With the advent of the internet, is casual study carrying more weight than professionals?
The internet is a wonderful invention. It allows people like me to write for The Good Men Project just as easily as it provides a way for me to message a friend halfway across the world and receive a response in seconds. With the internet, I can look up anything from upcoming musicians to particle physics, an activity I can partake in with a device that fits in my pocket. It is an incredibly powerful communication tool and information database that has brought untold benefits to humanity.
However, it is no secret that the internet, being the wonderful communication tool that it is, has provided the average person a platform with which to make their thoughts and opinions known. For better or worse, the average person can discuss any topic they choose and, with the proper presentation, sound like an expert in whatever subject they wish. While this has undoubtedly allowed many intelligent people to provide knowledge and insight on subjects that the average person might not otherwise consider, it has the unintended consequence of letting people who are misinformed, or outright wrong, have an equal voice in the conversation.
The ease with which we can access any and all information available online has allowed a growing number of people to disregard experts in a given field, choosing instead to go with whatever fits their personal beliefs. For all the amazing things the internet has provided us, it has had the disastrous effect of allowing the layman to consider his opinion equal, if not superior, to that of someone who has devoted their lives to a given subject. This is especially toxic in a society where discussions tend towards “everyone’s opinion is valid” over “here’s what the experts say” for the sake of political correctness.
It is a subject political and social analyst Tom Nichols writes about in his essay “The Death of Expertise.” Nichols argues that we have reached a point where the layman is seen as standing on equal footing as the expert, and that the latter’s opinion should not hold any extra sway over our opinions. Yes, professionals make mistakes—nobody’s perfect—but someone who has spent their life studying a topic, often involving a great deal of firsthand experience, is much more likely to be correct about said topic than someone who spends their afternoon browsing Wikipedia.
Take climate change, for example. It is undoubtedly one of the more hotly contested issues of the day (no pun intended), with people on both sides having strong opinions on the subject. On one side, we have businessmen and politicians (usually Republican) stating that climate change either doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem. The video below illustrates several politicians stating these things, while also plainly stating that they are not scientists:
The fact that they outright say that they are not scientists and, in several cases, have not looked at the data, should immediately disqualify them, and their opinions, from the discussion. Their opinions are not only misinformed, but outright wrong, and fly in the fact of what 97% of scientists in the relevant fields say is happening. If anything, such debates need fewer CNN newscasters providing both sides of the debate equal platform, and more people like John Oliver, who deliver the facts with no regard for the opinions or feelings of people who are wrong.
In this clip, CNN’s anchor states “There’s that Gallup poll that came out last month which found one in four Americans is skeptical of all the effects of climate change and its effects” to which Oliver replies “Who gives a shit?” He goes on to state that, “You don’t need people’s opinion on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking: ‘Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?’ or ‘Do owls exist?’ or ‘Are there hats?'”
This is the crux of the issue: everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to have those opinions held in the same regard as facts. Political correctness (or the First Amendment) should not be used as a shield to protect people from the fact that they are wrong, nor should we let the possibility of offending people who are wrong stop us from speaking the truth. If someone would like to make a case for or against an issue, they need to provide their own evidence and data to back up their claims; if they cannot produce that data, either through experimentation or citing the works of experts. Without the ability to defend their positions, nobody has the right to be offended by being called out for being wrong, or claim some horrible injustice has been carried out when their feelings get hurt.
It is entirely possible that someone is knowledgeable on a subject without having a degree in it. However, this does not diminish the burden of proof for someone making a claim; if anything, the lack of certifiable expertise should increase the effort they must go through to have their arguments taken seriously. In a world where information and opinions are increasingly more accessible, we cannot lose sight of the fact that professionals and experts are much more likely to understand their field better than we do. To write them off as “elitists” without pouring over their work, or being able to challenge it, is irresponsible and immature.
—modified photo Alan Cleaver /Flickr Creative Commons