Anti-Science Mind Virus and the Death of Expertise

It has taken a few years for this idea to crystallize in my own mind, but it is becoming clear that there seems to be an overlap of several areas of wonky assertions that that have led to my observation that Idiocracy is more than a movie. It is becoming more and more a lived experience of cultural reality in Western democracies, especially in the US. Faith, or spirituality (claims without evidence), extreme libertarian/anarchistic rejection of government and institutions of higher education (usually claiming a sliding scale of over-reach and elitism), conspiracy theories (where mystery is reality), and intellectual egalitarianism (where everyone's opinion on any topic is just as valid as the opinion of anyone else) are some of the areas of concern.Each of these ideas seem fraught with self-evident problems, individually, but in our current society (I'll use a Western Democratic tradition (US) as a reference) these troublesome views become dogma, and the problems are compounded.

The title of this post is a blend of two ideas: the "Anti-Science Mind Virus" part is from a discussion on a YouTube Channel I have been following for some years called "Professor Dave Explains" (https://www.youtube.com/professordaveexplains) which began in 2015 as a basic college science communication series of videos  helping students to understand more complex ideas in fun and simpler ways than a text and lecture. From this simple beginning, Professor Dave (Dave Farina) quickly became a hub for taking on conspiracy theories, and Tom Nichols' 2017 book, "The Death Of Expertise" (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26720949-the-death-of-expertise), whose main thesis is that there's a growing trend in Western societies, of dismissing established knowledge, and that this is exacerbated by the internet and a pop-culture that prioritizes self-esteem and individual feelings over expertise. In Nichols' own words:

"I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but in a particular area of

human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy. When I say something on

those subjects, I expect that my opinion holds more weight than that of most other people.I

never thought those were particularly controversial statements. As it turns out, they’re

plenty controversial. Today, any assertion of expertise produces an explosion of anger

from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims

are nothing more than fallacious “appeals to authority,” sure signs of dreadful “elitism,”

and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a “real”

democracy." (https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/)

How did society get to the place where expertise is not valued? The easy response is to blame the internet and the rise of podcasting and YouTube influencers. Search engines offered a world of knowledge at everyone's fingertips and that quickly became the problem. Anyone could access a library full of resources online, from the comfort of their own home, believing they were instantly become smarter. The trouble is that, as people became "self-directed learners" (a term which we were taught to value in educational enterprises), they were chasing down avenues of learning that mainly reinforced, rather than challenged their current beliefs. That became a harbinger of the QAnon "digital soldiers" phenomenon of the first Trump Administration and the emergence of MAGA as a political and cultural force often satirized in the types of politicians the GOP has elected in recent years (Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Tommy Tuberville come to mind). People can be exposed to information, but that exposure doesn't mean we are becoming smarter. People can become stuck in loops of self-affirming bias and misinformation. Information is great, if you are trained and educated with critical thinking skills and can filter the information we choose to expose ourselves to. Without these skills, the internet becomes the Wild Wild West of claims to authoritative understanding while lacking convincing arguments and supporting evidence. Basically, on the internet, anyone, can say anything, and MANY will believe claims without evidence. That is the crux of the problem.

So, how do we sift through it all and sort out truth and fact, from opinion and pseudo-expertise? It sure helps if we can equip ourselves with traditional education. We can continue to take courses online, from accredited institutions. Not all institutions are the same, so we need to understand that there is a difference between schools that have time-tested credentials, and ones that are little more than an internet cafe of information you can surf and think that you are learning because you took a "course" from some place on the internet. When we take a "course" we are being exposed to information. We are not becoming smarter. And if the information we are exposed to is fraught with spurious claims passed off as proven evidence, we are being misled into believing we are becoming smarter.

We can begin to check our learning against what others are thinking, and by "others" I mean people within our sphere of family and friends who we respect because they have a reputation for presenting cogent, well-thought-out information. We can also choose what media we consume and what reporters, journalists, scholars, and academics we will consider as informed, and purveyors of fact, more than opinion, even if we don't like what we are hearing. One danger of being a self-directed learner is that we can become stuck in silos of the same thoughts (confirmation bias) and the same beliefs reinforced by repetition of claims, rather than well-presented, vetted information that can be fact-checked. What are other factors that may play a role in the "dumbing down of America" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down? We are often fed (in our social media news feeds) ideas that some algorithm has observed that we frequently click on., and because clicks are money, we are fed more, hence the term "click bait". The danger is that we are simply consuming more of the same, with no guarantee that what we are learning is truth. A lie, repeated over and over can become a truth in our mind.

Exposing ourselves to conversations and programs featuring people who do not think as we do, or who do not believe as we do, affords us an opportunity to examine our own knowledge claims in light of opposing views. It is like "iron sharpening iron" (Proverbs 22:17) where the clash of swords (intellectual swords of ideas) has a way of honing our own critical thinking skills.

It is always ok to say, "I'm not sure," in a conversation. Uncertainty is not weakness, it may be strength demonstrated in healthy skepticism. "I'm not sure" is a way of asking for more evidence to sway you, and evidence is the underpinning of science and learning.

OK, so why this title and why now? I am always looking for tools - arguments and ways of articulating information - to improve my own communication skills, and my to frame my own observations about the world I am encountering on a daily basis, whether through chance conversations with friends and neighbours, or through reading books and following academics via social media platforms that I have learned to trust as reliable purveyors of truth (Bluesky, as opposed to Twitter/X). I also believe that we learn more as we engage in conversations, not the yelling and raising voice matches that sometimes are passed off as idea exchanges, rather, thoughtful, steady, discussions featuring a back and forth of listening and questioning. I hope these types of exchanges are still possible these days. I have my doubts.

I don't know whether the internet changed things for the worse, or whether schools have slowly lowered their expectations, or perhaps there really is something in the drinking water. There does seem to be a societal problem that many academics have identified, but as for the causes and the corrective measures? Well, that will take more work to discover and implement.