A short, worthwhile argument for the value of expert knowledge - 24 views
started by Alessandro Marcon on 12 Feb 14
started by Alessandro Marcon on 12 Feb 14
started by Alessandro Marcon on 12 Feb 14
started by Alessandro Marcon on 12 Feb 14
Perhaps what's missing here is how (or through which tools) an author can validate his/her claims in public spaces - something we've been talking about for a few weeks now. If we are to value the expert, how can we know he or she is an expert? Could special titles be offered to commentators on certain blogs? Should certain blogs be split between experts and 'laypeople'?
Last year, Popular Science closed their comment spaces on all new articles http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments, but opened up spaces for discussion on particular articles. The principle reason for doing so is that studies have shown that "a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story." In a nutshell, the expertise can be drowned out by the layman, something PopSci feels does an injustice to their site, and to science in general.
All of this echoes what we've been saying about the need for expertise, and the problematic nature of full, unmediated participation in ALL forums serious, and time-invested knowledge. Larger questions are also raised regarding the (inherent?) politicization of knowledge and knowledge-making.
Could potential answers be found in the kinds of tools that we might be able to instill in digital, public forums?
"To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly. Worse, it's dangerous. The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it's a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself."
I find that this is overly dramatic, and marginalizes the voices of many intelligent individuals that are not considered to be "experts." The democratization of knowledge does not mean that EVERYONE will have expert knowledge, which is something that he acknowledges towards the end of his article. The biggest thing that I think he has a problem with are the internet trolls and people who post just because they can. He uses the example of online newspaper forums, but I think this example misses the point, because newspapers are already for public consumption so why should the comment section be limited in this scenario? Most of these public forums are somewhat already moderated in ways that remove offensive comments. Can we really limit the conversation here? The author is bothered by the lack of "knowledge" that laypeople have about issues that they are writing about online, however can we not say that through interaction with an expert in a forum they will not learn something and actually gain knowledge
In an attempt to demonstrate expertise, he appeals (and consequently) compares his expertise to that of a doctor: a heavily regulated profession that is dominated by standardization and evidence-based approaches. Can we hold the same positivist expertise of the medical community to the post-positivist, non-scientific expertise that he yields from the social sciences? It is doubtful.
It is odd to see his call to "science and rationality" as if these were value-free, or objective. He continues "competence is sorely lacking in the public arena"; an interesting claim for a positivist who presents no empirical evidence.
Given the fact that he argues "every discussion must take place within limits and above a certain baseline of competence", I wonder: who does he have in mind to set that baseline? Surely, it would be "experts" and surely he has an answer for it. The implications of this argument alone are beyond the scope of this blog post.
I was finally glad to see that he engaged with questions of evidence. But he does so by insulting anyone with a lower level of "expertise" (as compared to him) and almost insulates himself by making this argument since he can say "see, look, he - the layman - asks for evidence". It would be at this point that the "ordinary interlocutor" would have to cite his or her credential(s) and demonstrate his or her "expertise". This is all very lulzy. The funniest thing about this article (and I am going to assume that Tom Nichols is trolling - in fact I hope he is trolling) is that he is making a relativist argument.
I hope "layman's" don't accept his arguments entirely (and definitely don't accept mine since I claim no expertise). Although, an expert did once tell me that one should always think critically. In any case, it appears that Nichols' "expertise" is expertly discredited once you open up the link to his "Snowden, Manning, and Screwtape" article, which he cites in the "The Death of Expertise". He begins the Snowden and Manning article with: "Well, we're at the beginning of the end of the Snowden and Manning sagas - or at least, to borrow Churchill's phrase, at the end of the beginning. Since just about everything that could be written about these hapless boys has already been written, I'm going to be a bit philosophical at this point. Bear with me." So, I guess we can at least deduce that he is not an expert on Snowden (or Manning), lacks an ability at times to wait things out before jumping to conclusions, and that hindsight sucks.
