Have we fallen out of love with experts? Ian Katz reports - BBC Newsnight
Summary
TLDRThe video script delves into the post-Brexit skepticism towards experts in Britain, questioning the public's trust in specialized knowledge. It highlights Michael Gove's controversial statement, suggesting a shift from reliance on experts to a more populist stance. The script explores the implications for various fields, including economics and science, and discusses the potential dangers of dismissing expert advice. It also touches on the role of the internet in democratizing access to information and the public's ability to question authority, reflecting a broader debate on the value of expertise in a democratic society.
Takeaways
- 😷 The Brexit vote was a significant blow to the intellectual elite in Britain who had favored staying in the EU.
- 🗣️ Michael Gove's comment about people being tired of experts reflects a broader skepticism towards expertise, with potential implications for societal trust in institutions.
- 🧐 There is a growing public sentiment that experts are not always right, which can lead to questioning their advice on critical issues like climate change and public health.
- 📉 Economic forecasts made by experts prior to Brexit were largely incorrect, which has contributed to the erosion of trust in their predictions.
- 🤔 The role of experts in society is being reevaluated, with some arguing that their authority is being undermined, while others see this as a healthy challenge to orthodoxy.
- 💡 The internet has democratized access to information, allowing the public to question experts' knowledge and leading to a more informed, yet skeptical, populace.
- 🔍 The media and politicians often oversimplify or distort expert opinions, which can contribute to public mistrust.
- 🏛️ The script suggests that there might be a historical precedent for the current anti-expert sentiment, drawing parallels to pre-Enlightenment attitudes.
- 🌍 The script implies that the anti-expert trend could have global implications, referencing the 'post-fact' society observed in the United States under President Trump.
- 👨🏫 There is a call for a more nuanced understanding of the role of experts, recognizing their fallibility while also valuing their contributions to evidence-based policy and decision-making.
Q & A
What was the significance of June 24th in the context of the script?
-June 24th was significant as it marked the day after the Brexit vote, which was a major event that challenged the opinions and predictions of many experts in Britain.
Who were some of the groups that were mentioned as being against Brexit according to the script?
-The script mentioned that the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, and most of the leaders of the trade unions in Britain were against Brexit.
What did Michael Gove's soundbite about experts imply, as discussed in the script?
-Michael Gove's soundbite implied a skepticism towards experts and their opinions, suggesting that their knowledge and predictions might not always be accurate or reliable.
What was the 'trickle-down economics' machine mentioned in the script, and what does it represent?
-The 'trickle-down economics' machine, built by Bill Phillips, is a contraption that uses water flows to model the behavior of the British economy. It represents a mechanistic view of economics, suggesting that people will behave predictably like molecules in a test-tube.
How did the script suggest that the internet has impacted the role of experts?
-The script suggests that the internet has given people access to a vast amount of information, which has diminished the respect for experts as people can now find 'expert' knowledge more easily.
What was the view of the script on the role of experts in policy-making and society?
-The script expressed concern that the dismissal of experts could have negative implications for fields like medicine, intelligence, and economics, and that experts are essential for the proper running of society and policy development.
What was the script's perspective on the public's trust in experts after the Brexit vote?
-The script indicated that the public's trust in experts was shaken after the Brexit vote, as many experts' predictions about its consequences were proven wrong.
What did the script suggest about the public's ability to discern expert advice?
-The script suggested that the public may be more skeptical of expert advice, and it raised the question of whether laypeople can accurately assess complex issues like climate change or vaccine safety.
How did the script describe the potential consequences of dismissing expert advice?
-The script described the potential consequences as dangerous, suggesting that dismissing expert advice could lead to a post-fact society, where decisions are made without proper reasoning or evidence.
What was the script's stance on the role of experts in the context of the Enlightenment?
-The script mentioned that the Enlightenment involved challenging experts, particularly priests, suggesting that questioning authority and seeking knowledge independently is a part of intellectual progress.
What was the script's view on the public's skepticism towards experts being healthy or not?
-The script presented differing views, with some characters suggesting that skepticism is healthy as it encourages critical thinking, while others fear it could lead to a disregard for evidence-based knowledge.
Outlines
🇬🇧 Brexit and the Discrediting of Experts
The script discusses the aftermath of the Brexit vote and its impact on the perception of experts in Britain. It highlights how the intellectual elite, who were overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the EU, faced a significant setback with the public's decision to leave. The narrative questions whether this event has led to a lasting change in the public's trust in experts, such as those from the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, and trade union leaders. It also touches on the broader implications of disregarding expert advice, suggesting that this could be an attack on the foundations of a society built on reason and evidence.
