America's Expertise Crisis: Tom Nichols' Warning

In his article, How America Lost Faith in Expertise, Tom Nichols explores the growing phenomenon of disdain for expertise in the United States. He argues that the rejection of expert opinions has become a way for Americans to demonstrate their autonomy and protect their fragile egos. This trend is not simply a matter of scepticism towards intellectuals but a collapse of the division between professionals and laypeople. Nichols provides examples such as polls on foreign policy issues, where Americans express strong views despite their lack of knowledge. He also discusses the impact of the internet and social media, which have accelerated the breakdown of communication between experts and the public, offering an apparent shortcut to expertise. Nichols warns that the death of expertise threatens the foundation of democracy and calls for a restoration of mutual respect and trust between experts and citizens.

The rejection of expertise as a symbol of autonomy

In his article, Tom Nichols argues that the rejection of expertise has become a symbol of autonomy for Americans. This trend is particularly evident in discussions about public policy, where individuals increasingly reject the advice of experts to assert their independence from "nefarious elites" and protect their fragile egos from being told they are wrong. This is not simply a matter of disagreeing with experts but rather a complete dismissal of their considered and experienced advice. Nichols gives the example of a 2014 poll by The Washington Post, which asked Americans about their support for military intervention in Ukraine. Despite most respondents being unable to identify Ukraine on a map, they still expressed strong views on the issue, with those who were most ignorant about Ukraine's location being the most enthusiastic about using military force.

This phenomenon is not limited to foreign policy but is also seen in other areas such as science, politics, and geography. Nichols observes that Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially regarding established knowledge in public policy, is seen as a virtue. He worries that this is leading to the death of expertise itself, with a collapse of the division between professionals and laypeople.

The rejection of expertise is fuelled by the abundance of information available online, which gives people the illusion of expertise. Anyone can plug search terms into a web browser and find answers within seconds, leading to the belief that they can know as much as public policy experts. However, this information is often misleading or false, and individuals lack the training to judge the provenance of information or the reputability of the source.

The problem is further exacerbated by the presence of conspiracy theories, which provide simple explanations for complex issues and are readily spread through social media, creating echo chambers of confirmation bias. As a result, Americans have increasingly unrealistic expectations of their political and economic systems, and when these expectations are not met, they blame elites for seizing control of their lives.

Nichols argues that this rejection of expertise is dangerous for democracy, as it erodes the foundation of mutual respect and trust between experts and citizens. He concludes that to restore faith in expertise, both citizens and experts have roles to play. Citizens need to educate themselves and accept that experts are servants of democracy, while experts must remember that they are ultimately accountable to the public and should own their mistakes and be transparent about their limitations.

The death of principled, informed arguments

In his article, Tom Nichols laments the death of principled, informed arguments, which have been replaced by angry shouting matches. This shift has significant implications for democracy and the role of experts in society. Nichols, a professor himself, acknowledges that Americans have traditionally been sceptical of intellectuals and experts. However, he argues that this scepticism has evolved into something more concerning – a rejection of expertise itself.

Nichols highlights a poll conducted by The Washington Post in 2014, which asked Americans about their support for military intervention in Ukraine following the Russian invasion of Crimea. Strikingly, only one in six respondents could identify Ukraine on a map, yet this did not stop people from expressing strong views. In fact, those who were most ignorant about Ukraine's location were the most enthusiastic about using military force. A similar poll by Public Policy Polling asked voters about bombing Agrabah, a fictional country from the Disney film Aladdin. Again, a significant number of respondents had a defined view on bombing a place that does not exist.

These examples illustrate how Americans increasingly form opinions and make decisions based on feelings, emotions, and limited or incorrect information. Nichols argues that this trend is dangerous because it undermines the necessary division of labour and expertise in a modern society. He cites the example of anti-vaccine movements, which have gained traction among educated individuals who feel empowered to challenge established medical science, even at the cost of their children's health.

The rejection of expertise is fuelled by a combination of factors, including the abundance of information available online, the influence of media and propaganda, and the complexity of modern life. As a result, Americans struggle to navigate the vast amount of information and are susceptible to confirmation bias and conspiracy theories. This has contributed to a breakdown in communication between experts and laypeople, with experts increasingly disengaging and speaking mostly to their peers.

Nichols warns that if this trend continues, democracy itself may be at risk. He calls for a restoration of trust and mutual respect between experts and citizens, with citizens educating themselves and experts remaining accountable and transparent.

