The Death of Expertise (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Musicmystery -> The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 5:31:12 AM)

This was published a couple years ago (though recently found a resurgence on Facebook), but it's more true than ever, and an interesting (non-partisan) piece on where we've found ourselves in terms of what we consider "truth."

And this is before the "fake news," "post-truth," and "alternative facts" silliness of 2017. Have a look.

I'd be interested in discussing this with the adults in the room, if that's still possible here.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

"We are witnessing the 'death of expertise': a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live."





WhoreMods -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 5:40:49 AM)

Word.
The really funny thing about that, of course, is that suspicion of expertise as a form of elitist bullying to oppress the masses used to be a tactic popular with the State controlled media in the Soviet Union (seriously:, take a look at some of what Izhvestia published in the '70s). It was being used by populists to shout down people who dared to have a clue what they were talking about while disagreeing with those in charge back then as well. The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?




Musicmystery -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 5:48:48 AM)

Goes back to the Qin Dynasty at least.





WhoreMods -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 6:04:06 AM)

Their approach was a lot more feudal (more concerned with monopolising expertise by controlling the academic system) than the current "only we have real experts" set up, though. I'd assumed that the whole "these naysayers don't have the facts and are lying" wouldn't have started until after the industrial revolution when populist politics first started coming in because the majority of the population was literate and there was a market for media outside of the intelligentsia.




BoscoX -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 7:47:46 AM)

FR

There you go, have your "adult" conversation with WhoreMods, that's perfect. [:D]





mnottertail -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 7:59:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

FR

There you go, have your "adult" conversation with WhoreMods, that's perfect. [:D]




Part of having adult conversations means you dont bother with nutsuckers and their factless felchgobbling other than to amuse yourself as they shit their pants, circlefelch one another, and try to prove which amongst them is the biggest retard.

Its like they say in the beer commercials, it just dont get no better than this.




heavyblinker -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 8:46:25 AM)

I think 'death' is a little extreme.

You can only deny reality for so long before it becomes glaringly obvious that you've made a mistake.
Of course, it would probably be a lot better in the meantime if people just accepted that they can't become experts after reading a few articles on blogspot.com.




WickedsDesire -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 9:23:57 AM)

A lie is a lie.
oh HB you are to optimistic.

Expert, laymen, sheople...didn't an episode of south park cover this..and how do you differentiate

Here are two classical recent examples where they cascade/maintain a lie - lets pick the UK and the US

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38709319

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38711200 guffaws - gutless

Both knowingly lied. Trump has too many examples for me to cite. I now believe him to be deluded - the "experts" name for it escapes me...utter nutter will do fine for me.

But you would figure those two leaders two be experts? I actually know more about Trump than I do the non entity called Theresa May. Really dangerous people tend to catch my attention I spose.

When I cite source data - I typically use Wiki and BBC - can someone refresh me on the American equivalent?- thanks. Not perfect but those are the best we have.

Oh, and you tube for some nice clips… did anyone see when Steve Austin battered bigfoot? That many have been my all time favourite episode, a 2 parter at that, and those pesky aliens.

Bionic Bigfoot Fight Scene - Featuring Andre The Giant - Six Million Dollar Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SZMn_711s4

Bigfoot clobbers Steve’s puny human arm with a whole tree Guffaws






DaddySatyr -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 9:34:22 AM)


The quote from the article in the OP enticed me to click on the link. Good job.

It's not a bad piece, but I think he goes a little off the rails, in a couple of places and I think he's myopic in one important place:

quote:


Another reason for the collapse of expertise lies not with the global commons but with the increasingly partisan nature of U.S. political campaigns. There was once a time when presidents would win elections and then scour universities and think-tanks for a brain trust; that’s how Henry Kissinger, Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others ended up in government service while moving between places like Harvard and Columbia.
This is the code of the samurai, not the intellectual, and it privileges the campaign loyalist over the expert.

Those days are gone. To be sure, some of the blame rests with the increasing irrelevance of overly narrow research in the social sciences. But it is also because the primary requisite of seniority in the policy world is too often an answer to the question: “What did you do during the campaign?” This is the code of the samurai, not the intellectual, and it privileges the campaign loyalist over the expert.

