R: Trust the Experts

Trust the Experts! Whether we are told to trust the science, seek out reliable news sources, or use studies that have undergone peer review in our research, we are constantly deferring and delegating decisions, research, and trust to those who are more highly trained, and educated than us. But what happens when the experts become complacent— or worse— betray the very end towards which their expertise points. One of the more cogent examples of this comes in the area of journalists and the truth. As Alexis De Tocqueville observed in the early days of American democracy, “The most enlightened Americans attribute the little influence of the press to [the] excessive dissemination of its power; and it is an axiom of political science in that country that the only way to neutralize the effect of the public journals is to multiply their number” (AT Democracy in America ch. 11). As newspapers have become radio stations have become cable news have become Instagram posts, is this not exactly what has happened? Has the power of what was a vital aristocratic institution been disseminated to the point where the institution is impotent? If the journalist— the truth-teller— is impotent, is not then truth effectively impotent? 

The same could be said for doctors and other scientists. The end of medicine should be the heath of the body but today we see commonly doctors violating that end and killing others— both the old and the young. Even so, nobody in this body would presume to say they possess the same skills as a medical professional. Dwight Schrute says it  est when explaining that he doesn’t tip his barber, food delivery boy, or taxi driver because he can do the tasks they do. He did, however, tip his urologist because he cannot pulverize his own kidney stones. This satirical expression exposes an important truth. Experts can only be as trusted as people are  willing to trust. A nonsensical lack of trust in expertise is a grave cancer in our society that devalues expertise generally. Should more of us not take the Dwight Schrute approach? Should we not be blindly deferent to those who have outpaced us in education, experience, and training?

A further complication of Dwight’s method arises when we consider that studies show patients oftentimes have far higher standards of care when they are actively involved in their healthcare decisions. The “annoying patients”— those that ask questions, seek second opinions, and demand more information from their provider— have higher chances of survival, recovery, and higher quality care. Maybe then, a healthy questioning of expertise is always good. 

There are essentially two angles one could take on this debate. We can all agree there is a crisis of trust in the experts of today. So, one could examine the situation at the present day and consider whether we should work to increase confidence (aff position) or continue to question our experts (neg position). Alternatively, speakers could trace this current crisis back to its origins and conclude whether the initial crisis in confidence of expertise was specious (aff position) or justified (neg position).