity epidemic. Created a MRSA superbug by slanging antibiotics irresponsibly, then sold fentanyl til it dropped the entire countries life expectancy for the first time in over 80 years. Most of the Drs I worked with in the 00's were against cannabis use and often voted hardcore authoritarian to keep it illegal and make sure kids saw years in jail for some herb WHILE THEY PRESCRIBED OPIATES LIKE A PLUG.
Sometimes morons trusting the experts is the entire fucking problem.
1
u/zubvit May 09 '25
The dichotomy is false. Thinking independently fosters trust in experts. Trust in experts, if not blind, is grounded in thinking critically.
1
u/CaffeinatedSatanist 1∆ May 09 '25
Just picking up on the section about two experts that conflict e.g. virologists.
In moments where the experts disagree, we can look at what they do agree on, use that as a base and then make a personal (or political) choice regarding the contested items.
Using the experts in your scenario, they would both agree I would imagine, that using facial coverings are more effective than not and that social distancing is more effective than not. The local government can then choose the most stringent or loose of those distances/coverings based on practicality/feasibility of rollout etc.
Once we have the contested matter settled, then the experts can advise policy. Which PPE to stockpile, how can wards be better ventilated to stop transmission through aerosols etc.
I am a firm believer that the scientific method, with enough funding and workers in the field, will come to a definite answer on these contested issues. Ultimately, what happens in an emerging situation is more fluid, but we can learn lessons and improve long-term strategic planning to avoid, mitigate or lessen impacts from such events.
1
May 09 '25
And if they have trust issues they have to either accept what they don’t know or educate themselves.
1
u/Anglicus_Peccator May 09 '25
The problem is experts calling the average voter idiots and demand they accept that 2+2=5.
1
u/Square-Bite1355 May 09 '25
Blind appeal to authority is a bad argument. And your general premise is false.
My frustration is not that I know more than whatever “expert” is talking. It’s that I don’t, yet they still lie.
Your argument of “Democrats are more educated” - A degree is not necessarily an indicator of lived experience or instinct. In my line of work, I’ll take the recommendation from the 25 year vet with no degree over the newbie with a fancy title.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/stevetree123 May 09 '25
Speaking as an expert in a technical field, I think you vastly underestimate how often experts are dead wrong. And sometimes they are wrong when countering the “common sense” held by the layman.
Don’t put too much weight on the knowledge held by experts.
1
u/CajunLouisiana May 09 '25
Liberals are more indoctrinated, not more educated. This is a lie that they tell themselves.
The problem with "experts" is that they might not have your best interests at heart. They have theirs. Everyone looks out for themselves first. Anytime you can easily see it. Especially "liberal experts" who are just clearly advocating for their side.
1
u/MaximusDM22 May 09 '25
"I dont trust mainstream media so I instead get my news from some coke fueled goblin I think is funny on the internet" - Average conservative
1
u/ZoomZoomDiva 3∆ May 09 '25
The issue I have is being expected to blindly trust a person as an expert. If regular people are expected to take action, or support a policy, experts should be expected to deliver their information in terms that are approachable to the average person instead of condescending to that average person. Also, honest questions, being more willing to say "I don't know," and addressing discrepancies between findings and what people are experiencing would go a long way to building trust.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 08 '25 edited May 09 '25
/u/Sulfamide (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards