It would seem we have entered an age where we care less about facts, or are exhorted to discard them in favor of feelings and a more pleasurable, agreeable narrative. That’s what we hear, right? IT’S THE POST-FACT AGE. FACTS ARE DUMB. TRUTH IS IRRELEVANT. FUCK INFORMATION UNLESS IT SAYS SOMETHING I WANT IT TO SAY.
But that’s not really it.
Facts are neutral entities. They’re little data-strings of information, arguably correct in the context that they are given, but it’s not them that have been disdained and discarded. At an individual level, sure, but in an overall sense, we’ve chosen to disdain and discard not the facts, but the givers of facts. Or, even worse, those who have obtained the facts for us.
It’s not a post-fact age.
It’s the post-expert age.
And I’m hoping it’s a very short one, because already we’re starting to see what happens when give a chainsaw to someone whose never used one before. At the national level, America has become one of those dreadful shows on deep cable, where a pair of ding-dongs has chosen to renovate and flip a house without ever having replaced so much as a couple batteries in a fucking remote control. They’re full of bluster and confidence and the money they’re going to make, then they stagger into whatever feral cat colony they bought and promptly proceed to break windows and electrocute themselves and accidentally nail-gun their privates to a strip of Pergo laminate. Then they’re eaten by cats as the credits roll and we watch a new set of morons pick up a reciprocating saw. On and on, ab absurdum.
But before we kill and bury our experts — and hopefully see them rise from the grave once more, like an experienced, practiced, ever-adept InfoJesus — we need to figure out how we got here.
1. The media encouraged all narratives as being valid.
The 24-hour news cycle, embodied by CNN but picked up by every news channel, isn’t there for your informational needs. They exist for your entertainment needs. They are there, like a reality show, to edit “reality” into something that has drama and narrative, that is full of juicy conflict. Thus, you turn your eyes to it. Thus, advertising sells its media feces. It trickles down too to non-TV news sources, though to a lesser extent.
Part of the way they achieve this OMG DRAMA component is by, well, creating drama. And drama doesn’t work if you have a bunch of people who sit around, nodding, agreeing on basic facts. It’s like how in a movie, you have to have characters with multiple points-of-view and who bring drama to the table. Even if they’re friends, family, or loved ones, they are written as having the push-and-pull of drama/melodrama. Only problem here is, OUR REALITY IS NOT AN EPISODE OF FRIENDS. It’s not a wacky rom-com. It’s fucking reality. It’s visceral and serious. But the news media disgorges whatever shit-heel pundits it can find from within its turbid bowels, and traps them in the arena of our TV screen so that they can scrum and scrap and disagree. Which means every informational tidbit is spun into a literal point of contention. Given half a chance, pundits will argue about whether racism is real (it is), water is wet (it is), and whether dogs are better than cats (they are and you know it, don’t @ me). Worse, you end up with clickbaity bullshit about how eggs are good no wait they’re bad wait they’re good wait coffee is good it’s bad it causes cancer it cures cancer it is liquid cancer click me click me OH GOD CLICK ME NNNNGH. Data gets cherry-picked, facts get ignored, all to create a narrative based on specious information.
Translation:
When a “news” (cough cough) outlet presents “opinions” as “facts” what happens is we all end up “fucked,” because we can’t tell “right” from “wrong” anymore.
(And it’s in that gap that the fake news dragon rears its papier-mâché head.)
2. The fucking Tea Party.
It’s not just the Tea Party, but their core ethos is that the government is bad.
Well, okay, no, their core ethos is one of racism and sexism and bigotry, but the layers of gristle swaddling that core ethos is about how government sucks and is bad for you.
That’s it. That’s the breadth and depth of their entire belief system.
GOVERNMENT BAD.
And it kinda stops there, except for whispers of “capitalism good” and “bigotry great.”
