Vaccinated people “do not carry the virus, [and] don’t get sick” said then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky in 2021. She also implied that they couldn’t transmit Covid. The CDC had to walk her “expert” claims back mere days later. As we now know, “vaccinated” people could contract and spread the virus.
Of course, you could always mask up, a preventative recommended even for children by CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen. But then she changed her tune — after she stunted her own little son’s “language development” by masking him.
This was nothing, though, compared to prominent psychologist Dr. John Money, who boasted a Ph.D. from Harvard. He originated “gender neutrality” theory, which held that newborns could be raised successfully as either sex (with proper medical interventions). Unfortunately for a Canadian family named the Reimers, they listened to this “expert” — and both their sons’ lives were destroyed.
Given the above, is it any wonder the late Professor Walter E. Williams once asked, rhetorically, “Can we trust experts?”
Appeals to Authority
Answering with a resounding “No!” just recently was commentator J.B. Shurk. “Occasionally I hear credentialed professionals with prestigious titles,” he writes, “whine about the so-called ‘war on expertise.’ It really bothers people who see themselves as ‘experts’ that a growing share of society ignores them.”
For sure. They spend years and oodles of cash getting educated and more degrees than a thermometer, obtain some “prominent” position … and then?
Some construction worker with a high-school diploma prioritizes his common sense over their uncommon sense. But then there’s something worse still:
When people do “listen” to the experts.
So what’s the answer? Do we ignore them or heed them — or is the proper course something else?
Shurk doesn’t address that, but he does bemoan the “appeal to authority” fallacy. This is the idea that we should listen to experts simply because they have been deemed experts. But when “you hand your brain to third-parties,” writes Shurk, “don’t be surprised to discover that ‘experts’ value your life less than you do.” He then continues:
Europeans are learning this lesson the hard way right now. … European “authorities” have spent decades using the “global warming” hobgoblin to scare the public into accepting expensive and unreliable sources of energy whose use will do nothing to “save the planet.” Those “authorities” have managed, however, to cripple most European industries and make Europe’s cost of living prohibitively expensive.
Perhaps even more striking are examples provided by the aforementioned Walter Williams. As he related in 2018:
Irving Fisher, a distinguished Yale University economics professor in 1929, predicted, “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” Three days later, the stock market crashed. In 1945, regarding money spent on the Manhattan Project, Adm. William Leahy told President Harry S. Truman, “That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The (atomic) bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.”
In 1903, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank, advising Henry Ford’s lawyer not to invest in Ford Motor Co., said, “The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty — a fad.” Confidence in the staying power of the horse was displayed by a 1916 comment of the aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Douglas Haig at a tank demonstration: “The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.”
Albert Einstein predicted: “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” In 1899, Charles H. Duell, the U.S. commissioner of patents, said, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Listening to its experts in 1936, The New York Times predicted, “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.”
My, hearing that even Einstein wasn’t always an Einstein truly illustrates the point.
All this said, instinctively dismissing experts would be as silly as instinctively heeding them. So how can we cultivate that happy medium?
Having Your Antennae Up
First consider that what Thomas Jefferson said about judges applies to all experts. That is, they “are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” But as with seeking medical care and getting a second opinion, wisdom is necessary to separate fact from fiction. Alas, too, there’s no perspicacity pill or sagacity serum. But we can be mindful of the forces in play. Here’s a list to consider:
- Politicization — when experts work for government or rely on its grants, they’ll often generate politically desired results to satisfy their state patrons. Dishonesty, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci “moving the goalposts” on Covid (which he admitted to), can result.
- Related to this, realize that a good percentage of experts’ research is actually fraudulent; watch for it. Know, too, that media are more likely to report fringe than valid science. It’s the “man bites dog” story.
- Follow the money — novelist Upton Sinclair observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” “Experts” are no exception. Just consider the “transgenderism” specialists who’d give youths sexual-distortion treatments. You’re much less likely to acknowledge the sexual binary’s existence when embracing a “gender spectrum” yields millions.
- Ideological bias — experts can have political passions just like anyone else. So if, for example, a researcher is an ardent feminist, it’s probable this will color her “findings.”
- Spirit of the age — if expert claims align too conveniently with political/cultural fashions (e.g., wokeness today), be suspicious. They may reflect pandering, not perspicacity.
- Confirmation bias — being human, you’ll likely want to seek out information that confirms your existing beliefs. Seek Truth, even when it hurts, not affirmation.
Conclusion
Regarding the last point, it may surprise my critics to know that I’ve sometimes gone to left-wing sources for verification. Why? Because if even, let’s say, Snopes or HuffPo verifies a “right-wing” story, it’s a good indication it’s valid. If it doesn’t, I can, and usually do, investigate further.
In conclusion, I’ll emphasize that there’s nothing wrong with citing experts. But there is something wrong with citing experts as a substitute for Truth.
As philosopher Blaise Pascal expressed, anyone who sincerely searches for God will find Him. This applies to most any aspect of Truth, too. Seek it diligently and with all your heart, and there’s a good chance you’ll discover it.
Many people are content being deceived because the deceptions are comforting. Many are too lazy to seek Truth because searching for treasure is more laborious than seizing the freely-offered-up fool’s gold. It doesn’t take an expert to con those who love lies more than Truth and who, therefore, have already conned themselves.
