Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My Irrational Assumption – Rejecting Experts
I often criticize others for not recognizing the assumptions and presuppositions that go into their thinking – the erroneous assumptions that then lead to erroneous conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out.
Today, I feel like fessing up. I, too, rely, in my arguments, on a basic assumption that is essentially a religious belief: I think every concept can be grasped by any normal person. Which means that I reject overly complex answers as being surely incorrect.
In part, I suppose, this is because I have always rejected the “High Priest” method of preserving status and authority. I have no special respect for experts, and I know full well that I am a reasonably competent electrician, plumber, writer, theologian, carpenter, handyman, father, husband, engineer, inventor, entrepreneur, speaker… even those things that take years of specialized training (e.g., brain surgeon) can and should be understandable in principle even to a layman.
So I have a simple BS-detector. If I cannot follow the argument of an expert, then they are wrong. Take CO2 and Global Warming. The ice record shows that Global Warming precedes rising CO2 levels by decades in every single case. But today, we are told that rising CO2 drives climate change. Why? The answers are positively gobbledegook and come down to, “we are smarter than you, shut up.” How do I know the answers are nonsense? Because I cannot make sense of them.
I should make it clear that I am not claiming that everything is simplistic. I am claiming that everything should be within our grasp: simple. The difference is important, because even things that we can comprehend require us to think, to be engaged with the topic. By way of contrast, simplistic answers seek to get to the end without respecting the need for process. Process has deep value, because it is the process, not the product, that invariably helps us to grow. Any process to gain understanding requires mental engagement, but that process is available to all of us, whether the topic is freedom or Covid, climate change, or the Torah. “Shut up and trust me” is against my faith.
I find the High Priest school of thought is found in every area of human expertise and scholarship. Within Judaism, there is a deep and abiding love for Talmudic Logic – so convoluted that mere mortals could never grasp it. For centuries, women were told they could not learn the Gemara (part of the Talmud), because it is just too challenging for the female brain. It IS complex. And it reinforces the expectation that we cannot know something unless we rely on an expert to answer every question.
I don’t believe in frontal assaults: they cost too much and they usually fail. They certainly fail at convincing people to change their minds, because people too easily dig in their heels when they find themselves on the defensive. So my preferred approach is to make my contribution in the relatively untouched area of “why does the text say that?” And I work under the assumption that any explanation I offer for textual understanding has to be simple enough to be grasped – or it must be wrong. This assumption is itself an unprovable assertion.
I do, however, have some textual support for the assumption:
For this commandment which I command you this day is not concealed from you and it is not far off. It is not in the heavens, that one would say: Who will go up for us to heaven and take it for us and make us hear it that we might do it? And it is not across the seas, that one would say: Who will cross the seas for us and take it for us and make us hear it that we might do it? For the thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it.
If the Torah – the expression of G-d – is within our grasp, then I think everything else must be, too. But I accept that this could be false.
If, on the other hand, my assertion is basically correct, then I think mankind has much more potential for growth in holiness. Less reflexive respect for so-called “experts” means higher expectations for ourselves.
Published in General
Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts.
Seeing this in the Torah really turned me around in terms of not only understanding Torah, but trusting my ability to understand it. There are concepts in life that I don’t understand, but I recognize that in almost every case, I’m not interested in it or I’m too lazy to dive into it.
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them…
Being able to communicate ideas simply and effectively is a sign of superior intelligence.
I’m sorry, but this is not quite accurate. Quantum mechanics is outright counter-intuitive and extremely hard to understand, but has a lot of vital applications in our world.
Also, a lot of bogus ideas can get in with a simple explanation. They require data to invalidate. For example, light is the only wave that propagates without a medium. It was simple to presume light had a medium until it was debunked.
I find quantum mechanics is conceptually within reach – I have patents in the art. Computationally, it is beyond my skills.
Does gravity have a medium?
I have been a Jet fan for a long time (I blame Klecko). In 2018 (like most years) the Jets were going into the draft looking for a QB. I had seen Louisville play a few times and thought Lamar Jackson was a real stud. I also thought that big kid from Wyoming, who turned out to be Josh Allen, was worth taking a chance on as well. But then, the experts said Sam Darnold was the best QB in the draft. So, when the Jets took Darnold as the third overall I just assumed the scouts were the experts and they knew better than me. Now Jackson and Allen are among the best in the league and Darnold is a backup on his third team in six years.
Football may seem trivial when you are talking about the word of G-d, but sometimes it is best not to overthink things and go with what you know to be true.
Thank G d that he put the cookies on the lowest shelf.
I’ll see your Feynman and raise you one:
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
Richard P. Feynman.
There is a fine line between explaining and running a con.
Conversation I’ve had about a thousand times…
Me: We’re $31.5 trillion in debt. We’re headed for disaster.
Expert: Heh. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Me: Maybe I don’t. Explain it to me.
Expert: Look, if you don’t know, I can’t help you. No economists are worried about this. You’re obviously wrong.
Me: I accept that it is obvious. So obvious that you can easily explain it to me.