Here’s the problem, and it’s obvious to anyone with a handful of brain cells juggling around inside their mindcave, I hope: the Tea Party did not run on the platform of, “the government is bad, we will fix it.” No, no, that’s what most other politicians say — “Things need to improve, and I will improve them.” But the Tea Party, ha ha, they ran on a platform of, “the government is bad, and you’ll see, because we’ll show you.” It’s like hiring a serial killer as your healthcare provider. It’s like asking that one Muppet with the bombs to fix your dishwasher. It’s like electing a pathological Narcissist to the highest office in the land. (Ahem.)
We elected inexpert politicians to political office in the hopes that, actually, I have no idea what we were hoping for. I think people were just mad. Mad at government, mad at their circumstances, mad at being a white person who has lost approximately 1% of their privilege so let’s hire this crackerjack asshole to represent me in Congress, sure, why not, he seems dumb — DUMB LIKE A FOX. (Wait.)
We put inept politicians in place.
And they’re still there.
And they’re bringing on more of their own to prove the point. And they’re bringing in cabinet members who are designed to detonate their own agencies — again, there’s that bomb-throwing Muppet again, except now there’s dozens of them, all throwing bombs at the pillars of government and using that to prove that the pillars of government are terrible, just terrible, look how easily they can be bombed.
They promptly revealed that, as it turns out, yes, government is bad when you let these jerks run it, just as you could prove “planes” are bad when you let “Dave from accounting” fly one.
3. The entire Internet.
For individuals, the Internet is great.
For society as a whole, I’m iffy on it.
Look, echo chambers are a natural part of life. We don’t generally gather a group of friends from wildly divergent political spheres — we tend to hang with our own, for the most part, within some margin. And that’s true online, too, so honestly, I’m not sold that echo chambers are the problem directly.
The problem is that our echo chambers have grown to include not just people, but information. What I mean is, anything you believe, you can find a narrative to support it online. And not just one, not just some fringe source — you believe in Kenyan Obama or PizzaGate or Flat-Earth, hey, knock yourself out. It’s true on the Left, too. This house has many mansions, and you can find one for yourself that’s covered in crazy conspiracy walls with the photos and the papers all connected by wild slashes of red yarn. And it’s not just really marginal stuff. You look at something like GamerGate, and how it was obviously founded on the most spurious assertions ever — “It’s about ethics in games journalism” is a punchline, just not a funny one. And it’s one uttered by cellar-dwelling misogynist amphibians as they type out hate crimes against women.
On the Internet, you can find any “fact” to support anything you want. You can find an “expert” to tell you what you want to hear, which of course does no service to actual experts, and as such, reduces our overall trust for them. Here, you can call yourself an expert with nothing more than the ease of typing out six letters in the proper order. Hell, there are still people calling themselves social media gurus, even though that’s not a thing, and shut up. It’s easy to hide on the Internet. Which means it’s easy to hide that you’re not an expert, even as you claim to be one.
4. Capitalism Gone Awry!
Capitalism by itself is not a bad thing.
I mean, maybe in our inevitable Star Trek future we’ll all come to agree that it’s largely harmful to our species, okay, but in the short term, in the reality that exists right now, capitalism can encourage innovation through competition. I would like a Superior Widget, not this Inferior Dongle, and so companies big and small can compete to engage with new technologies to give me my Superior Widget, and I pay for it, and they make money, and I’m happy, and the world keeps on spinning. Yay Widgets, Boo Dongles, hooray and huzzah.
Two problems with that, though.
