The Appeal to Expertise?

It has become all too common these days for the utility of experts to be viewed through the lens of whether they agree with one’s preconceived position. The pendulum of trust in expertise swings back and forth based on whether we like what the experts have to say or not. Often, if we don’t we go seek out other experts to discount the offending information. So, it is worth emphasizing a couple points in regards to how we think about expertise.

1) Expert opinion has limitations. Experts often disagree, experts often speak about issues outside of their area of expertise, and many of issues for which we seek expert opinion are normative rather than descriptive — they are not about what “is” they are about what one “ought” to do, they are value judgments not factual judgements. For all these reasons, the admonition to simply accept expert opinion is wrong.

2) However, if you hold a belief about a field that conflicts with the consensus of the experts in that field, you should be highly skeptical of your position. An expert in a field making a statement based on the weight of evidence in that field is something worth seriously considering. Yes, “the science” changes — that is not a bug, it is a feature. It is an example of the system functioning as it should. When new evidence contradicts old, when the weight of evidence shifts, then positions are updated. That still means that overall, the best course is to stick with the prevailing consensus until that shift occurs. That is, unless YOU are an expert intimately familiar with that consensus and with the emerging anomalies in your field and you are setting out to do “revolutionary science.”

Dismissing expert opinion based on feelings, preconceived beliefs, or superficial understanding is confirmation bias, not intellectual bravery. Also, ‘intellectual bravery’ is a silly term. Intellectual honesty is a more useful concept and that starts at home, with our own thinking.

-LM