I came across a quote from Alexander Pope recently: "A little learning is a dangerous thing.” I think this danger is particularly relevant these days. On the one hand, we have more knowledge available to us to access easily than ever before and that’s a wonderful thing, but I do fear that it can also give the illusion that we are more expert at knowing things than we really are. There’s a reason why some things take years and years to master. Not everything, but some things. The rest of Pope’s poetic passage continues:
I want to dig down on this quote from Noam's comment "Truth is meant to be an absolute (proven, vetted, tested and confirmed without a doubt). Yet, 100% transparent and flexible, in the event, if and when, a new truth becomes available."
In that comment, the perfect answer came a little further down the road: "the only truth we have in the universe is the past."
Do we have to rely on Experts to explain what is/was true in OUR past?
And even if so, do we have to be an Expert in finding Experts?
If the answer is "Yes," seek the "Expert."
We do live in a unique time in the history of humanity. The major shift in perception of what it is to be called Human has already begun. Will there be a reason for "experts" to be out there once this shift is complete, or will these new species designated "Humans" be the absolute Experts in anything they do or don't do?
There is an easier way to determine if a expert is trustworthy and it is this.
Look at who signs the paychecks of the expert and if it matches the name of the entity pushing a narrative then placing any trust in them is naive and is done so at your own peril.
No one is going to slaughter the goose laying the golden eggs by disagreeing with their employer and often the only way to know who is trustworthy is finding someone who left that employer because they knew that what was being pushed was complete horse shit and couldn't go along with it.
How can you trust anything or anyone, when we no longer know how to trust? What is truth and how can we know who/what to trust?
I’ve asked this question many times across platforms, and have yet to see anything substantial come from it, including this article (love your work).
It’s not that you, me or others get it wrong, it’s that the concept of trust, comes from the truth. Truth is meant to be an absolute (proven, vetted, tested and confirmed without a doubt). Yet, 100% transparent and flexible, in the event, if and when, a new truth becomes available.
Certain truths won’t change, ie the laws of the universe and many concepts proven, vetted, and confirmed by science especially in the field of physics. But some truths, naturally will, as we learn, grow, test and experiment.
I remember sitting in an economics tutorial in Uni, we had a replacement lecturer in for the sesh, and one of the questions he asked was, “what is the only truth we have in the universe?”, or something along those lines. We grappled with it for over an hour. In the end, debating the answers and left even more confused, he suggested that the only truth- is the past.
That has always stuck with me. Does it help us move forward and answer the lingering question as we navigate this era of (mis)information becoming a weapon of control, all the lies and deceits, gaslighting et al.? Fuck no.
The COVID debacle, debunks pretty much all the points above as well as what we’d expect to be truth from the trusted sources, or those most qualified to speak the truth.
The world trusted blindly, only to find out later, we’ve been lied to and there is now evidence of deliberate deceit and misleading having taken place.
Spice that up further with how deep it went into the “trusted” establishment, whom were the experts and meant to have our best interests at heart. Not even talking about the US, try New Zealand where I am from and we can then see how it snowballs into what it became with everyone singing the same song.
It’s almost as if we experienced a live experimental parody of the movie “Don’t Look Up”. But we don’t see it for what it is, as we didn’t have the entire picture throughout (back to “the only truth is the past”).
The very folk who were shunned and labeled as tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorists, or those who refused et al., ended up pretty much spot on and as purveyors of “real truth”… Now you open up an even bigger head fuck of further information/truth, from said truth-sayers, and back to square one you go- as some of their other theories are, and put quite lightly, just a big no thanks- that’s too far...
We all love the concept of a person who is able to acknowledge when they aren’t sure and be transparent with their words, beliefs, and reasonings. It naturally promotes trust. Even better when they are able to say they got it wrong in hindsight.
But it’s not the case and “truth” proved to be deceit, deceit-betrayal, and real truth so far fetched from reality, we can no longer stick to the formula or trusting we were taught to, when we were young.