Expert: C’mon, Jon … you’re too smart a guy to panic over the debt.
Me: No, I’m not smart like you. Explain it to me like I’m five.
Expert: Well, you see … it’s kinda technical … um, the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency … monetary theory … [points to overcomplicated graph] … it’s not like a home budget …
Me: So, you can’t explain it to me?
Expert: It’s just that … it’s just so OBVIOUS.
Me: Yes, it’s obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80 that our $31.5T debt is not a bad thing at all, and might even be a good thing. But no one can tell me why without patronizing or insulting me.
Expert: Whatever, troll.
Perfect. Just perfect.
I like the idea of your post. I might not agree that every single person is capable of grasping all basic concepts, but certainly the vast majority can if they apply themselves. A pet peeve I have is when someone tells me about an idea that is new to me (either in person or on the Internet), and I ask him to explain it. The person then tells me to “look it up myself” (or the irritating “Google is your friend”) or provides a link to an Internet website that will explain it for him. My immediate reaction is “if this guy can’t explain it himself, then he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the first place.” The alternative explanation is that the person is simply too lazy or too inconsiderate to take the time to explain it. Both scenarios do not speak well of the “expert.”
I want to agree with this post. However, if I am going to have someone perform surgery on me, I would rather have that surgery conducted by an expert than a novice.
People tend to specialize into certain activities so that some people are experts in ophthalmology while others are experts in fiber optics and still others are experts in mechanical engineering.
I will not be asking a hair dresser to remove my appendix anytime soon.
You have a hairdresser?
No. But my wife does.
And yet the masters of any of these fields can explain what they do to you in such a way that you can understand it. That is a core point.
My mom always said that a person who can’t explain something clearly and easily doesn’t know it well enough. :) :)
That was her main objection to our high school teachers. They were neither content experts nor sufficiently inspirational such that the students would work to understand the material on their own.
I saw this so vividly in a chemistry teacher my daughter had in high school. All the kids were getting Cs in his class. We parents were a little upset. I ended up sitting in on one of his classes, and I realized he was trying so hard to impress the students that he wasn’t trying to teach them. They were quite lost.
I told them to get some old textbooks that were more thorough and patient than the newer ones.
I think those kids are still grateful. :) :) :)
Anyrhing postulated by our great overlords, that shuns refutation, sends the b******t meter into the red. Nothing is irrefutable!
I view a kidney doctor, a nephrologist (to use a nephrologist as one example of an expert) as someone who provides specialized information, not an overlord.
I will not ask a plumber to provide me accurate information on the health of my kidney function. I am not going to reject experts in favor of novices on cable television, the internet and podcasts.
And yet it makes sense to always get an explanation from any expert instead of just blindly following them. I know many rabbis. I only consult those who will explain their thinking.
A kidney doctor gained his specialized knowledge from several years of medical school and additional years of residency and yet more years of internship.
The kidney doctor might be able to provide a simplified explanation of why he thinks your lab values require medication (and then explain what kind of medication and the possible side effects of the medication). But he will be giving you are very dumbed down explanation.
But, he has a PhD
That’s hilarious!
It really depends on the subject and the “expert” in how I will treat it.
If it is something in my field of software engineering – I will most likely to follow it, esp if it is new technology.
if it is the social science – I am very skeptical.
Considering the pace at which medical schools are going “woke” and embracing all manner of weird ideas, including absurd notions that “humans are not, like other mammals, a species comprising two sexes” or that men can become pregnant, your trust in the expertise of surgeons may not age well.
The point I am making is that given the reality of specialization, some people are going to be very knowledgeable in some fields while others are going to be very knowledgeable in other fields.
So, asking a very good mechanical engineer who develops engines to determine whether or not someone should have coronary bypass surgery based on an EKG is a bad idea, in my opinion.
I agree with you that this whole “debate” we are having over whether someone can just wake up one morning and say, “I am a woman” or “I am a man,” and everyone else just has to go along with it is a nonsense debate.
But I don’t think the existence of these “debates” demonstrates that expertise isn’t needed in many situations, given that all of us only have 24 hours in a day and if we spend those hours studying mechanical engineering, we can’t spend those hours studying cardiology.
I’ve heard before that if you can’t explain something to a 5-year-old, you don’t understand it. And this was also in relation to quantum theory. (The comments occasionally ended with, But no one understands quantum theory.)
That’s an oversimplification, but explaining and teaching a subject is one of the best ways to master it. I did not really get certain subjects in Chemistry until I taught them.
I cringe every time I read or hear that something is the opinion of “experts”. I remember what Ronald Reagan said in 1968:
“The fetish of complexity, the trick of making hard decisions harder to make-the art, finally, of rationalizing the non-decision, have made a ruin of American foreign policy”.
I think of people like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and, today, Anthony Blinken; making a hash of American foreign policy and proclaiming their mastery of “complex” situations.
I also think back to another of Reagan’s quotes; one of simplicity yet one that warmed every soldier’s heart:
“We win – They lose”
How’s this five year old on double and triple integrals?