I have a hard time, for example, imagining that I would be called to Washington today in the way I was back in 1990, when the senior Senator from Pennsylvania asked a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN who she might recommend to advise him on foreign affairs, and she gave him my name. Despite the fact that I had no connection to Pennsylvania and had never worked on his campaigns, he called me at the campus where I was teaching, and later invited me to join his personal staff.

Universities, without doubt, have to own some of this mess. The idea of telling students that professors run the show and know better than they do strikes many students as something like uppity lip from the help, and so many profs don’t do it. (One of the greatest teachers I ever had, James Schall, once wrote many years ago that “students have obligations to teachers,” including “trust, docility, effort, and thinking,” an assertion that would produce howls of outrage from the entitled generations roaming campuses today.) As a result, many academic departments are boutiques, in which the professors are expected to be something like intellectual valets. This produces nothing but a delusion of intellectual adequacy in children who should be instructed, not catered to.



There was a time in this country, when our halls of higher education taught students facts, even in the "social sciences". There was a kind of "neutrality" in how facts were presented.

That's not true, anymore. There are few people who do not acknowledge the liberal bent of so many of our higher institutions of learning. I've been fortunate to be taking some classes at my local community college and, even with the over-all moderate feel, here (Democrats who oppose abortion, for example), some instructors are decidedly hard-core liberal and down-right militant in their delivery.

Why, then, would say a conservative politician look first to a college grad about whom they know nothing? In today's day, a college grad has likely been indoctrinated rather than educated. There are exceptions, obviously. All of these damned conservatives are going to school somewhere [:D] Ben Shapiro springs to mind; a Harvard educated Jewish lawyer who's slightly to the right of Kaiser Wilhelm.

I think that because our institutions have become such purveyors of propaganda, there needs to be an advanced "vetting" process to determine exactly what kind of graduates are entering the political workforce.



Michael




Musicmystery -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 9:42:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


The quote from the article in the OP enticed me to click on the link. Good job.

It's not a bad piece, but I think he goes a little off the rails, in a couple of places and I think he's myopic in one important place:

quote:


Another reason for the collapse of expertise lies not with the global commons but with the increasingly partisan nature of U.S. political campaigns. There was once a time when presidents would win elections and then scour universities and think-tanks for a brain trust; that’s how Henry Kissinger, Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others ended up in government service while moving between places like Harvard and Columbia.
This is the code of the samurai, not the intellectual, and it privileges the campaign loyalist over the expert.

Those days are gone. To be sure, some of the blame rests with the increasing irrelevance of overly narrow research in the social sciences. But it is also because the primary requisite of seniority in the policy world is too often an answer to the question: “What did you do during the campaign?” This is the code of the samurai, not the intellectual, and it privileges the campaign loyalist over the expert.

I have a hard time, for example, imagining that I would be called to Washington today in the way I was back in 1990, when the senior Senator from Pennsylvania asked a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN who she might recommend to advise him on foreign affairs, and she gave him my name. Despite the fact that I had no connection to Pennsylvania and had never worked on his campaigns, he called me at the campus where I was teaching, and later invited me to join his personal staff.

Universities, without doubt, have to own some of this mess. The idea of telling students that professors run the show and know better than they do strikes many students as something like uppity lip from the help, and so many profs don’t do it. (One of the greatest teachers I ever had, James Schall, once wrote many years ago that “students have obligations to teachers,” including “trust, docility, effort, and thinking,” an assertion that would produce howls of outrage from the entitled generations roaming campuses today.) As a result, many academic departments are boutiques, in which the professors are expected to be something like intellectual valets. This produces nothing but a delusion of intellectual adequacy in children who should be instructed, not catered to.



There was a time in this country, when our halls of higher education taught students facts, even in the "social sciences". There was a kind of "neutrality" in how facts were presented.

That's not true, anymore. There are few people who do not acknowledge the liberal bent of so many of our higher institutions of learning. I've been fortunate to be taking some classes at my local community college and, even with the over-all moderate feel, here (Democrats who oppose abortion, for example), some instructors are decidedly hard-core liberal and down-right militant in their delivery.