The impact of the internet on the death of expertise

The internet has had a significant impact on the death of expertise, as acknowledged by Tom Nichols in his article, "How America Lost Faith in Expertise." While it is not the primary cause of this phenomenon, the internet has accelerated the collapse of communication between experts and laypeople. It has created an apparent shortcut to knowledge, allowing individuals to access information with a simple online search. However, the vast amount of information available online, including both reliable and unreliable sources, can be overwhelming and lead to misinformation.

The internet has become a platform where anyone can present themselves as an expert, blurring the lines between professionals and laypeople. It has empowered individuals to challenge established knowledge and authority, often based on personal beliefs and opinions rather than factual evidence. This has contributed to a growing distrust of experts and a preference for seeking information from like-minded individuals or communities that reinforce existing biases.

Additionally, the internet has made it easier for individuals to access and spread conspiracy theories, which offer simplistic explanations for complex issues. These theories can be appealing as they provide a sense of understanding and control in a complex and uncertain world. However, they further contribute to the erosion of trust in experts as they are often unfalsifiable, and those who contradict them are seen as part of the conspiracy.

While the internet has provided unprecedented access to information, it has also created an environment where expertise is questioned and facts are relativized. It has become challenging to discern credible sources from misinformation, and individuals may struggle to navigate the vast array of available information effectively. This has led to a situation where feelings, opinions, and stray pieces of information are often valued over established knowledge and expertise.

To address this issue, it is crucial to promote media literacy and critical thinking skills. Individuals need to be able to evaluate the reliability and credibility of online sources and understand the difference between personal opinions and evidence-based expertise. Additionally, experts need to engage with the public and communicate their knowledge in a transparent and accessible manner, rebuilding trust and re-establishing the value of expertise in society.

The role of conspiracy theories in undermining interpersonal discourse

Conspiracy theories are attractive to those who struggle to make sense of a complex world and lack the patience for detailed explanations. They provide context and meaning to frightening events, sparing individuals from having to accept the random cruelty of the universe or an incomprehensible deity. This is particularly true in the aftermath of collective trauma, such as World War I, the Russian Revolution, the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, and other significant disasters.

Conspiracy theories can have severe consequences, such as moral panics that harm innocent people. Even when seemingly trivial, their prevalence undermines the reasoned interpersonal discourse that liberal democracy depends on. By definition, conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable—any experts who contradict them are simply part of the conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories, combined with confirmation bias and the complex nature of politics, further complicate the relationship between experts and laypeople in the United States. Political beliefs are deeply rooted in individuals' self-images and most cherished beliefs, making it extremely difficult to challenge these views without also threatening their sense of self.

Consequently, individuals tend to resist disconfirming information and instead doubt the science or experts presenting it. This dynamic undermines the potential for productive discourse and mutual learning between experts and citizens, contributing to the erosion of trust and respect that is essential for a healthy democracy.

The need for mutual respect between citizens and experts to restore trust

In his article, Tom Nichols argues that the relationship between experts and citizens is founded on mutual respect and trust. When this foundation erodes, experts and laypeople become adversaries, and democracy itself is endangered, devolving into mob rule or elitist technocracy. To restore trust and prevent the "death of expertise," both citizens and experts must recognise their respective roles and responsibilities.

Citizens need to acknowledge the value of expertise and the importance of informed decision-making. This means respecting the knowledge and skills of professionals, understanding their limitations, and recognising that their advice is based on specialised training and experience. Citizens should strive to educate themselves and make informed choices, rather than relying solely on feelings and emotions. They must also accept that experts are fallible and can make mistakes, but this does not invalidate the entire concept of expertise.

On the other hand, experts need to remember that they are servants of a democratic society. They should communicate their knowledge and insights in a way that is accessible and understandable to laypeople. Experts must also hold themselves accountable, admit their mistakes, and actively work to correct them. Additionally, they should engage with citizens and be open to constructive criticism, recognising that expertise is not static but constantly evolving through a process of identifying and correcting errors.

The breakdown of trust between citizens and experts has far-reaching consequences. When citizens reject expert advice, they make decisions based on incomplete or misleading information, which can have detrimental effects on their lives and society as a whole. For example, the anti-vaccine movement, driven by misinformation and a rejection of medical expertise, poses a significant risk to public health.

To restore trust, both citizens and experts must embrace a culture of mutual respect and open dialogue. Citizens should approach experts with an attitude of respectful scepticism, recognising the value of their knowledge while also demanding transparency and accountability. Experts, in turn, should engage with citizens honestly and respectfully, providing information and explanations that are understandable and relevant.

By fostering a relationship based on mutual respect and trust, citizens and experts can work together to address complex issues and make informed decisions that benefit society as a whole. This collaboration is essential for a well-functioning democracy, where experts provide specialised knowledge and citizens make informed choices based on that knowledge.

Frequently asked questions