I believe this topic deserves far greater respect, research, insight and real debate in order to do justice to the word trust, let alone truth.
First: trust how? Trust for what? Conclusions? never.
Second: ask questions, if they cannot answer simple questions, be suspicious.
Third: look at actions. People whose actions don't match their advice are dangerous - unless they tell you that UP FRONT with an explanation that you understand.
I always trust experts to tell me what they know but rarely trust their conclusions unless they can clearly explain why they are valid and exclusive (or admit they are not). People who don't point out where they aren't certain are always suspicious. Anyone who cannot take a hypothetical argument and say how it would change their conclusion or impact their area of expertise I don't consider experts.
Fair list of things to consider when evaluating experts. Time investment and apathy will be the enemy, just as they are in evaluating politicians. Even more so with the quick pace of our society.
Katherine, thank you for this. I was needing a few insights to add to my "authority analysis" toolbox. I really like the way you examine things. I'm buying you another cuppa joe!
Your points are great for sizing up the expert but I wonder if we can ever really apply them and get 10% of the (truthful) answers? Especially so for government “experts”.
I too love the pope quote. Keep writing; I’ll keep reading.
Love the Pope quote -- one of my favourites of long standing. 🙂 One I had occasion to tweet often -- before being suspended several years ago for running afoul of the Tranish Inquisition -- to whom it seems most applicable ... 😉🙂
But a decent set of principles and criteria to be using to adjudicate the claims of various so-called experts. Though, rather sadly, many of them don't know their arses from a hole in ground so it is often necessary to have some understanding of the relevant principles in play. Otherwise it's often just a game of "Is too! Is not!" 🙄
Apropos of which, a rather illuminating article by a well-regarded Belgium virologist -- Marc Van Regenmortel -- on categorization which has some relevance to the "debate" -- characterized by no shortage of "experts" -- over whether sex is a binary or a spectrum:
But a salient quote from Regenmortel's essay which seems something of an apt summary of that "debate":
"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
Most of the people blathering on about that topic -- on virtually all sides of the fence(s) -- don't seem to have a flaming clue about the various philosophical and logical principles undergirding the whole field of categorization and taxonomy. A brief though illuminating comment from Regenmortel on the topic:
“The official definition of virus species was as follows: A virus species is a polythetic class of viruses that constitute a replicating lineage and occupy a particular ecological niche. Its key feature was that it incorporated the notion of polythetic class also known as a cluster class. Whereas monothetic classes are defined by one or a few properties that are both necessary and sufficient for membership in the class, polythetic classes are defined by a variable set of statistically covariant properties, none of which is a defining property necessarily present in every member of the class.”
That dichotomy between polythetic and monothetic categories is basically that between sex as a spectrum and as a binary. Bit of of murky & convoluted topic, though really not anything that should be beyond the grasp -- or reach -- of most people. But it's sort of necessary to grapple with those concepts without which a resolution of that spectrum-binary debate seems unlikely. Bit of an elaboration on the theme in another of my posts:
In my field (physics) you'd get pretty near unanimity when discussing things like Newton's Laws. You get far less unanimity when discussing, say, interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Physics, in some sense, is actually 'easy'. There are relatively few fundamental laws - although working out the *consequences* of those laws can be very difficult and fraught with error. I don't think this 'safe' and well-established foundation carries over (fully) into other fields, such as medicine. The human body, and its biochemistry, is horrifically complex. I wouldn't *expect* anything like the same degree of unanimity and certainty - just on principle. And we've all seen many examples where medical 'experts' have got things disastrously wrong.
I think when someone has spent years gaining expertise in some field, they should certainly be *listened to*. But simply 'trusted'? No - not even in physics.
eally good information to consider. When you discuss with an “expert”, do you prefer an in person interview? If in person isn’t an option, are there things to consider when conversing by phone, letter or email?