Why, then, would say a conservative politician look first to a college grad about whom they know nothing? In today's day, a college grad has likely been indoctrinated rather than educated. There are exceptions, obviously. All of these damned conservatives are going to school somewhere [:D] Ben Shapiro springs to mind; a Harvard educated Jewish lawyer who's slightly to the right of Kaiser Wilhelm.

I think that because our institutions have become such purveyors of propaganda, there needs to be an advanced "vetting" process to determine exactly what kind of graduates are entering the political workforce.



Michael


I don't know, Michael. Those liberal instructors exist, though many more feel their job is not to tell students what to think, but to develop their skills.

One of my old students, back when I taught a rigorous professional writing course, is in charge of all the correspondence coming out of a conservative GOP Congressman's office in Indiana. He was hired precisely because of the economy and clarity stressed in the class. And I'm fine with that. That's why we taught it him.

Another is a news director for NPR. That's OK too.




vincentML -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 10:00:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I think 'death' is a little extreme.

You can only deny reality for so long before it becomes glaringly obvious that you've made a mistake.
Of course, it would probably be a lot better in the meantime if people just accepted that they can't become experts after reading a few articles on blogspot.com.

I cannot claim that the democratization of knowledge and opinion has been beneficial to the common weal but hubris has lead many an expert to delude himself and to lie to us. It is the nature of bureaucracy and hierarchy to favor those experts who tell the boss what he wants to hear. Dissenters are squeezed out of the loop, and we end up fighting long, blood-sucking, money-sucking, soul-sucking wars in Vietnam and in South Asia and the Middle East. For a good read on the subject of experts in government see Halberstram's The Best and the Brightest.




WickedsDesire -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 10:20:21 AM)

The article i viewed as a self indulgent piece of unbalanced shittery propping up its own agenda - and I wont even go that far when hammered on cheap chardonnay, nor when magical pixies hijack my brain sprockets

Just saying - anyone else think that as I know some of you here are enligtnened




Musicmystery -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 10:26:42 AM)

and no one knows self-indulgent as you do.




WhoreMods -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 10:29:22 AM)

I'd question that thalidomide (which was rushed to market with inadequete testing in a bid to placate the animal rights lobby) and the Challenger disaster (which was caused by technical failures that had more to do with cost cutting than shoddy design) could be blamed on failures of expertise in the first place, but most of the rest seems fairly sound. Which bits of the argument are you taking issue with?




vincentML -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 11:25:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

I'd question that thalidomide (which was rushed to market with inadequete testing in a bid to placate the animal rights lobby) and the Challenger disaster (which was caused by technical failures that had more to do with cost cutting than shoddy design) could be blamed on failures of expertise in the first place, but most of the rest seems fairly sound. Which bits of the argument are you taking issue with?

Your remark about thalidomide seems inaccurate; the drug was developed in West Germany and the Wiki article says nothing about placating animal rights people.

There is a tone to the linked article in the OP which I find objectionable:

Once upon a time — way back in the Dark Ages before the 2000s — people seemed to understand, in a general way, the difference between experts and laymen. There was a clear demarcation in political food fights, as objections and dissent among experts came from their peers — that is, from people equipped with similar knowledge. The public, largely, were spectators.

Once upon a time -- way back when -- there were priests who bid the common laity not to question but to obey, not to participate but to observe.

That all lead to a Reformation.

Seems to me this social scientist expert is upset because, given the ubiquity of internet opinion, he is no longer a prophet honored in the realm. Maybe he should get on about the task of helping people understand social and political issues instead of lamenting whatever loss he feels has been unjustly laid upon him and his peers. The internet: deal with it.




Musicmystery -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 11:39:00 AM)

That's a flawed comparison, vincent.

There's a world of difference between "I'm a priest and so my beliefs are the one true way" kind of thing you're claiming and the years of training and experience that makes one a policy expert in, say, foreign affairs, particularly with a focus and long knowledge of a region, its history, and its current movements.

To dismiss the priest, fair enough. To dismiss the policy expert is just foolish. That doesn't mean one must agree, but certainly one would be wise to seriously consider his take on things, and if one disagrees, that one brings other compelling evidence and or experts to the table, not just "I want it to be otherwise."





heavyblinker -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 11:42:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I think 'death' is a little extreme.

