During the Brexit campaign, Conservative politician Michael Gove famously remarked that the public had had enough of experts, who he believed were wrong too often and therefore no longer credible. Such comments had an air of inevitability in our social media age, in which anyone can comment on anything regardless of their personal credentials.
Such open platforms have undoubtedly helped to spread misinformation on topics such as Covid-19 and climate change. Indeed, in Poles Apart, Alison Goldsworthy and colleagues argue that free access to information has largely not coincided with greater understanding, but instead heightened ignorance and division.
Goldsworthy et al argue that it is generally too simplistic to pin the blame solely on Twitter or Facebook, however, and that our long-standing and instinctive human responses to threats and uncertainty cause us to form groups and create clear in-group/out-group dynamics. Our allegiance to these groups can then distort our ability to make rational and individual choices.
Who to trust
The University of Waterloo’s Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher delves into this debate via the lens of expertise, and how we judge, and trust, experts on various topics. Her book, On Expertise, reminds us that no one can be an expert on everything, so we inevitably have to rely on others to help us make informed decisions.
Mehlenbacher highlights how our understanding of expertise calls upon everything from psychology to education, sociology to ethics. What it most certainly is not, however, is straightforward.
“Expertise comes in many varieties, not just scientific but also local knowledge, traditional knowledge, and Indigenous Knowledge. Including different types of expertise is necessary for addressing complex issues,” she explains.
She believes that where platforms are at fault is in making it difficult to accurately judge someone’s credentials, which can make it hard to know whether they can be trusted or not. What is perhaps more damaging, however, is when actual experts are discredited, as was the case with Gove’s remarks.
Discredited
For instance, Mehlenbacher has seen numerous strategies used to discredit climate change experts during her research, which have proven frustratingly effective.
“We also see sexism, racism, antisemitism, transphobia and other prejudices used to undermine an expert’s credibility,” she explains. “For instance, the sexist ‘climate Barbie’ insult or attacks on women in public health leadership roles during the pandemic.”
Of course, she also accepts that there may be valid reasons to doubt the reliability and credibility of either experts or the institutions they represent.
“Understanding the ways in which sexism, racism, antisemitism, ableism and other forms of prejudice have been enacted by experts and institutions is crucial,” she says.
If experts are to regain the trust of people, then there can perhaps be some changes to how experts communicate so that people can regain trust in them.
“Communicating knowledge and limitations in a transparent manner and demonstrating an understanding of the situations and audiences can be effective,” she concludes. “For instance, public health officials who explain the evolving pandemic situation, the limitations of what is currently known, and the reasons why they’re making certain decisions. But there are no easy answers.”