And here’s the best possible argument for not looking for the “Experts” back from 2003:
https://youtu.be/pLRDMCHlC1E
I want to dig down on this quote from Noam's comment "Truth is meant to be an absolute (proven, vetted, tested and confirmed without a doubt). Yet, 100% transparent and flexible, in the event, if and when, a new truth becomes available."
In that comment, the perfect answer came a little further down the road: "the only truth we have in the universe is the past."
Do we have to rely on Experts to explain what is/was true in OUR past?
And even if so, do we have to be an Expert in finding Experts?
If the answer is "Yes," seek the "Expert."
We do live in a unique time in the history of humanity. The major shift in perception of what it is to be called Human has already begun. Will there be a reason for "experts" to be out there once this shift is complete, or will these new species designated "Humans" be the absolute Experts in anything they do or don't do?
There is an easier way to determine if a expert is trustworthy and it is this.
Look at who signs the paychecks of the expert and if it matches the name of the entity pushing a narrative then placing any trust in them is naive and is done so at your own peril.
No one is going to slaughter the goose laying the golden eggs by disagreeing with their employer and often the only way to know who is trustworthy is finding someone who left that employer because they knew that what was being pushed was complete horse shit and couldn't go along with it.
How can you trust anything or anyone, when we no longer know how to trust? What is truth and how can we know who/what to trust?
I’ve asked this question many times across platforms, and have yet to see anything substantial come from it, including this article (love your work).
It’s not that you, me or others get it wrong, it’s that the concept of trust, comes from the truth. Truth is meant to be an absolute (proven, vetted, tested and confirmed without a doubt). Yet, 100% transparent and flexible, in the event, if and when, a new truth becomes available.
Certain truths won’t change, ie the laws of the universe and many concepts proven, vetted, and confirmed by science especially in the field of physics. But some truths, naturally will, as we learn, grow, test and experiment.
I remember sitting in an economics tutorial in Uni, we had a replacement lecturer in for the sesh, and one of the questions he asked was, “what is the only truth we have in the universe?”, or something along those lines. We grappled with it for over an hour. In the end, debating the answers and left even more confused, he suggested that the only truth- is the past.
That has always stuck with me. Does it help us move forward and answer the lingering question as we navigate this era of (mis)information becoming a weapon of control, all the lies and deceits, gaslighting et al.? Fuck no.
The COVID debacle, debunks pretty much all the points above as well as what we’d expect to be truth from the trusted sources, or those most qualified to speak the truth.
The world trusted blindly, only to find out later, we’ve been lied to and there is now evidence of deliberate deceit and misleading having taken place.
Spice that up further with how deep it went into the “trusted” establishment, whom were the experts and meant to have our best interests at heart. Not even talking about the US, try New Zealand where I am from and we can then see how it snowballs into what it became with everyone singing the same song.
It’s almost as if we experienced a live experimental parody of the movie “Don’t Look Up”. But we don’t see it for what it is, as we didn’t have the entire picture throughout (back to “the only truth is the past”).
The very folk who were shunned and labeled as tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorists, or those who refused et al., ended up pretty much spot on and as purveyors of “real truth”… Now you open up an even bigger head fuck of further information/truth, from said truth-sayers, and back to square one you go- as some of their other theories are, and put quite lightly, just a big no thanks- that’s too far...
We all love the concept of a person who is able to acknowledge when they aren’t sure and be transparent with their words, beliefs, and reasonings. It naturally promotes trust. Even better when they are able to say they got it wrong in hindsight.
But it’s not the case and “truth” proved to be deceit, deceit-betrayal, and real truth so far fetched from reality, we can no longer stick to the formula or trusting we were taught to, when we were young.
I believe this topic deserves far greater respect, research, insight and real debate in order to do justice to the word trust, let alone truth.
Thoughts?
First: trust how? Trust for what? Conclusions? never.
Second: ask questions, if they cannot answer simple questions, be suspicious.