🗣️ The Backlash Against Expertise
This paragraph delves into the specific case of Michael Gove, a British politician known for his anti-intellectual comment during the Brexit campaign. It explores the context and implications of his statement, suggesting that it may have been a reflection of a wider societal trend rather than a targeted critique of economists. The script also includes interviews with people who express skepticism towards experts, often due to a perceived disconnect between experts and the general public's experiences. The narrative suggests that the internet has played a role in democratizing access to information, which may have contributed to the erosion of expert authority.
🧬 The Broader Implications for Science and Society
The script extends the discussion to the potential broader implications of the backlash against experts, particularly in the fields of science and policy-making. It includes commentary from a geneticist and a science writer, who offer differing perspectives on the value of public skepticism towards experts. While one argues that such skepticism can be healthy and is in line with the spirit of the Enlightenment, the other expresses concern that the dismissal of expert advice could undermine the basis of scientific evidence and reasoned policy-making. The narrative suggests that the debate over the role of experts is not just confined to economics but extends to all areas where expertise is valued.
🌟 The Role of Experts in a Post-Brexit World
The final paragraph reflects on the potential long-term consequences of the changing relationship between the public and experts in the wake of Brexit. It uses the metaphor of an expert 'naked' to symbolize the vulnerability and exposure of experts whose advice is ignored. The script suggests that the event may have revealed underlying issues with the public's trust in authority figures and raises the question of whether this is a unique phenomenon or part of a larger trend. It concludes by highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of the role of experts in a democratic society.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Brexit
💡Experts
💡Economic Forecasting
💡Anti-intellectualism
💡Post-fact
💡Reason and Evidence
💡Michael Gove
💡Economists
💡Trust in Institutions
💡Enlightenment
💡Science and Scientific Evidence
Highlights
June 24th Brexit vote challenged the intellectual elite's pro-EU stance, raising questions about the public's trust in experts.
Michael Gove's comment on 'people in this country have had enough of experts' suggests a shift in public sentiment towards expertise.
The referendum revealed a potential loss of trust in institutions like the Bank of England, IFS, IMF, CBI, and trade union leaders.
Experts' predictions of economic downturn post-Brexit were proven wrong, leading to skepticism about their reliability.
Economists have been particularly affected, with their models and forecasts being questioned.
The public is becoming more discerning, questioning the advice of experts they perceive as biased or out of touch.
The internet has democratized access to information, potentially diminishing the authority of traditional experts.
Martin Lewis, a financial expert, was found to be the most trusted figure on Brexit, indicating a preference for non-partisan expertise.
Some experts were seen as campaigners during the referendum, which may have affected public trust in their objectivity.
The attack on experts could have broader implications for science and evidence-based policy-making.
Economist Victoria Bateman argues that the anti-expert sentiment is dangerous and historically has led to dark periods.
Michael Gove later clarified his 'experts' comment, stating he was referring to specific organizations and their incorrect predictions.
The public's skepticism towards experts is seen by some as a healthy sign of a more questioning and informed society.
The challenge to experts raises questions about how society will address complex issues like climate change and public health.
The narrative suggests a need for experts to communicate more effectively and for the public to develop critical thinking skills.
The changing relationship with experts may reflect a broader shift in societal values and the role of authority in decision-making.
Transcripts
June 24th was a grim day in Britain's
ivory towers the brexit vote a punch on
the nose for an intellectual elite who
had lined up in favour of staying in the
EU this will be a victory but did the
referendum reveal perhaps even cause a
lasting change in our relationship with
the people we once believed knew best
the Bank of England the IFS the IMF the
CBI and most of the leaders of the trade
unions in Britain this country said at
last get a fair deal I think the people
in this country have had enough of
experts with organisations from Akron
and he's saying that they know what is
best in getting a consistently ronda's
Michael Gove may have trotted out the
glib soundbite to deflect an awkward
question but it was one with potentially
profound implications have we ceased to
believe that men and women with years of
accumulated specialist knowledge are
worth listening to and if we have does
that reflect a healthy willingness to
challenge orthodoxy or something more
worrying an assault on the very idea
that society is built on reason and
evidence those who are expert to have
the knowledge you have the intellectual
ability to dissect these difficult
problems are being derided and pushed
back in recent years politicians have
increasingly pushed experts to the fore
to justify their decisions but in a
world where experts lose trust
how can politicians tackle climate
change or convince us that vaccinations
are safe look at the experts we've had
okay look at the expert some even see in
