Friday, November 17, 2006
Experts
Jonathan is right about this. Behind every "expert," there's a history that suggests that expert might not be an objective expert. "Expert" is a shorthand term evoking authority. Authority is not a great method for figuring out what's true or what we ought to believe, but we often need to appeal to or listen to authority for practical reasons as shortcuts for not being able to do all the research on an issue ourselves. The problem is that, especially in DC, "experts" proliferate like rabbits, and most political and policy decisions then become expert decisions, regardless of the truth of a matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
And in common speech nowadays "to research" something is to consult the experts. But that's a drift toward sensible usage, as far as I'm concerned, because that "re" before "search" has bothered me a long time, and because we do have "investigate." I think journalism schools specifically discourage referencing the source of a quote or opinion as an "expert." Job title or profession plus name of germane or famous work is the kosher standard, I believe. "Expert" sounds tabloid to me.
It may sound tabloid, but it's common. At the public policy school where I work, we're called "experts."
It doesn't bother me if one seeks out an authority on a given subject. We wouldn't have schools otherwise. But it does bother me when one seeks out an expert and uses criteria for establishing expertise such as fame, media presence, loudness, political pressure, etc.
Post a Comment