A certain type of writer will scold the independent thinker from forming opinions that may differ from the supposed majority opinion of some group of scientists. Such a writer will evoke a principle of "We must follow the experts, because they know their subject best." Such a principle is rarely recommended in any kind of universal way, but only in a very selective way. For example, the writer who wishes us to believe in the origin of mankind by mere random mutations will ask us to believe as evolutionary biologists believe, on the grounds that they are the experts in evolution. But such a writer will never ask us to form beliefs about the Catholic Church matching those of the main experts on the Catholic Church (Catholic clergy members), or ask us to form beliefs about psychic abilities matching those of the main experts on psychic abilities (parapsychologists).
There is a very good reason why we should not in general blindly follow a principle of "We must follow the experts, because they know their subject best." The reason is that people who have most thoroughly studied some subject matter tend to belong to belief communities that greatly affect their impartiality. Rather than getting objective impartial opinions on Topic X from some people who have most immersed themselves in Topic X, what we may be getting are opinions from people who are parroting speech customs and boasts of a belief community that has organized itself around a study of Topic X. The Topic X experts may be vested interests who very much stand to gain or lose based on the opinions the public has on Topic X. Such partiality may mean such experts may tend not to issue objective impartial opinions on Topic X. I can give a simple example. Do you want an objective impartial opinion about whether string theory is a grand insight into nature or mostly a waste of time for physicists? You are unlikely to get such an objective impartial opinion from a physicist who has spent decades writing papers about string theory. Such a person is very much a vested interest.
It is very interesting to consider that a very crucial part of modern American society is not at all based on any principle of "trust the experts," but is based on an opposing principle of "trust the layman." I refer to the American court system.
Let us consider how the American court system would act if it were organized around a principle of "trust the experts." Suppose a man named John Doe was put on trial, charged with the murder of Mary Roe. If the American court system were organized around a principle of "trust the experts," then the guilt of John Doe might be decided by a jury composed like this:
(1) Seeking out what could be called experts on the topic of the defendant (John Doe), the jury might consist of John Doe's wife, John Doe's father, John Doe's mother, John Doe's brother, and so forth. The rationale would be that these were the ones that were most familiar with how John Doe would act, and therefore most qualified to judge whether John Doe had committed the crime.
(2) Or, the jury might be composed of various professionals deemed to be experts. For example, if it were claimed that John Doe had killed Mary Roe using a knife, the jury might consist of the detective who had examined the crime scene, the doctor who had performed the autopsy, some expert on knife homicides, some blood expert who had studied blood at the scene of the crime, and so forth.
(3) Or, the jury might consist of a mixture of the people who best knew John Doe (family members considered John Doe experts), and the professionals listed in the paragraph above.
Nothing of the sort occurs. Relatives of a defendant are not allowed to serve on a jury deciding the guilt of a defendant. And while a professional such as a detective or a coroner may be called to give expert testimony in a trial, such people are never allowed as jurors involving cases that they are involved with. If you were the detective investigating the death scene of Mary Roe, you will never be put on a jury deciding the fate of someone tried for murdering Mary Roe. And if you were the coroner doing the autopsy of Mary Roe, you will never be allowed on the jury deciding the fate of someone tried for murdering Mary Roe.
Why is this? Because in the court system "the impartial layman is king." Courts recognize, for example, that a relative of a defendant will tend not to be impartial, but will tend to be more likely to vote that such a defendant is innocent. Courts also recognize that a detective who helped arrest a defendant is not impartial about the defendant's guilt, but will be more likely to vote in favor of the defendant's guilt, rather than telling his fellow juror members, "Oops, it looks like I made a big mistake by arresting the wrong guy." Courts also recognize that a coroner reaching some particular judgment during an autopsy would not be impartial during a jury deliberation, but would tend to vote in whatever way conformed to the autopsy judgments he had previously made.
Following a rule of "the impartial layman is king," the court system arranges for the guilt of a defendant to be decided by a group of randomly selected persons, each of whom is a layman, not an expert. Very wisely, the court system recognizes that anyone can learn enough about some important matter by hearing a certain number of hours or days of testimony about the matter, pro and con. Also, very wisely the court system recognizes the supreme importance of exposing people to a balanced case, pro and con. Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney are allowed to call witnesses, and to make opening arguments and closing arguments. So during the trial of John Doe, a witness will hear both the case for John Doe's guilt and the case for John Doe's innocence.
We may contrast the wisdom of the court system with the foolishness of the "kneel to the experts" writers. Such writers try to suggest that the layman should never form his own belief on some topic that might differ from what the experts supposedly tend to think on the topic. Such a suggestion is contrary to the practices of the court system that have prevailed for hundreds of years, in which layman are regarded as qualified to reach sound judgments after analyzing evidence independently. The worst foolishness of these "kneel to the experts" writers comes when they say we should not be exposed to balanced debate in which we hear from both those agreeing with the opinion supposedly popular with the experts and those disagreeing with such an opinion. Writers advancing such opinions are as silly as those claiming that when people are tried for a crime, the trial should allow only the prosecuting attorney to call witnesses and make a closing and opening argument, without allowing the defense attorney to even appear in the court room.
What happens in modern academia is typically just as if the absurd opinions of such writers had prevailed. Our science textbooks do not provide balanced presentations on crucial topics such as biological origins, the nature of the human mind, and the evidence for psychical and paranormal phenomena. Instead the college student is given a textbook that is as one-sided and impartial as a trial presentation in which only the prosecuting attorney presented evidence. Such presentations are justified on the grounds that we should not shake the student's confidence in our experts. A similar argument would be the ludicrous reasoning that when people are put on trial for murder, we should hear only the arguments of the prosecuting attorney, lest the public's faith in the district attorney and the police be shaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment