Posted on 03/13/2026 5:38:18 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Occasionally I hear credentialed professionals with prestigious titles 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. A psychologist might intuit something revealing from the lack of self-confidence plaguing our “expert” class. If all the fancy degrees, voluminous curricula vitae, and lofty career positions have failed to instill a resilient modicum of self-esteem, then perhaps all those things are not the true measures of a person’s worth.
“Experts” do not like to be challenged. They say things such as, “I have a PhD in this,” or, “I get paid a lot of money to talk about that,” and expect everybody listening to stop thinking and immediately agree with everything the “expert” has to say. I once witnessed a young “race studies” professor intrude into an online debate and tell everyone that she was correct and everybody else was wrong. Her evidence? She cited the costs of her education, her recent promotion, and her new annual salary. Traditionally, that’s considered a specific kind of logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. When appeals to “expertise” replace reason and rationality, false conclusions are more easily justified.
We have been living in an era rife with appeals to authority masquerading as truth. In fact, I came across something hilariously unsurprising as I was writing this essay. Because Internet search engines no longer operate as research tools but rather as propaganda aggregators, I often have to peruse many pages of search results before I find topical and pertinent sources. Leftwing disinformation index Wikipedia routinely receives prime placement for any online query. I decided to check how the propagandists at Wikipedia describe appeals to authority these days, and the editors did not disappoint (someone as cynical as I):
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I am completing a DIY project at home (kind of a hobby), and when you look at YouTube how-to videos from ‘professionals’ / ‘experts’ you see a ton of variability in how they do things and what they recommend. They even trash each other in their videos. My point is just that you always neeed to think for yourself - as being called an ‘expert’ doesn’t mean you truly are.
It’s just that so many “experts” are not very good and/or not very knowledgeable in their (self-professed) area of “expertise” ... and undeniable fact revealed so very clearly — and publicly — throughout the Fauci Flu debacle.
All ‘authorities’ should be challenged...ALWAYS!
The Ph.D. has become a rather mediocre commodity in almost every field. Seldom do professors get master’s degrees anymore. They memorize a bunch of stuff as undergrads, get admission into a doctoral program, sprint in five years to a Ph.D. with a dissertation that some Principal Investor wanted to farm out to a novice, and then get treated as an expert.
Economics is probably the worst, since they can always find some crappy dataset and throw a barrage of “sexy” statistical tests at it and then it get published in a dubious R1-type journal that hardly anybody will ever read. Ask them about how the dataset was constructed, i.e., what unstated assumptions were made in its construction, and they start melting down into Spam in a suit (or dress). Most new economics Ph.D.s have no idea how to construct a logically consistent model of anything, much less test it.
And they are much, much, too specialized. I stopped going to conferences years ago, because even seasoned professors just “don’t know enough to know (about) what they don’t know.”
It gets worse every year.
The classic scene from “Back To School” immediately comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSLscJ2cY04
Very good.
Indeed - most college graduates today couldn’t manage a rigorous pre-WW1 high school diploma.
Leary was a very early proponent of LSD use to “open” your mind and experience greater comprehension. Yeah, thanks for the great insight, Tim.
I would amend his simplistic suggestion to the following:
If you’re going to think for yourself...check your track record. If you’re going to question authority, make sure you understand the topic as best as possible.
Too many people think that “thinking for yourself” or “questioning authority” is a guarantee for being correct.
“Thinking For Yourself” in most cases really means “Be a contrarian.”
when asked, a TRUE expert will almost always respond: “I know a little.” ...
so beware of ANY so-called “expert” who proclaims themselves an “expert” ...
REAL experts are generally modest people who no have need to pump themselves up because they know who they are ... charlatans are usually the loudest at self-promotion ...
that’s one reason i get such a kick out of MENSA ... the MENSAites that i’ve personally met have the attitude: “See, i’m a member of MENSA, that *PROVES* I’m smart!” ...
[btw, ask yourself: how many Nobel Prize nominees/winners or billionaires who earned their money by inventing something or founding a company that changed the world are members of MENSA?]
Absolutely agree. In my adult life I have ran into so many so-called experts in their fields that are in reality naval-gazers. Highly intelligent and learned up on a certain thing, but clueless as to how it relates to anything or anyone else.
And yes, most of them like to think they’re the beginning and the end and we all should listen to them.
at one level, what your dad claimed is true ... OTOH, it’s very unlikely the allies would have won the war without the inventions of the cavity magnetron, the proximity fuze, whole ship degaussing, decrypting Enigma and Lorenz/Tuny, Home Chain, computer-directed naval fire, and a whole slew of other inventions and mechanisms that required high-level education to invent and produce ...
It’s not just scientists, but historians as well. There is an amazing amount of pseudo-history being pushed, at times for blatantly political purposes, but often just because many historians find it convenient to cite each other’s work. The ‘expert echo chamber’ produces an apparent consensus, which unfortunately may have little basis in actual fact...
The title of “expert” is frequently bestowed by media writing style guides, not qualification. It seems that the term is overly used in headlines as attention grabbers.
Question authority!
I guess the hippies of the 60’s had something right!
Of course the concept is actually much, much older.
Still a sound concept.
I want to know who told J.B. Shurk that this was okay?
They are called Divas — self-appointed experts.
Uni education is supposed to do two things, or, at least one. Further push your critical thinking and add specific tech skills.
You can have a heap of the latter and know nothing outside your Uni degree. It is the 1st that provides some general expertise — but, only if you don’t have yer hear up your arse.
His point was more that the experts weren’t running the war. Whereas JFK-Nixon, they had their hands all over the Vietnam War.
Eisenhower? Nimitz? MacArthur? Groves? Not experts?
Part of the problem with the Viet Nam war was that the politicians (Johnson, primarily) DID NOT LET the experts run the war. The politicians (Johnson, primarily) insisted on running it themselves. When Nixon turned the actual experts loose, they annihilated the Viet Cong and drove North Viet Nam to signing a peace treaty.
Oh ... and Walter Cronkite was a pathological liar and a communist.
There are experts, and there are people who pretend to be experts. Confusing the two generally leads to bad results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.