The Death of Expertise

 Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. , Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2017. 252 pages.

Book Review by Richard Blackaby:

This book offers a stinging indictment on modern society. Its basic premise is that modern American society has been led to believe that, as a democracy, everyone’s ideas have equal value. Furthermore, those claiming to be experts are “elitist,” and their views should be taken with a grain of salt. Nichols bemoans the fact that society is becoming increasingly dumbed down. He offers a difficult, at times scathing commentary on society.

Nichols doesn’t mince his words. He begins by lamenting, “Something is going terribly wrong. The United States is now a country obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance” (ix). He argues, “to reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy . . .” (x). He continues, “The idea that the expert knows what he or she was doing was dismissed almost out of hand” (xi).

Nichols sounds the alarm early in this book. He notes, “These are dangerous times. Never have so many people had so much access to so much knowledge and yet have been so resistant to learning anything” (2). Nichol sates his main concern frankly: “I fear we are witnessing the death of the ideal of expertise itself, a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laypeople, students, teachers, knowers, and wonderers—in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all” (3). He laments, “In some ways, it is all worse than ignorance: it is unfounded arrogance, the outrage of an increasingly narcissistic culture that cannot endure even the slightest hint of inequality of any kind” (4). He continues, “Americans now believe that having equal rights in a political system also means that each person’s opinion about anything must be accepted as equal to anyone else’s” (5). Nichols does not beat around the bush. He claims, “And some of us, as indelicate as it might be to say it, are not intelligent enough to know when we’re wrong, no matter how good our intentions. Just as we are not all equally able to carry a tune or draw a straight line, many people simply cannot recognize the gaps in their own knowledge or understand their own inability to construct a logical argument” (8).

Nichols finds blame for this sorry state of society in several places. One of his targets is the current educational system. He argues that “When students become valued clients instead of learners, they gain a great deal of self-esteem, but precious little knowledge” (9). Nichols faults the glut of new colleges that are seeking revenue at all costs and luring students with freshly minted, eye-catching, contemporary programs. He also blames the Internet. He claims that “The Internet gathers factoids and half-baked ideas and then it sprays that bad information and poor reasoning all over the electronic world” (15).

Now that anyone with an Internet connection can Google any question, people feel as if they are as authoritative as people who have devoted their lives to studying a subject. Nichols complains, “The issue is not indifference to established knowledge; it’s the emergence of a positive hostility to such knowledge” (20).

Nichols does not advocate people merely heeding the unquestioned advice of experts. Rather, he contends that a functioning democracy relies upon a “reasoned skepticism” that comes from an informed populace (28).

Nichols defines “experts” as “. . . people who know considerably more on a subject than the rest of us, and are those to whom we turn when we need advice, education, or solutions in a particular area of human knowledge” (29). Nichols cites Ernest Hemingway, who said, “Real seriousness in regard to writing is one of the two absolute necessities. The other, unfortunately, is talent” (32). Nichols adds, “Knowing things is not the same as understanding them” (37). Nichols speaks the harsh truth. He concludes, “Of course, there’s also the basic problem that some people just aren’t very bright” (41). While such an opinion is patently politically incorrect, the fact is that many people do not know how to make or follow a logical argument. Such people are highly susceptible to conspiracy theories and wild news stories that circulate on Facebook.

Nichols introduces the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which demonstrates that “the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb” (43). Nichols also mentions “Confirmation Bias,” which is when we naturally look for facts that confirm what we already believe (47). Nichols suggests that “. . . one of the most important characteristics of an expert is the ability to remain dispassionate, even on the most controversial issues” (64). While I agree that his statement ought to be true, I want to push back here. He will later take experts to task, as he should. But in today’s highly politicized climate, “experts” often offer highly skewed analysis that fits a particular narrative, such as climate change, racism, etc. Experts, at times, have no one but themselves to blame for not offering dispassionate analysis on issues. Having compromised their objectivity to further a particular cause, experts should not be bewildered when people stop viewing them as objective and unbiased.