the anti expert rhetoric a slippery
slope that leads to the post fact morass
of trumps America you know I've always
want to say this I've never said this
before with all the talking we all do
all of these experts oh we need an
expert
experts are terrible the assault on
experts has implications for fields from
medicine to intelligence but it's
economists who've found themselves on
the front line we are right to question
experts particularly after what happened
in the referendum when experts said that
consumer confidence would fall the stock
market fall growth would cease power
prices were up immediately as a result
of the vote not as a result of a brexit
and they were wrong he needs time we
gave up listening to economist I think
we should pay a lot of attention to
economists except when they're talking
about the future
balance the budgets in 1949 a young
economist from New Zealand built this
contraption in his Croydon garage he
used bits of old Lancaster bombers and
DIY skills picked up in a Japanese Pio
wk Phillips's machine now at Cambridge
University uses flows of water to model
the behavior of the British economy
literally trickle-down economics the
back.this is income after saturation
some of which goes off to savings so
this is the banking sector it could be a
perfect metaphor for what's wrong with
economics the embodiment of a
mechanistic view that assumes people
will behave like molecules in a
test-tube social science masquerading as
science so it's telling us if when you
move the levers in the economy how the
economy will perform yes it is a model
of the economy as a machine is it
reasonable to see the economy as a
machine economic forecasting has always
been a bit hit and miss it's only
function said JK Galbraith was to make
astrology look respectable economists
flag up the uncertainty and assumptions
behind their predictions with forests of
caveats
but that nuance is often stripped away
by politicians or the media or both in
defense of economists I would say that
short-term forecasting is extremely
difficult we're talking about trying to
predict the actions of millions of
different consumers across the economy
and trying to impose some order on all
of that and those millions of decisions
is inevitably going to be really
difficult
Victoria Bateman is an economic
historian she thinks the attack on
experts has implications far beyond
economics I also think it was dangerous
when we look throughout history when we
look at attempts to attack intellectuals
and those go back to the period before
the Enlightenment I think it's
particularly dangerous for
or a Western politician in a Western
democracy to be playing this game of
anti-intellectual izing I think the
people in this country have had enough
of experts with it's perhaps ironic that
a man regarded as one of the most
intellectual figures in British politics
is now famous for one of its most anti
intellectual soundbites Gove insists he
was quoted out of context he didn't mean
to impugn all experts I was particularly
thinking about organisations like the
IMF who I thought had called the Euro
wrong and we're calling the referendum
wrong and I felt at the very least we
should challenge their arguments rather
than simply saying oh well because
you're a tenured academic or because you
work for the IMF you must be right you
are famous for your linguistic rigor
what why didn't you say something more
like what you've just said to me it was
a high profile high intensity high
tension high nervousness encounter
there's a difference between the
considered use of language in a
conversation like this and having to
think fast on your feet do you regret it
you good haven't you used the word
experts in that context no I think it's
life's too short for regrets I think one
of the things that is occasionally
irritating is that people assume that
what I was saying was a blanket
rejection of facts evidence rigor so you
don't trust Mark Carney or the
Chancellor or the Prime Minister
before the referendum Newsnight came to
Bogner where Joan and some friends told
us why they would ignore warnings from
experts like the governor of the Bank of
England does he know what it's like to
go around Sainsbury's shopping does he
know what it's like that line seemed to
reveal something profound about our
changing relationship with experts so
we've come back Jones away but over a
cup of tea I asked a few of the locals
how experts lost their trust
there's too much scare mongering from
so-called experts
there's too many organisations and
businesses that all they do is study
graphs and take polls and and they just
need to make a living out of it and I
don't believe that they can they know
best I don't think they know best how on
earth do we decide what to listen to
and and what not to listen to listen up
here not people I've got good common
sense
Graham you were not impressed by the
expertise of academics
why are you skeptical about people
who've spent often years studying this
subject well they're just ordinary
people but unfortunately they get stuck
in this little bubble of what they're
doing so you'll make all your judgment
based on what you hear
yes not on what their yes qualifications
are yeah it doesn't matter it depends on
what they actually say but sounds like
what you're saying is we should just
pick the experts we agree with well
there's plenty government out there
perhaps not everywhere in Britain is as
allergic to boffins as Bogner but it
does seem we're far less willing to take
the pronouncements of experts as gospel
so how did we get here well at least
part of the answer must lie with the
internet and the way it handed us all
the keys to the kind of specialist
knowledge that once took years to
acquire which of us hasn't diagnosed an
ailment with a little help from dr.
