Are Experts Real?
This essay points out a pervasive problem that doesn&#x27;t get much attention (aside from fear-mongering)<p>Because it&#x27;s a topic so easily prone to hyperbole, it helps if we can reduce it down to a few premises.<p>- Science is science, but the <i>practice</i> of science is a social system. People get tenures, jobs, promoted, invitation to speak, etc. by how well they do in the judgment of their peers<p>- Political systems exist for political reasons, ie, if you don&#x27;t have a reproducible, falsifiable test in a feedback loop somewhere, your career and goals are all about image. There&#x27;s no alternative, either for you or your field of study (That doesn&#x27;t mean other sciences aren&#x27;t important or aren&#x27;t really science.)<p>- If somebody appears on TV or in the media playing the role of an expert, it is, by definition, because they wanted to appear on TV or in the media. The goals of being popular and asked about important questions and the goals of whatever your field are ... two different things. The reporter doesn&#x27;t care who figured out X. They care who can bring excitement and emotion to talking about X.<p>- All this leads directly to the problem of the average science news consumer: any communication you receive about science or research is the result of a lot of conflicting interests. &quot;Being good science&quot; is way down the list, sadly. I imagine the percentage of average readers who understand p-hacking is below 5%<p>- None of this is a secret. The average news consumer knows it, even if they&#x27;re not able to articulate it<p>- Add in things like the reproducibility crisis, and we&#x27;ve got a huge problem as a species. We&#x27;ve got one flashlight to light our way in the darkness and it turns out there&#x27;s a loose connection in there somewhere