All hail the Experts
Move over Christianity, Buddhism and Islam, there's a new religion in town
‘Now can the congregation close their eyes, bow down, and repeat after me… Thank you Science, for the creation of earth, the food on our table and keeping us safe.. amen’
If that sounds far-fetched then you’ve not being paying attention. The latest movement in journalism and life is one where everything must be verified, or qualified by ‘Experts’, we now pray at the alter of Science. No matter the topic news shows or print journalists will wheel in or cite some ‘Expert’ (almost exclusively an academic in some social subject) to offer their opinion1. Asserting that all other ideas need not exist, for never fear - the Expert is here. And why speak to an actual forces veteran with all their dirty views on conflict, when you can talk to the Expert head lecturer on global conflicts from their dimly lit office-cum-dungeon2?.
To be clear there is a difference between being a small e expert and a capital E Expert. Much like there is for science and Science. Small e experts are the old school term for someone who knows a topic, has experience in the area and maybe even skin in the game. A capital E Expert is someone who is a mouthpiece propagandist with oft-dubious credentials who say the thing the news agency want to say, but in a different accent. The same goes for science where the difference in capitalisation marks the gap between the scientific method and religious doctrine - but more on that later.
Previously journalists or news researchers would use studies to back up their particular viewpoint (almost always in the order of viewpoint first, ‘evidence’ second). So, it’s out with the ‘studies say’ and in with the ‘experts say’. ‘Studies say’ was probably too restrictive, as in that case it required someone to actually do the dodgy study rather than just conjure up an opinion on a whim. The validity of the studies and the opinions very much depend on the content and the context. You can claim ‘Experts say’ just about anything, because they are human and humans say a lot of things. ‘Experts say pineapple does belong on a pizza’3 is true as long as anyone who’s an expert said it (which by today’s standards means they been to Italy). This shifting of truth coming from the thing itself, to being from someone who knows about the thing is a small, but dangerous move. Loads of studies are slanted and data are cherry picked, but at least you are backing what you are saying up by something. This swap means that there doesn’t need to be any data or research on the topic at all, as long as you have an expert on the topic saying it, it’s ‘true’. The intellectuals version of your mum saying ‘Because I said so’.
Like much of the modern lexicon, overuse has driven ‘Expert’ to futility. To paraphrase the philosopher4 Syndrome ‘If everyone’s an expert, nobody is’. If ‘experts’ can say that bacon both causes cancer, and can make you fly, they might just be offering an opinion at that point. Sometimes they are only offering an opinion, but the media’s apparent hatred of nuance and crutch with clickbait means every opinion ushered by an Expert has become unquestionable fact. Experts have been installed as the priests of our new religion of Science, espousing the daily dogma that their side wants to see take hold. Putting a (loosely) credentialed backing to the thing you were already thinking so you can feel extra safe and smug that you’re right and they are wrong isn’t science, it’s Science. Like an undergrad writing an essay, they just look up what point they want to make, then cite anything (or anyone) that goes along with the point. Yeah Science bitch5.
I’m not a science denier of course. I am a Science and Expert denier though. The people who worship Experts and object to the idea of thinking for themselves, outsourcing the whole ‘thinking’ thing to people on the TV who definitely don’t have agendas. Using slanted studies and cherry picked stats in lieu of melanin to help them sleep better at night. So desperate to prove the thing they think true, they cite experts, or shit, slanted studies to prove their point - only becoming more engrossed in the already held belief they had. Saying things like ‘where’s the data’ but meaning ‘where’s the data that agrees with me’ they are incredibly close minded. Which is the opposite of science. These are the kind of people who spend more time on John Hopkins University dot com than with their families.
The great irony is the Science believers think they are above religious people. Looking down on them with equal measures of contempt and befuddlement as to how they could believe everything a book says, when the truths of the world are clearly displayed on news tickers. They’ve forgotten what science used to mean, instead existing in a world where Science is static unquestionable fact, rather than being a fluid ever changing thing that relishes challenges and new perspectives. Of course they feel superior though, they don’t believe in some God with a capital G, or listen to men in black clothing tell them what to think. No, they believe in Science with a capital S and listen to men in white clothing for their views instead.
Actual science itself has no beliefs. Real science or the scientific method is basically to only trust things that are replicable and provable. The ‘opinion’ of science can change over time (what a novel concept) as new discoveries are made and new lessons learned. There is no static doctrine, it moves as the evidence does. Sadly, true science is harder and harder to find. Studies and research are expensive to do, and clever people capable of doing them need money. This results in Studies brought to you by StateFarm. A tragic conflict of interests where mega-corps can pay for slanted studies to be done to find the exact thing they want to find. It’s hard to remain objective when your monthly check has a brand stamp on it - I’m not sure how many studies done by Burger King would result in findings that say the Big Mac is better than the Whopper (but they’d find plenty polls of the public).
There’s nothing wrong with listening to experts. In fact we could all do with a bit less 'opinions on literally everything in the world from small town economics to international relations featuring countries you couldn’t even pick out on a fucking map' and a bit more 'listening to the nuance around situations you don’t know about'. That said, blindly drinking the spiked cool-aid of an Expert isn’t the antidote. Don’t believe everything ‘Experts say’, unless ‘experts say’ you’re a Dick.
Approved opinons only. All experts and their ideas are pre-screened for anything that goes against The Grain™️.
The hyphen need not exist in some cases.
I try not to get muddied by the polluted political waters as it’s a bit boring and pointless, but i’ll wade in on this - Pineapple does belong on pizza.
Character from the children’s move ‘The Incredibles’
This is a reference to a meme of a scene in Breaking Bad where Jesse says ‘Yeah Science bitch’. Except he doesn't - he says ‘Yeah science’. But memes are memorable and so the misquote lives on. Bit like the whole ‘Luke i’m your dad’ debacle.