There is this idea that if the experts say X you shouldn’t go against them. What if it harms others other than you if you do? What if it harms the innocent?
The explicit and often explict claim is that one should go along with the experts, period. Well, let’s look at this heuristic in actual contexts and see if it holds up in some universal way.
Before getting to contexts, it is important to note that one is general offered a variety of expert opinions, so what this heuristic actually boils down to is follow the marjority expert opinion as presented in the major media. They are often minority position experts also, and these inform the choices of people who decide to go against the majority opinion. People may also make decisions based on their own research, relevent personal experience, insight into who has control of information, insight into paradigmatic and political biases that may affect majority opinions and more.
- Experts were direct and extreme racists in many countries pre (and post) abolition. Does this mean that if you were against slavery or pro-interracial marriage or believed in the equal rights of all races, you were dangerously going against the experts and therefore wrong? Could one not have been informed by direct experience, minority experts (in both senses of ‘minority’), awareness of political and economic bias in the experts, etc. and have arrived at a position different from the majority position?
- Likewise expert opinion in preWW2 Germany on Jews.
- Scientific consensus pre 1965, say, was that animals might not be experiencers, have emotions, intentions and so on. That was scientific consensus. In fact any scientist who in professional contexts wrote and spoke as if we knew animals were like us conscious creatures and not complicated machines would actually have their career damaged. If one went against this expert consensus - based on personal expertience of animals, other experts like many animal trainers, and so on - was one necessarily wrong? Was it a lucky mistake or could one have noted the paradigmatic bias within the majority experts in science and drawn a completely rational dissenting opinion?
- The vietnam war. Expert opinion: politicians, pundits, newspapers liberal and conservative were all in favor of the Vietnam war, until they weren’t. The domino theory and other ideas about the dangers of Communism etc, were put forward by experts to say the war was necessary. Going against these experts could harm innocent people, including children. However some people disagreed, based on their interpretations of history and morality and the information they had about Vietnam. There were a few minority experts and then also people with political reasons for opposing the war. If one decided on supported them one was breaking the implicit rule a number of people here put forward: that if one goes against majority experts and it might harm a child or an innocent or others, than one is immoral.
- Many parents, in the recent decades radical overmedicating of children who supposed have chemical imbalances or syndromes, decided on other approaches (diet, supplementation, therapy, pedagogical shift, changes in parenting and more) rather than medicate their children. Were they necessarily wrong because they went against majority expert opinion? Could they not possibly have noticed how pharmaceutical company desires affect media, that expert opinion can be bought, that there are paradigmatic biases involved, and so on?
Now in my experience with this last example people will then come up with counter examples where parents made mistakes going against medical advice. Well, duh, welcome to reality. I am not saying GO AGAINST MAJORITY EXPERT OPINION. That is another poor heuristic and likely everyone here, even those you consider irrational do what majority experts advise on some or likely many issues. People are so binary in their thinking that if you argue that heuristic X is a limited one, then you must be saying always to the opposite of X.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo.
And welcome to the real world. It’s harder than that. You have too look at specfic issues and contexts. You need a flexible set of heuristics. You need to take responsibility. And yes, you may make mistakes. And just as a Jehovahs witness may refused a transfusion for their child and cause a death and you think this somehow shows one should always follow majority expert advice, other parents have blindly followed majority expert advice and fucked their children up. Or gone along with policies that fucked over drafted soldiers and Vietnamese children. Or that ran nations or certain groups into early graves.
This is hard stuff.
If only life were so fucking easy. How fucking responsibilitiless easy. Life is much more fucking hard than these peopel who imply but often don’t have the courage to say that we should go along with majority expert opinion or we are bad, especially if some innocent gets hurt.
We can pretend that what is presented as the majority expert opinion is always 1) something that should be followed, period and 2) is actually the majority opinion. Or we could realize that paradigmatic biases, corporate and political biases, media biases and power biases can be noted, researched and weighed, along with personal experiences, minority expert arguments and data, censored data, historical patterns, to arrive
rationally at different stands.
Does this mean one will always be right?
No.
But going along with majority opinion is no guarante either. This is fucking hard adult decision-making shit.
In my examples above I chose examples that were aimed more at the Left, since I see this argument put forward, here at least, more by the Left. I could come up with examples more suited to challenge people on the right who think one should always follow majority expert advice and opinion.
Many of us have experienced the dark side of majority expert positions: could be in wars, in mental health approaches, in corporate practice, in courtroom processes, in the various wars on things like drugs or terror. We have learned that just because experts even a strong majority say X is true and scientifically backed, it need not be correct (or actually scientifically backed).
We have lived this. We know that to follow that lazy ass heuristic is not being a full adult. And yes, mistakes may be made. But that’s what it is like being an adult in society. Yes, if you go along in all cases with majority expert positions you can blame them when you it goes to hell and feel proud when it goes well. But others, often people you actually admire, took minority opinions, against majority experts.