I would add that even experts are often not really know how to achieve goals unless it has been done before. Experts are really good at identifying problems and suggesting possible means to solve novel problems, but it is only through actually implementing those proposed solutions that we can identify what actually works in practice. That is why small-scale controlled experimentation is so important. Test “good ideas” out in the world before scaling them up.
The issue isn't whether we need expertise but how real expertise has been systematically undermined in this country by the political right preying on the ignorance of the ill informed who'd rather listen to hokey conspiracy theories rather than try to understand the complexity of issues. And then ask yourself to whose advantage is that.
I’d say expertise has done plenty to undermine itself. Sure, there have been political attacks on experts. But if the experts were doing good work that satisfied most people, those attacks would be failing. The failures of our institutions are not an invention of propaganda. They are real, and that’s why attacks against them have grown more effective over time.
You might want to listen to Sam Harris and Douglas Murray discussing this very question of how expertise has been undermined in a recent YouTube video.
I don't think it is correct to define expertise as a special skill in knowing how to achieve a goal. For example, there are experts in astrology; however, they are unable to achieve the goals they claim to have expertise in.
Similarly, experts may have knowledge of various theories. They may be experts at those theories. But whether those theories actually work is another matter.
Part of our problem is that the experts have expertise in things that do not achieve their stated goals.
I think those two statements are in conflict! The astrologer is an expert in the theory of astrology. He can reliably output the answer that the art of astrology states for a certain constellation of stars. He has followed and learned the art from other astrologers over the ages. Of course, whether the art is true is another matter. Much like a string theorist can reliably tell you what string theory says about the universe. But whether string theory is true is also open for debate.
But expertise in a theory is not the same as expertise with regard to achieving a goal (unless you make the theory itself the goal). The goal of the astrologer is to predict the future. They fail at this goal. Instead, they clandestinely pursue another goal: convincing people that they can predict the future.
Excellent essay.
I would add that even experts are often not really know how to achieve goals unless it has been done before. Experts are really good at identifying problems and suggesting possible means to solve novel problems, but it is only through actually implementing those proposed solutions that we can identify what actually works in practice. That is why small-scale controlled experimentation is so important. Test “good ideas” out in the world before scaling them up.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-case-for-randomized-trials-in
The issue isn't whether we need expertise but how real expertise has been systematically undermined in this country by the political right preying on the ignorance of the ill informed who'd rather listen to hokey conspiracy theories rather than try to understand the complexity of issues. And then ask yourself to whose advantage is that.
I’d say expertise has done plenty to undermine itself. Sure, there have been political attacks on experts. But if the experts were doing good work that satisfied most people, those attacks would be failing. The failures of our institutions are not an invention of propaganda. They are real, and that’s why attacks against them have grown more effective over time.
I suggest
You might want to listen to Sam Harris and Douglas Murray discussing this very question of how expertise has been undermined in a recent YouTube video.
Why do you suggest this? What point do you think is missing.
(FWIW I'm aware of the Douglas Murray debate and it was one of a few strands that made me think this was a good time to write this.)
I don't think it is correct to define expertise as a special skill in knowing how to achieve a goal. For example, there are experts in astrology; however, they are unable to achieve the goals they claim to have expertise in.
Similarly, experts may have knowledge of various theories. They may be experts at those theories. But whether those theories actually work is another matter.
Part of our problem is that the experts have expertise in things that do not achieve their stated goals.
I think those two statements are in conflict! The astrologer is an expert in the theory of astrology. He can reliably output the answer that the art of astrology states for a certain constellation of stars. He has followed and learned the art from other astrologers over the ages. Of course, whether the art is true is another matter. Much like a string theorist can reliably tell you what string theory says about the universe. But whether string theory is true is also open for debate.
But expertise in a theory is not the same as expertise with regard to achieving a goal (unless you make the theory itself the goal). The goal of the astrologer is to predict the future. They fail at this goal. Instead, they clandestinely pursue another goal: convincing people that they can predict the future.
Technocracy is the future. Get used to it.