First, a purely profit-driven world is bad when profits can be gleaned from things that are arguably for the social good. The moment you introduce profit into, say, healthcare, it gets staggeringly more complex. It runs the risk of becoming a very large, very scary version of That Guy In His Magical Medicine Cart Trying To Sell Us Snake Oil. If we’re all just marks and rubes — just wibbly-wobbly piggy-banks to be broken open by the right combination of marketing and advertising — then we’re fucked. We’re all just bacon and pennies. Okay, but but but, this isn’t a problem as long as capitalism is bound. Meaning, we are protected from its excesses by regulations — but oh wait —
Second, yeah, no, we’ve deregulated a whole lot of shit. For instance, did you know that the USDA and the FDA do not generally have the power to compel recalls? They can ask for or demand recalls, but have little legal or political recourse to force one. (The FDA has some power when it comes to things like baby formula.) And some of those regulations improved under Obama — the FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act) was the first piece of real food safety regulation legislation since the 1930s. But now, we’ve got a president who wants to deregulate the FDA — he called it the “food police” and further wants to speed-up pharmaceutical approvals by reducing safeguards. (One might argue his entire presidency is the Snake Oil Presidency. I hope one day we all enjoy our deregulated cups of SALMONELLA SLURRY.)
You might say, well, what the fuck does this have to do with experts and expertise? Easy. The people we want to be in charge of certain spheres of industry are experts — but without regulations, they become experts not in the things they’re producing, but rather only in the selling. They’re good at making money, not at demonstrating expertise. (In a perfect world, these things dovetail, wherein the experts demonstrate expertise and are paid for that. But deregulation leads to what could best be described as a very, very imperfect world.) We trust them to do right, and we pay them accordingly, but they lie to us and do wrong. We were promised a panacea, we got snake oil, so now we once again find our trust in supposed experts watered down — largely because the very role of the expert has itself been watered down.
5. Education Inequity Leads To Educational Distrust
Academic access is not evenly distributed.
In poor parts of the cities and in the country, you either get a reduction of resources and teachers, or you get horseshit textbooks that are happy to teach you that Texas is the center of the moral universe and that God once rode a dinosaur and the Devil invented PornHub — or whatever nonsense that some self-righteous info-crusader felt was “right” despite the facts. And by the way, you don’t get any more expert than teachers and textbooks. If you want to hack at the root of expertise, fuck up the textbooks and screw over the teachers.
(I’ll also note a personal opinion here, that even in the wealthiest parts of the country, our educational sphere often focuses on things we don’t need to know — turns out, it’s less important to know the succession of monarchs in England than it is to know how to do your taxes. And that gap — the gap of essential information! — leaves us open to the exploits of more Snake Oil salesman.)
A personal story of note here: I remember learning biology in 10th grade — which, as it turns out, included evolution because evolution is a real thing. Then, junior year, it was time for chemistry, and the first day of chemistry, the teacher was fucking pissed. Pissed because we learned evolution the year prior, and so he spent the whole first day of chemistry (!) frothing at us about how we need to have access to alternative facts — cough-cough, THE BIBLE. My thought that day was not, “Wow, teachers are bullshit,” but rather, “Wow, this particular teacher is bullshit.” And I was dubious of his entire existence as a teacher, not because he was bad at the things he taught, but because he broke an essential contract with the students. He told us upfront he would gladly discard scientific information if it fed into his belief system, which made everything that came out of his mouth utterly and suddenly suspect. Now, imagine that’s every teacher or textbook in your school. How would you feel? Either brainwashed, or like everybody was an idiot and nothing was true. And both of those outcomes favor an eradication of expertise.
And when expertise is weakened or eradicated, you are easier to manipulate.
6. Experts Can, Y’know, Actually Be Wrong.
Experts get it wrong.
That’s how it works.
Nobody in this life bats a thousand.
But we create false standards for expertise — any failure of any expert is suddenly grounds to distrust them. We say, that scientist was wrong. But of course that scientist was wrong — that’s how science works. Science isn’t a bulletproof Popemobile. That’s religion you’re thinking about. Science is an ever-shifting series of goalposts, which is a feature and not a bug, but we treat it like — uh-oh, it was bullshit once, so it’ll be bullshit ever and always. That poll was wrong, never trust polls. That fact-spewing expert was wrong, never trust fact-spewing experts.
And here someone is saying:
BUT MISTER WENDIG, YOU JUST TOLD US THAT WHEN YOUR CHEMISTRY TEACHER SPOUTED ONE WRONG THING, YOU WERE DUBIOUS OF HIM FOREVER.