Last thing: he cites his expertise in relation to the areas of "specifically social science and public policy"... hmmm... that is not specific whatsoever and means nothing. But, then again, I am not an expert and probably only an Übermensch would understand what he meant. By the way, the posts on his blog are "personal opinions" and do not reflect his professional affiliations. Can personal opinions be "expertise"? I wish he could weigh in.
On the most general of terms, I think we can agree that learning has value. We've come to post-secondary institutions for many reasons, but our very act of doing so suggests that studying and acquiring knowledge are acts we would consider valuable (in the fully multifarious sense of what that word implies). I would also claim that we have advanced or progressed in a variety of ways through our studies (some of which we might say have next to nothing to do with 'academic-progression'). I think we could also agree that we have gained more specific knowledge about certain topics than we had, say 10 years ago. While each of us have advanced in our own realms, I think it would be a dubious claim to say that we are on equal footing on all topics. I would be embarrassed to sit on an 'expert' panel alongside Jordon if the topic of discussion were anything to do with criminology, hacktivism, or summertime life in Vancouver. I'd be equally red in the cheeks I had to weigh in alongside Danuta with anything to do with art curation, renaissance painters or trivia nights at the Jame St. pub. That said, I'm fairly confident that I am a far superior sunflower-seed eater than both of you combined. We are not equal in these regards. My voice on the aforementioned topics should not be valued in the same way as yours. This, I believe is the central claim made by Nicholas, and one which I at least partially agree with.
Also, I'm not so sure that he's positing a positivist, or scientifically rational contingency for all expertise. In fact, I think he's arguing quite the opposite - that it is outside of these tightly-confined academically-localized realms, that the importance of acknowledging one's diligently acquired 'social' knowledge escapes our public interactions. Also, it should be noted that at the end of the article he states that experience can be equally as valuable as academic knowledge when it comes to administering expertise. The problem, rather, for Nicholas, and also for me, becomes one of how to get 'expert' or informed/well-reasoned opinion into the public, so that proper and worthwhile debate can take place. Here, I think that all of the points raised by both of you stress just how complicated, and possibly absurd?, it is to implement, or try and implement notions of expertise in (some) public, online spheres.
I agree with Danuta when she says that limiting or restricting comments on public media like newspaper seems contradictory and counter-intuitive. I'd also agree that an effort to comment on an article suggests engaging with material, and, as Danuta mentions, lends way towards a potentially worthwhile exchange with those more in the know. Censoring inoffensive comments in what we call newspapers is certainly dangerous and counter-productive. What about other sources that are not newspapers? Imagine there was a very productive, and informative art blog that became filled with people making dubious and preposterous claims? Would there be any need to limit them there? If so, how would one go about it? I think only the moderator of that blog could make that call.
I think Jordon's first point is also a very valuable contribution to this discussion. Is the author merely seeking self-recognition? Is his plea not for more engaging and worthwhile public interaction but more "acknowledgement" of his own purported merit? If, as mentioned by Prof Greenspan numerous times in our course, communities have a way of sorting out false information on their own, should we care about individual 'experts' at all, or at least their claims to their own 'expertise.' I have to say that I also find it lulzy to expect someone in every online convo to be stating their credentials. I think most people would be happy to see experts use their expertise to engage with issues in productive ways without having to constantly draw attention to their own biographies. Defining expertise, as Jordon mentions, also lapses into relativism. There is no singular, superior expert on any particular topic, but rather overlapping forces engaging in, and morphing, social events. I believe at the end of the article, the author is trying to instruct people - in a pretty pompous manner - of more constructive ways of engaging discussions. Maybe he's just venting after reading a lot of what he might consider "trash" in the comment sections.
I find these topics fascinating. I'm interested in how people's beliefs are formed, and why for some people, these beliefs change over time while for others they do not. If we value expert knowledge, is it only because it benefits ourselves as individuals or because it has potential for social effect? If it's the latter, then surely there needs to be some concern for the dispersion of acquired knowledge. For example, I find the debates over climate change, or creationist vs evolution theories intriguing because of the powerful discursive systems that embody these motives and beliefs. With great shifts taking place in education, online interaction, and access to info, the ways in which people produce and interactive with media will play increasingly important roles.