Third: look at actions. People whose actions don't match their advice are dangerous - unless they tell you that UP FRONT with an explanation that you understand.
I always trust experts to tell me what they know but rarely trust their conclusions unless they can clearly explain why they are valid and exclusive (or admit they are not). People who don't point out where they aren't certain are always suspicious. Anyone who cannot take a hypothetical argument and say how it would change their conclusion or impact their area of expertise I don't consider experts.
Fair list of things to consider when evaluating experts. Time investment and apathy will be the enemy, just as they are in evaluating politicians. Even more so with the quick pace of our society.
Katherine, thank you for this. I was needing a few insights to add to my "authority analysis" toolbox. I really like the way you examine things. I'm buying you another cuppa joe!
Your points are great for sizing up the expert but I wonder if we can ever really apply them and get 10% of the (truthful) answers? Especially so for government “experts”.
I too love the pope quote. Keep writing; I’ll keep reading.
Love the Pope quote -- one of my favourites of long standing. 🙂 One I had occasion to tweet often -- before being suspended several years ago for running afoul of the Tranish Inquisition -- to whom it seems most applicable ... 😉🙂
But a decent set of principles and criteria to be using to adjudicate the claims of various so-called experts. Though, rather sadly, many of them don't know their arses from a hole in ground so it is often necessary to have some understanding of the relevant principles in play. Otherwise it's often just a game of "Is too! Is not!" 🙄
Apropos of which, a rather illuminating article by a well-regarded Belgium virologist -- Marc Van Regenmortel -- on categorization which has some relevance to the "debate" -- characterized by no shortage of "experts" -- over whether sex is a binary or a spectrum:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309889266_Classes_taxa_and_categories_in_hierarchical_virus_classification_a_review_of_current_debates_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species
And which I've used at various times, and which is more or less the subtext of my kick at the kitty, at the "age-old question" of "What is a woman?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
But a salient quote from Regenmortel's essay which seems something of an apt summary of that "debate":
"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
Most of the people blathering on about that topic -- on virtually all sides of the fence(s) -- don't seem to have a flaming clue about the various philosophical and logical principles undergirding the whole field of categorization and taxonomy. A brief though illuminating comment from Regenmortel on the topic:
“The official definition of virus species was as follows: A virus species is a polythetic class of viruses that constitute a replicating lineage and occupy a particular ecological niche. Its key feature was that it incorporated the notion of polythetic class also known as a cluster class. Whereas monothetic classes are defined by one or a few properties that are both necessary and sufficient for membership in the class, polythetic classes are defined by a variable set of statistically covariant properties, none of which is a defining property necessarily present in every member of the class.”
That dichotomy between polythetic and monothetic categories is basically that between sex as a spectrum and as a binary. Bit of of murky & convoluted topic, though really not anything that should be beyond the grasp -- or reach -- of most people. But it's sort of necessary to grapple with those concepts without which a resolution of that spectrum-binary debate seems unlikely. Bit of an elaboration on the theme in another of my posts:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
I'll pony-up a year's subscription if you want to take a decent kick or two at those "kitties" yourself. 🙂
I think we also have to consider the context too.
In my field (physics) you'd get pretty near unanimity when discussing things like Newton's Laws. You get far less unanimity when discussing, say, interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Physics, in some sense, is actually 'easy'. There are relatively few fundamental laws - although working out the *consequences* of those laws can be very difficult and fraught with error. I don't think this 'safe' and well-established foundation carries over (fully) into other fields, such as medicine. The human body, and its biochemistry, is horrifically complex. I wouldn't *expect* anything like the same degree of unanimity and certainty - just on principle. And we've all seen many examples where medical 'experts' have got things disastrously wrong.
I think when someone has spent years gaining expertise in some field, they should certainly be *listened to*. But simply 'trusted'? No - not even in physics.
eally good information to consider. When you discuss with an “expert”, do you prefer an in person interview? If in person isn’t an option, are there things to consider when conversing by phone, letter or email?