Well, yeah.
First, because what he did was not challenge fact with fact. He challenged science with a belief system — he chose to ignore the subject he was teaching in favor of an entirely different subject. He was willing to discard science in favor of… y’know, basically magic. You might get one history teacher who lionizes Christopher Columbus, another who shows Columbus in a more realistic, more troubling context — sure, okay, fine. But instead imagine that your history teacher said, “I believe that America was discovered by leprechauns,” and you’d be all *record scratch* whoa fucking what? What did he say? Did he just say leprechauns? So when a chemistry teacher says, “I think you should also be taught that the Magic Hand of Jesus is how you get camouflage moths and human beings,” I think we’ve gone beyond “an expert got it wrong once.”
Second, I still trusted his basic grasp of chemistry. I didn’t flip a table and storm out of the class — I mean, I did my damn homework and still learned some chemistry. Even from a guy who believed that Sky Man somehow superceded The Scientific Method. I did not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I instead recognized that the bathwater was actually Kool-Aid. I still kept the baby. In part because now the baby tasted like Kool-Aid.
(mmm, fruit punch babies)
More to the point, we demonize failure in this country. In schools, in the public and private sphere. A politician gets a point wrong and corrects their stance — that’s viewed as a flip-flop, not as a course-correction. But course-corrections are everything. Failure is okay when we acknowledge it as a failure. Being wrong is fine, as long as we admit that it’s wrong and not right.
7. Finally, The Narcotic Power Of American Exceptionalism
Man, we love being Americans.
We love being individuals with our individual liberty and choice and yeah ha ha fuck the community, who needs roads and shit. Oh, wait, we all need roads? Uh-oh.
More seriously, there’s this thing with being an American and it comes with this very strong sense of ego. We are taught that we as individuals are afforded luxuries that go beyond the community — I get mine, you get yours, I’ll take care of my lawn, you take care of your lawn, we’re good. That’s the contract. Me, me, me, you, you, you. We’re all exceptional individuals.
Problem with that is, as individuals who believe the individual is above all others — well, that worldview doesn’t leave a lot of room for experts, does it?
Or, rather, it leaves room for only one expert:
ME, motherfuckers. Me, me, me. The alpha and omega, yours truly.
Except to you, it’s you.
And to that guy, it’s him.
We’re all our own experts.
And that’s a fucking problem.
And again we come around to those first-time flippers, those ego-fed fuckwits who think they can renovate a whole house because shit, it looks easy on the TV. I SEE THEM SAWING BOARDS AND CUTTING BATHROOM TILE, AND I SOMETIMES USE SCISSORS ON PAPER, SO IT’S BASICALLY THE SAME THING. Or you get a bunch of dickholes who refuse to believe Shazaam wasn’t a movie or that the bears are Berenstain instead of Berenstein because it’s easier to accept that reality has changed than it is to admit oh I might actually be incorrect about something. It’s not a Glitch in the Matrix. You’re just wrong about stuff and that’s okay. “What’s that you say? I’m not an expert on every piece of information that comes out of my head? PIFFLE AND POPPYCOCK. HORSEDUNG AND SHENANIGANS. I am the boss of this reality! If you disagree with me, then clearly our realities have diverged.”
Expertise dies in the choking hands of American exceptionalism.
So Wait What The Fuck Do We Do?
We need to start holding experts in higher regard. We need to trust them on climate change, on food safety, on basic science, on governing policy. We need to hire people who are smart, we need to elect people who are good at being politicians because as it turns out, the government isn’t a business and business isn’t government. If you want someone to fly a plane, you find the best pilot around. If you want someone to fix the wiring in your house, oh, I dunno, maybe hire a goddamn electrician instead of trying to build Frankenstein’s Monster behind your walls.
(Or was it Frankstain‘s Monster?)
(Sorry.)
We need experts.
We need to trust them.
And we need the systems to hold them accountable to their expertise.