You can only deny reality for so long before it becomes glaringly obvious that you've made a mistake.
Of course, it would probably be a lot better in the meantime if people just accepted that they can't become experts after reading a few articles on blogspot.com.

I cannot claim that the democratization of knowledge and opinion has been beneficial to the common weal but hubris has lead many an expert to delude himself and to lie to us. It is the nature of bureaucracy and hierarchy to favor those experts who tell the boss what he wants to hear. Dissenters are squeezed out of the loop, and we end up fighting long, blood-sucking, money-sucking, soul-sucking wars in Vietnam and in South Asia and the Middle East. For a good read on the subject of experts in government see Halberstram's The Best and the Brightest.


I think it depends on whether it's Trump's idea of an expert or an actual expert.
This is why it takes more than qualifications to identify one.




DaddySatyr -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 11:49:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I don't know, Michael. Those liberal instructors exist, though many more feel their job is not to tell students what to think, but to develop their skills.

One of my old students, back when I taught a rigorous professional writing course, is in charge of all the correspondence coming out of a conservative GOP Congressman's office in Indiana. He was hired precisely because of the economy and clarity stressed in the class. And I'm fine with that. That's why we taught it him.

Another is a news director for NPR. That's OK too.



I've been working as a journalist (off-and-on, but mostly on in a very part-time capacity [opinion editorials and such, but some "straight news"]). I made a promise to a few people in my family that before I died, I would get a degree.

I've been lucky enough to be able to work toward that, even with all the curve balls life has dealt me, the last few years. My school is a Congregation of the Holy Cross member and I have (as I said) experienced some very weird educational "bullying". I was required to attend a "seminar" on white privilege or a "seminar" on how all men are potential rapists for a sociology class.

This same instructor, knowing my personal and family history told me that if I didn't support abortion on demand, I didn't support freedom (in front of the whole class). Told me, personally; not just a general statement to the class. That was my last day in that class. Why sociology is a requirement for journalism is beyond me, but there ya go.

Anyway, I've experienced some attempts at indoctrination and, certainly, there's information about some serious bullshit, out there. The Journalism professor that told a journalism student he couldn't report on a campus event? She called for some "muscle" to help her get the journalism student out of the area, just last year? Fortunately, she lost her job. unfortunately, she found one, elsewhere.

To deny the liberal take-over of the education system isn't really intellectual honesty. I don't deny there are exceptions (as I mentioned), but for the most part (to borrow a phrase from one of my recent posts where I quoted Roosevelt) :"the crucible" is turning out good, little mindless, Pablum©-pukers that do little thinking of their own and just sop up the message that their instructors give them.

I do believe it's more amplified in the fields of journalism, poli-sci, and possibly, even law because that's the "mission".

I want to be clear: I don't believe their grades are affected, if they disagree. I don't think even a tenured professor could survive that, if it were proven, but I do believe that there's "brow-beating" that occurs ... directed pier pressure, perhaps, but there is a specific intent to indoctrinate rather than to educate and it's to the detriment of all our young people (in my opinion).



Michael




Musicmystery -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 11:56:25 AM)

Yeah, I can certainly see where you're coming from. It's probably no comfort to know I share your dismay at such stories.

Nor would I deny this happens. I just wouldn't agree it's the default setting of a college classroom.

All too often? Well, probably so. Especially in community college, where the instructors are often new to teaching (have never taught at another college).




heavyblinker -> RE: The Death of Expertise (1/28/2017 12:01:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
This same instructor, knowing my personal and family history told me that if I didn't support abortion on demand, I didn't support freedom (in front of the whole class). Told me, personally; not just a general statement to the class. That was my last day in that class. Why sociology is a requirement for journalism is beyond me, but there ya go.


The instructor was absolutely right.

Your reaction proves that you're simply unwilling to question your own beliefs, and dismissive of those who challenge you.

I don't know if you really are a journalist, but if you do have a platform for your bullshit, it's a testament to how low the standards have become and proves the point in the OP.

Seriously-- you support KILLING PEOPLE WHO SMOKE POT... and you think you support freedom?
Talk about deluded!

I guarantee that nothing you've said is true, no matter how desperate you are to think it is.. you simply have zero credibility.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875