April 4, 2024 | OPINION | By Clay Arnold
Trust in expertise is the cornerstone of a well-functioning society. We rely on experts in fields such as science, medicine and economics. Trust is essential for effective decision-making, both at the individual and societal level.
The once rock-solid relationship between politics and expertise has devolved into a bitter battle, with truth and reason caught in the crossfire. This tension is connected to the inherent differences between the two domains. Science is a slow and deliberate process that relies on evidence, peer review and the gradual accumulation of knowledge. Politics, conversely, requires swift action in the face of public pressure and competing interests. Moreover, politics follows the fears of the people and policy demands change faster when the populace is afraid or uncertain.
For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the politicization of expertise and its impact on public trust. One grave misstep along the way was the over-politicization of expert advice, with some politicians dismissing or downplaying scientific recommendations that did not align with their political objectives. The widespread dissemination of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other platforms has contributed to a loss of trust in scientific expertise and public health measures. Many individuals seem to continue to distrust vaccines and public health initiatives, even after the pandemic, despite scientific consensus that they are safe.
As Gil Eyal points out in “The Crisis of Expertise,” this tension between politics and science is most evident in times of crisis. Expert opinion may shift as new evidence emerges, which leads to public confusion and skepticism. The median voter may see an adjustment in expert opinion as a sign of victory, an opportunity to point their finger at these so-called experts and shout from on high that these scientists were wrong. However, I would argue that this is, in fact, the largest positive attribute of science –– that it is willing to change, in an unbiased manner, based on each new piece of evidence.
One possible catalyst of this issue is the tendency for social media to make it increasingly difficult for people to distinguish between credible experts and those simply claiming expertise. This challenge is evident on platforms like X (formerly Twitter). The ease of use and immediacy of sharing have made it prime real-estate for the spread of misinformation. Studies have found that falsehoods are 70% more likely to spread on X than accurate information, highlighting the platform’s role in amplifying misinformation.
One idea promoted by the founder of a prominent satirical news website –– and a statement that would unknowingly spawn the idea for this article –– is that “true reporting” is dead. In other words, he believes that mainstream media outlets can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and unbiased information. His solution? To refocus our attention to third party news sources under the guise of freedom of speech. In his words, there’s no need for AP, Reuters or even NPR! To imagine that this view is representative of a large chunk of the population is frightening. To me, this viewpoint misses the reason for having an established system of trusted reporters (and experts to whom those reporters defer). Knowledgeable and trustworthy reporting serves as a system for punishing faulty reporting. If this system does not exist, then there is no pressure to generate accurate information, and no strong incentive scheme to point the public in the direction of truth.
To me, the purpose of specialization in society is to generate people who are very competent in certain areas. Now, some would argue this concentrates the influence into few people, but I believe that those with greater knowledge and expertise in a given field should have a more significant role in shaping decisions and policies related to their area of specialization.
Critics may argue that the genie is out of the bottle and that trust in expertise cannot be restored. However, I believe that we can turn the tide and create a more informed and rational society. The decreasing weightiness with which society gives education has a knock-on effect of reducing the degree to which members of society consider evidence and expert opinion. Thus, a clear strategy for rebuilding trust is to invest more resources in education, particularly in teaching students how to identify and combat misinformation.
By providing youth with the skills to critically evaluate information and identify credible sources, we can foster a more informed and discerning public. I believe that by addressing the underlying factors that contribute to the erosion of trust, we can work towards a future in which expertise is valued and evidence-based decision-making is the norm.