How we get there, well, shit, I dunno.
You should probably ask an expert.
The Urban Spaceman says:
Well said, Internet’s Chuck Wendig!
March 28, 2017 — 11:02 AM
humphreyswill says:
Excellent post!
March 28, 2017 — 11:08 AM
Kevin Wallace says:
*stands up and cheers until the dog walks out of the room where the doofus is cheering at his computer*
This pretty much runs the whole gamut of what’s wrong on The Hill. Thanks for writing it–my version wouldn’t have been nearly as effective or entertaining.
I would just add that we need more “politician-and”. Politician-and-doctor. Politician-and-IT-guru. Politician-and-economist. This is who should be in the cabinet: people who can bridge the gap between Washington DC and the people who can solve the problems that they’re trying to solve.
Other than that, you’re absolutely right. Fake news isn’t the problem, it’s the people who make it lucrative.
March 28, 2017 — 11:16 AM
babbitman says:
In the UK, during the farce of the EU Referendum, almost all of the considered impartial experts stated that leaving the EU would either be ‘very bad’, ‘quite bad’, ‘not great’ or at the very least ‘hugely challenging’. Having the BBC as a public service broadcaster at least meant that they tended to avoid sensationalist drama, but suffered from a crisis of needing to be absolutely impartial. This meant that, while there were 99 experts saying that leaving was a terrible idea, they were compelled to sit one Remain expert next to the one semi-rational Leave ‘expert’ and make it look like it was a 50-50 decision.
We even had one gruesome toad of a man on the Leave side, Michael Gove, who said live on air that people “…have had enough of experts…”. He was UK Secretary of State for Justice at the time. Our latest Prime Minister reshuffled her cabinet and booted him into the long grass of the back benches, possibly the only good thing she’s accomplished. Gove, when Secretary of State for Education, once approved 3 creationist schools (which, 2 years later, were banned from teaching creationism). He is also the owner of “the face you’d most want to punch”, an award I long to give him.
At least in the US you only have less than 4 years to wait before trying a more sensible approach; we’re stuck with a decade or more of slowly falling apart.
March 28, 2017 — 11:47 AM
Steve says:
Chuck, I believe that what we can do is not participate in the BS, call it when we see it, trust experts (with credentials,) and understand how science works. It begins with each of us, and we can work together to spread it. Perhaps plain facts can be redeemed, if enough of us band together to promote them.
The trouble I see is that the facts tend to be dull, and don’t sell a lot of ad space. But, still, we gotta do it.
March 28, 2017 — 12:36 PM
Bella Higgin says:
I get so, so angry with people who actually seem to think that racism isn’t real, as if the moment the slaves were freed, they all joined hands with the people who oppressed, brutalised, and dehumanised them, and waltzed into a la-la land of rainbows and unicorns. I get so unbelievably furious when I hear straight white men saying that people of colour just need to get over what happened to their ancestors and move on. As if racism isn’t still happening. As if white privilege isn’t a thing.
And that’s the problem. The straight white men who are saying these things literally have no idea how privileged they are. They are in the one social group that has never had to fight for their basic human rights, and they are the on social group that is never in danger of having those hard-earned rights taken away again.
March 28, 2017 — 12:59 PM
janinmi says:
True dat. (Watched an ep of “Killing Fields” last night, luv that phrase!)
March 28, 2017 — 1:17 PM
janinmi says:
Reinforcing the reason why I read your blog, you’ve hit the nail on its head. American exceptionalism has a fuck-ton of blame to answer for. In formula terms, white US citizen + exceptionalism + inferiority complex + anti-“elite” mindset = today’s mess. I am with you 100%, dude. The pessimist in me, however, has serious doubts about whether the current sitch can change within my lifetime (which is getting shorter every day: I’m 61). The conflict I’ve sussed out is the disconnect between the belief that experts are elitists and therefore the enemies of the salt-of-the-earth because they “make” the latter look like lesser beings, and the need for experts because one person can’t be an expert on everything. It’s a cultural jam in the gears of society. The wrench in the gears is, imho, pride.