Nichols argues that colleges do not teach critical thinking anymore (72). He claims, “There is no way around the reality that students are too often wasting their money and obtaining the illusion of an education by gravitating toward courses or majors that either shouldn’t exist or whose enrolments should be restricted to the small number of students who intend to pursue them seriously and with rigor” (91). But “When college is a business, you can’t flunk the customers” (94). Nichols acknowledges that colleges used to grant the “Gentleman’s C,” which allowed struggling students to pass the class (95). But now students expect to be granted a “Gentleman’s A” (95). The result is a glut of A students who know very little about their subject. Today’s students are quick to protest any treatment by professors or school administrators they deem unjust. Nichols concludes, “. . . students are learning that emotion and volume can always defeat reason and substance” (100). Nichols quotes Richard Dawkins, who, concerning today’s college students, tweeted, “A university is not a safe place. If you need a safe place, leave, go home, hug your teddy and suck your thumb until ready for university” (102).

Nichols references several laws. He notes Godwin’s Law, which is the tendency to cite Nazi Germany in every argument (107). Certainly, we see this propensity in the current political climate in America. Sturgeon’s Law is that 90% of everything is garbage (107). Nichols claims, “. . . the Internet is actually changing the way we lead, the way we reason, even the way we think, and all for the worse” (111). He suggests, “Sometimes human beings need to pause and reflect” (111).

Nichols offers a discussion of the “search engine manipulation effect” (121). He suggests that “Most lay people can no longer tell the difference between real information and whatever a search engine burps up” (122). He adds, “Facts do not speak for themselves” (127). He notes that “There’s more news available and yet people seem less informed” (137). This paradox is, surprisingly true of younger Americans. Though they are more technically savvy, younger Americans know less about current affairs than older adults. Nichols suggests that part of the problem with the Internet is that, though there is a great deal of information, it is closely entwined with entertainment, so discerning between the two is difficult (139).

Nichols includes a chapter on the failure of expertise. He cites the example of experts who claimed that eating eggs was unhealthy (171). Later, it was discovered that eggs weren’t as harmful as experts claimed. He also notes examples of hoaxes “expert” journalists dutifully reported as fact. It became clear that many of today’s journalists are young, recent university graduates who do not take the time to verify facts that are circulating the Internet.

Nichols argues that “An uninformed judgment, even when right, is often less useful than a reasoned view, even when wrong, that can be dissected, examined, and corrected” (205). In one sense, this statement may be true, as experts generally come to conclusions based on facts and disciplined reasoning. But I tend to think that the Internet can also help keep experts honest. Nichols cites examples where laypeople using Google were able to challenge expert opinions that were proven to be incorrect. For too long, laypeople mindlessly accepted expert opinions because they had no way of challenging their facts and research. The Internet has at least made greater amounts of information, however slanted and biased, available to anyone who wants to double check an expert opinion.

Nichols notes that “Democracy cannot function when every citizen is an expert” (208). Nichols cites a troubling study in which people were asked if they thought the USA should intervene militarily in an imaginary nation called Agrabah. Disturbingly, a large percentage of self-identifying Republicans agreed that Americans should intervene. A higher percentage of Democrats were against intervention. What was disturbing was that so many Americans had such strong feelings about an imaginary country (225). Nichol’s point is that, though a growing number of Americans are ignorant of the issues, they nevertheless hold strong opinions about them, even to the point of believing that military intervention is necessary.

This book is interesting on several levels. On one hand, the state of the nation as depicted in this book is alarming. Nichols makes the strong case that despite being less informed, Americans believe they are more autonomous than ever, because they can now formulate an opinion apart from expert advice. Ironically, many Americans then turn to others to think for them, whether on Google or Facebook. An uneducated populace is ready fodder for a dictator.

Nichols is also aware that the Internet, though a contributor to the problem, is not the only source. It simply aggravates an existing tendency. The educational system, unless addressed, will lead to even greater problems in the future as today’s youth move into the nation’s leadership positions.

Nichols is highly educated and identifies himself as an expert in certain fields. At times, he comes across as extremely condescending, though justifiably. But he might seem to the reader as an expert who resents the fact that his office is not as respected or as adhered to as it once was. I agree that people ignorant of the issues should humbly seek the wisdom of those who have carefully studied them. Nevertheless, the key is for people to value education themselves and to take time to become at least generally informed. Learning to read a book critically could go a long way toward protecting people from making fools of themselves on Facebook. I don’t believe the Founding Fathers envisioned Americans being serviced by experts who could advise them on what they should do. I sense they foresaw an educated, well-read populace who, when presented the facts and issues, could make carefully reasoned decisions for the public good. Too many Americans today have forfeited their responsibility to learn and think. We want the right to have our opinions taken seriously, but we don’t necessarily want to pay the price of study and research so our opinions actually have value.