Part 1: The Expert is Dead!

Nowhere is it more clear that the expert is dead than in political discourse over climate change in America.

More evidence won't help the case of global warming/climate change environmentalists. More evidence would only help if there was a consensus on the legitimacy of the evidence, as well as a better sense of the baseline levels of crackpots in the scientific process. (The latter is necessary to judge roughly whether the current levels of dissent about anthropogenic global warming are actually indicative of a real "debate" or "open question".)

Scientists can't defend the models and implications of climate change if scientists themselves, and perhaps the scientific process in general, is regarded as illegitimate. Consequently, I am pessimistic about the prospects of "education" or "more, better evidence" changing the politics of climate change. More research, of course, will help refine models and provide, hopefully, better predictive power for mitigation efforts.

In case what I've said is completely beyond comprehension of those reading this for whom science in general, and scientists in particular, take that they are legitimate as a given, let me use what I believe to be an accessible example.

Many (but not all) scientists are somewhere between agnostic and atheist. For them, Biblical literalism is seen as ridiculous because the Holy Bible itself lacks legitimacy, either as absolute historical truth, or a legal/moral authority. Quoting scripture to justify an interpretation of God's will won't convince an atheist for pretty obvious reasons - the entire line of argument is seen as starting from a bad foundation.

Now, there will be people who argue that this is an unfair comparison. Science, they might say, is based on observable, testable results, while religion in general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular, is not.

That's not the point.

The point is that it is often a waste of time to argue with someone using what you perceive as gold but the other person perceives as crap. All it does is reinforce your own prejudices and piss everyone the hell off.

I think that the grumbling I hear/read from economic conservatives, moderates, and intellectuals about the ridiculousness of present-day politics comes from the decline of the legitimacy of experts. Americans, historically, have distrusted central authority. But during certain periods (the Cold War being a particularly good example), experts in general, and scientists in particular, were held in particularly high esteem. They were seen as highly trusted, dependable, and patriotic.

So what happened?

I'm speculating that it could be traced to three reasons.

1. The gulf between promises and reality

Remember when we were supposed to have floating cars by the 1970s? Or travel to Europa in phallic spacecraft by 2001?  These didn't happen. And while we do have things that, upon further contemplation, may be even more amazing (and useful) , it still remains that the nature of both funding and human behavior causes advocates of long-term projects, however necessary, to often overpromise and underdeliver. If one manages expectations appropriately, it is possible that one will lose funding to those that are willing to promise the Moon (sometimes literally). Consensus projects like National Science Foundation Decadal Surveys are supposed to counteract this possibility, but this process is not immune to abuse, or more probably, managerial incompetence.

2. The abuse of public trust and scientific research by a few bad apples

Many scientists were, and remain, exemplary models not only of professionalism, but also of citizenship. The bad apples are rare - but they do damage far out of proportion of their numbers. Every scandal, every instance of academic fraud, or even the suggestion of fraud, damages the public trust in the scientific process, and those engaged in research.

During the Cold War, science had it pretty good, physicists in particular. Masters of the atomic bomb, they had unparalleled access to policymaking and funding priorities. Some departed company from real science and became engaged in influence peddling. There are probably many examples of this, but the example talked about in my field was Edward Teller. In addition to leading the development of the thermonuclear bomb (the H-bomb), he ruined Oppenheimer by leveling McCarthyist charges against him, advocated creation of harbors using nuclear weapons, and promoted the Strategic Defense Initiative (a missile shield), a program that, then as well as more recently, has been a huge drain on resources and promising very little in terms of practical ICBM defense.

More recently, the scandal involving Andrew Wakefield and the relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism proved tremendously destructive to science. It caused tremendous fallout, both within the medical community and outside of it, and its impact is still being felt, whether in misinformation spread by a prominent (former) presidential candidate , or the creation of a public health hazard due to declining vaccination rates or the mailing of infected lollipops.

3. Lack of contact between professional researchers and the public

By its nature, scientific research is challenging and demanding. It takes a very specific type of person, with very specific priorities, to be successful in research science as it is currently constructed. Research is also conducted by a relatively small percentage of people. It is also true that these people don't always fit into mainstream patterns. For example, a former professor once told me that 94% of AAAS members are atheists. Even if he was off by a factor of two, that would still indicate a divergence in cultural values from mainstream America.

Interestingly enough, there are parallels to the cultural effects of having a professional military in which service is limited to about 1% of the US population, and generally more prevalent in the South than in other parts of the country. The experiences are widely divergent, obviously. But the fact remains - when you have a small minority of the population engaged in specialized work, or with very distinct experiences, integration with and understanding by the rest of society is often lacking.

One great counterexample I have for this: the liberal churches I have attended in my life. In both the church I grew up in, Montebello Plymouth United Church of Christ, and the church I attended in graduate school, St. Paul's United Methodist Church, there was a sizable scientific population, and also a majority of non-scientists. We got along well. It may have helped that the churches were liberal, and that, whatever doctrinal differences individuals may have had, generally we adhered to that key principle of Jesus:"Don't be an asshole."

4. Neo-Ludditism

Americans love technology; NSF surveys indicate that we are one of the most techno-friendly cultures of the OECD. But I don't think we love science. Especially recently, I think we see technology and science in terms of a divergence between opportunities afforded the technical elite and the rest of us. When the narrative shifts away from "working on the arsenal of freedom" to "20-year old college dropout Internet millionaire", look out!

There might be other cultural effects here - anti-nerd tendencies, jealousy/anger toward academically successful kids, etc. They all feed into this odd combination of a love of gadgetry but a distaste for science, especially if science is somehow tied to the obsolescence of your job.

5. The dilution of the definition of "expert".

"Expert" used to mean something pretty specific. It meant that someone was well-respected by his or her peers, had made critical contributions to the field, etc. Now that news has become more entertainment-based, anyone can be an expert, a "talking head". This has debased the value of the title "expert". There's a lot I could write about this, especially in its relationship to the proliferation of "think tanks" that are, functionally, lobbying and advocacy groups. But time grows short, and this post is long enough already. But don't confuse brevity with unimportance - this is a critical aspect of the modern American story of expertise. I just don't know if it is a symptom or a cause (likely both).

Next post: The expert is dead! Long live the expert?