Google long before arriving in the
doctor's waiting room
if the internet has chipped away at the
respect commanded by many experts it's
done the opposite for one man poles if
they still count for anything
consistently found that Martin Lewis was
the figure trusted most on brexit he
thinks the trouble starts when experts
start predicting the future because you
can't make that prediction this is a
world about probability and chance but
what we had in the EU referendum was
people giving us black and white answers
all the time Lewis thinks that part of
the problem is that many experts appear
to take sides in the referendum argument
it was a problem we wrestled with on
Newsnight in the eyes of the two
campaigns no I think some experts made
the mistake of being campaigning and
therefore presenting their views as part
of a campaign which immediately says
that you're biased one way or the other
and the public will perceive it and not
trust you and even those who didn't then
allowed that information to be used in a
polemic way if the Enlightenment has its
sacred texts one of them is isaac
newton's principia mathematica newton's
own annotated copy is the prized
possession of trinity colleges wren
library a temple to knowledge so chile
the librarians where anoraks so this is
newton's own copy of the pic api
Mathematica this isn't it it's one of
the great works of Western science
incredibly important it's a book that
inflicted calculus on centuries Newton
helped put science at the center of our
modern world yet some worry that the
assault on experts has spread beyond
economics and the social sciences and
now challenges science itself
unfortunately mr. gos remarks spilled
over into all sorts of other areas where
experts have an enormous contribution to
me to the proper running of society and
for good policy development science is
absolutely there because science is
based
reason on evidence and the fact that
experts have been derided in this way
does have an effect in undermining
science and scientific evidence we've
come to another temple to knowledge
London's gleaming Francis Crick
Institute Nobel prize-winning geneticist
Paul nurse believes Michael Gove
probably was thinking of economists in
his infamous comment but it was
irresponsible not to clarify his remarks
opinions on the on the front foot and
those who are expert to have the
knowledge who have the intellectual
ability to dissect these difficult
problems are being derided and pushed
back my view about this is that he
cannot last very long because their
opinion is not built on firm foundations
and it rapidly falls apart and I think
we're seeing that already with for
example mr. Trump science is built to
last the expert bashes believe they were
vindicated by the fact that most
economists got the short-term
consequences of a brexit vote wrong but
have they started something more
dangerous has Gove embolden people to
dismiss all kinds of expert advice they
don't like do you worry about that at
all a way that you've actually lets
something bigger get rolling that you
perhaps didn't mean to I entirely
understand that yes and I think that I'm
sure that there are people who've
latched on that word either those who
fear that that rise of you know a
superstitious approach towards knowledge
who think that I may have legitimized it
and it may be that there are some people
out there who think that that that I'm
giving them license to operate in that
way
who's to say all I would say is that
that phrase apart during my political
lifetime both when I was education
secretary and when I was Justice
Secretary I wanted people to know more
to have more information and knowledge
and a greater capacity for critical
thinking you were out campaigning every
day after that interview you could at
any point in the days after when I'm
sure it came up countless times you
could have qualified that remark
funnily enough it didn't come up that
often during the the referendum campaign
I think it was used particularly
afterwards because people felt that the
the brexit vote had somehow been a
triumph of know-nothing an to fact
populism my argument is actually that
many of those who are making assertions
during the campaign on the remain side
were relying on people meekly submitting
to Authority as though we were still
operating in the age of the
pre-reformation Catholic Church rather
than actually making proper arguments
[Music]
science writer Matt Ridley believes this
greater public skepticism about experts
is healthy the very opposite in fact of
the challenge to enlightenment values
others fear one has to remember that the
Enlightenment did consist of challenging
the experts particularly challenging
priests and saying you don't have all
the answers people can work out the
answers for themselves it's hard to
argue that a more questioning public is
a bad thing but here's the problem where
do we stop all these people have had
experts oh we need an expert the experts
are terrible can any layman decide if
the evidence on climate change stacks up
or whether vaccines are safe or whether
it's safe to eat GM crops after seeing
their brexit advice ignored at least one
expert decided to express herself more
forcefully in the days after the
referendum yes so I made the decision to
spend the day at the University naked as
as both an expression of my feelings
about the referendum which is that it's
a rather dramatic event and will have
dramatic long-term consequences but at
the human level more importantly as a
show of solidarity Victoria attended the
monthly faculty meeting wearing only the
words brexit leaves us naked scrawled
across her torso
for some the scene might have been a
perfect metaphor for our changing
relationship with experts the Emperor
revealed to have been naked all along so
did Michael Gove put his finger on
something no one had yet noticed or did
he helped to cause it if only there was
an expert we could ask
[Music]
Browse More Related Video
Đế chế kinh doanh bạc tỷ phía sau những ngôi chùa nổi tiếng | Tinh Hoa TV
How to use experts—and when not to - Noreena Hertz
Why I Hate Bill Gates
We’re already using AI more than we realize
Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists
Peranan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi (TIK) dalam Kehidupan Manusia | Informatika Kelas 8
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)