March 28, 2017 — 1:14 PM
plwinkler says:
You have written an outstanding post, Chuck.
March 28, 2017 — 1:48 PM
Mark A. Sargent says:
This writeup is a great exploration of things I’ve always thought, but never really knew how to express in detail. “American exceptionalism”, education, science can and should be wrong sometimes, the TP running on destruction of the government, all of it. I’m glad you took the time to write it.
March 28, 2017 — 2:07 PM
alana Mason says:
I can see that you are First Time Flipper fan like myself……
March 28, 2017 — 2:21 PM
Marshall Smith says:
To leverage my own personal expertise, the Muppet in question is Crazy Harry.
Otherwise, I think you covered the details pretty well.
March 28, 2017 — 2:33 PM
jadefalcon14 says:
>.> Did we have the same chemistry teacher? I have an oddly similar story
March 28, 2017 — 2:52 PM
ZonieMama says:
My freshman Biology teacher told us we didn’t need blood transfusions; salt water would do. o.0
April 3, 2017 — 1:58 AM
Leif Husselbee says:
“Aliens.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, History Channel.
March 28, 2017 — 3:42 PM
Chandra L White says:
To be fair, has anyone ever listened to that guy without the visual of the hair? Like blindfolded themselves and noticed the words? Cause I know I have never watched that thing and noticed anything he said.
I mean the hair that looked like he had been dropped off at the interview via alien swirly was a big hit to that guy’s credibility, but should the hair have been a hint that he really did know something?
Just sayin’
March 30, 2017 — 1:40 PM
Katharine Ashe says:
And that about sums it up. Thanks, Chuck.
*sobs on my knees at rim of swirling abyss into which democracy is vanishing*
I recommend for anybody here craving post-apocalyptic fiction in which the learned elites are all massacred and all books are burned, Walter Miller’s completely brilliant A Canticle for Leibowitz. I’ve been teaching this novel to university students for years. This semester for the first time ever most of them seemed to get it. (*sobs harder*)
March 28, 2017 — 3:48 PM
Aspen says:
I was forced to read Canticle in high school or junior high, and it totally went over my head. I declared that I didn’t like the ending (they blew themselves up again, IIRC) and was forced to endure a 10-minute lecture from the teacher that this was Great Literature and we snot-noses were not allowed to “not like” it. I think I will have to revisit the tale.
To be fair, The Grapes of Wrath would also have been well above my head in my youth, but reading it for the first time in 2009 (financial crisis, koff koff) I was rolling on the floor appreciating its brilliance.
March 28, 2017 — 4:18 PM
jeffo says:
Regarding the Tea Party, it’s actually, “Government bad, but don’t touch my Social Security and Medicare.”
Regarding the Internet, it’s sad that we have this incredible tool for learning and communication at our disposal, yet we’re using it to make ourselves dumber and less experienced–and much more confused. If I hear or read something on mainstream media and hit the ‘net to check on the facts for myself, well, it’s not always easy to recognize what is fact and what is not.
As for our government, I can only hope that the sects within the GOP will continue to battle each other to a standstill, while our incompetent executive branch keeps getting their orders cut down by the courts. I think that’s our current best hope.
March 28, 2017 — 4:30 PM
curioushart says:
I am only going to address point #5, Education, because that is an area in which I am am expert. In 2008, there was a nationwide study that concluded that, out of 435 congressional districts, district 20 ranked last in terms of quality of life. Within district 20, another study concluded that Roosevelt High School in Fresno, California ranked last in terms of socioeconomic health and educational advantages. I taught at Roosevelt High School for 21 years. Those students had every disadvantage you can think of and just about every barrier to impede their success. At Roosevelt High School, they had some of the best teachers in the nation. We knew that we could not be any less than the best for our students.
Just because a school is poor, with few resources, doesn’t mean that the students do not have access to an excellent education. Often there is superior teaching going on in the most unlikely places-such as Roosevelt High School.
By the way, it was recently determined that children in the Roosevelt area are manifesting lead levels in their blood that are three times higher than those of children in Flint, Michigan. Right now, there is not a big fuss about this because Fresno’s poor is not a very “glamorous” news story.
March 28, 2017 — 11:00 PM
Ivy says:
Marvellous, thank you.
We are surely all a little further along the rising trend of anti-intellectualism that Isaac Asimov once observed. Is there an end-point or an offramp for this self-harming madness?
I see that madness in so many different guises. For example, relatives who’ve received life-changing advanced surgery who still manage to glibly parrot lines like ‘doctors really don’t know anything’. The disconnect is startling.
And then I also see expertise and experts being demonised by various well-resources interest groups. They deliberately play at miscasting voices of wisdom as some kind of latter-day aristocracy deserving of a guillotine, while trying to monopolise markets and legislative processes for their own special elite concerns.
It bugs me. But, ‘points of light,’ I just keep thinking to myself as a consolation. WH Auden and a hug for everybody.
March 29, 2017 — 4:03 AM
Paul Walker says:
in one of those synchronicity moments, I finished reading http://www.macleans.ca/society/why-americans-have-come-to-worship-their-own-ignorance/ the other day, which is along similar lines but delivered somewhat differently. Also worth a read though, I’d say.
March 29, 2017 — 11:05 AM
Frank says:
I’m one of those people who cringe when they hear the word “expert.” Running a government, or a school system, or an economy is not the same as flying an airplane or wiring a house. Those things are mostly a matter of technique and methodology. The other things are subject to widespread and fiercely held and — even from opposite ends of a spectrum — justifiably divergent views. And yes, sometimes divergent beliefs, too.
That’s kind of the point of democracy, that people get to pick those who govern them, and it’s not just who holds the most initials in their degrees. Sometimes people get it wrong, democracy being a very imperfect system, and sometimes people wind up very divided, one of the possible outcomes of honest debate. But then they can do those “course corrections” you cite as being good things. Install a technocracy, on the other hand, and pretty soon you’re on the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and that’s a much tougher course to correct from.
March 29, 2017 — 3:11 PM
curioushart says:
Well put.
March 29, 2017 — 4:31 PM
Ivy says:
Apples and pears. You pick your representatives, not your experts, is how read it.
Governments and educational institutions hire subject matter experts across a wide variety of proficiencies to support their requirements. They know their shit. They train up others. They may be called on to help with key decision making. Informed decision making is not a threat to our democracy.
These SME aren’t necessarily your elected officials, although an elected official may coincidentally be a SME.
March 30, 2017 — 3:50 AM
Frank says:
I understand the logic, but I’d defy you to find one topic, short of things we generally all agree on, like gravity, where you can’t find dueling experts. There are lots of so-called experts who can back up their divergences with cogent arguments in direct contradiction to other so-called experts. Just go to any gathering of geologists or biologists or economists or whatever, and you might think they need to call in security to break up the brouhahas that boil over.
Even experts have biases and belief systems and blind spots. And they, too, are formed by other experts with their own biases and belief systems. I’m not sure there is any good cure for that short of vigorous and open-ended debate, but it verges into the dangerous, even catastrophic, when our politics, economics, and social issues are entrusted to “experts.” Ultimately we all need to be involved in picking our elected officials who pick their experts. But both in reality and fiction there are cautionary tales warning us against technocracies.
March 30, 2017 — 12:41 PM
curioushart says:
Well put. You remind me of a character in an Isaac Asimov novel who was declared he was an expert in archaeology. He never visited any historical sites and did any excavations of artifacts. But he did read all the best experts in the field.
March 30, 2017 — 4:23 PM
curioushart says:
Oops! I meant what you wrote reminded me of the character–not you, yourself. Sorry.
March 30, 2017 — 4:24 PM
Frank says:
Thanks. I figured that’s what you meant.
March 30, 2017 — 4:35 PM
Hillsy says:
As someone mentioned above – that’s why you don’t just ask two guys. In a 99-1 argument the key number is 1/99, not 2 (the number of sides – and yes, blah, blah scientific consensus, feinmann, the world was thought flat, relativity, etc etc).
The main point is that experts are able to present a factual, cogent argument that stands up to scrutiny – and part of that scrutiny is wide acceptance within the community of experts. There is a reason why science broadly accepts Relativity as a thing, but it wasn’t greatly accepted at the time (memory serves Neils Bohr used to give lectures trashing the theory). There is also a reason why you don’t get taken seriously when you dismiss climate change because you believe the 1 guy out of the hundred in the room, even when the other 99 are all pointing to the same 750 graphs.
And that is why you have Politicians – because a Politician is, or should be, an Expert in listening to a broad range of opinions, from a broad range of sources, applying the appropriate weight to that argument, and then charting the best course. And who should they be listening to? Bloody Experts I hope – else I’m seriously going to doubt their expertise in Politics. (See also: Trump).
The argument you’re making is that we should be allowed to elect our officials is common sense – that’s representative democracy and if, say, 88% of an area believes that owning a Goat is heresy, they for sure they should select someone to represent that belief. However, the second argument that somehow we should be perfectly relaxed, if not encouraging, peopel to pick and choose which ‘Experts’ they listen too…..then you’re back to picking that one guy in the room talking nonesense and ignoring 99 others who all agree. That makes you a horrendous politician (see also here in the UK, George Osborne sticking to Austerity, when the majority of Economic “Experts” had decided that Austerity wasn’t working anymore, and investment was needed. Osborne ignored that, and now the country is struggling – Osborne stopped listening to lots of experts, and picked only those he liked. Often his reflection. Scumbag)
A politician’s job is to take all the available information and find a way to use that to deliver what is best for his constituents wants and needs. It isn’t filtering out the information he doesn’t agree with so he can justify doing what his constituents demand.
March 31, 2017 — 5:38 AM
LostCarlson says:
Oh my goodness, I love the voice of your mind.
April 1, 2017 — 12:11 AM
LostCarlson says:
I guess what I’m hearing is the need to eradicate the two part system, so then what? The chaos that you cause is the chaos you will receive. Myopia and pacifiers over ice. I double “Red Dawn” ya … Spys’R Us, offering new markdowns.
March 31, 2017 — 12:41 PM
ZonieMama says:
This excerpt resonates: <>
April 3, 2017 — 2:03 AM
ZonieMama says:
(oops – what happened??)
THIS :
“More to the point, we demonize failure in this country. In schools, in the public and private sphere. A politician gets a point wrong and corrects their stance — that’s viewed as a flip-flop, not as a course-correction. But course-corrections are everything. Failure is okay when we acknowledge it as a failure. Being wrong is fine, as long as we admit that it’s wrong and not right.”
April 3, 2017 — 2:04 AM
chacha1 says:
That’s FRAHNK-en-steen.
More seriously, delightfully expressed as usual, and I will share.
April 3, 2017 — 3:47 PM
James M. Six says:
“Second, I still trusted his basic grasp of chemistry. I didn’t flip a table and storm out of the class — I mean, I did my damn homework and still learned some chemistry. Even from a guy who believed that Sky Man somehow superceded The Scientific Method.”
I’ve been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. (Road trip for Religious Studies students from my college.)
The creationists believe universal constants of atomic isotopes can be adjusted faster or slower by God, like the color levels on your television. They say that’s why scientists don’t know the true age of things as described in the Bible. They say carbon dating is wrong because carbon-14 decayed at a faster rate in the past. I wouldn’t have trusted a creationist to teach me chemistry because he believes God can change the rules (and has changed them in the past), so chemistry is basically a crapshoot at any given moment.
April 6, 2017 — 2:31 PM