Who Can You Trust?

These days, it seems trivially obvious that it is impossible for one person to know everything. Arguably, this was not the case in the past: Some have said that the philosopher Aristotle knew all that there was to know at the time (though in retrospect, a lot of it was incorrect). Others have identified the brilliant 17th century polymath Athanasius Kircher as the “last man to know everything.” But in any case, in this millennium, we need to acknowledge that we will all need to rely on others for expertise on at least some topics.

The challenge is knowing how to identify which experts to trust. Expertise is acquired from academic learning, hands-on experience, self-study, or a combination of all of these.

For science topics, the “gold standard” for an expert is to have academic qualifications in the field; even better if they are publicly recognized for their expertise, and/or have published papers in high-quality journals. Of course, scientific papers are usually highly technical and challenging for people outside the field. Enter the “science communicators” who help to cut through the jargon and provide explanations accessible to the general public. Many are knowledgeable and trustworthy; some are even scientists themselves, but if and when they are speaking outside their own area of expertise, some extra scrutiny is indicated.

But often, we also want to deploy our critical thinking skills in areas outside of science — practical matters like fixing cars or building furniture. In that case, the criteria for expertise are more likely to be based on practical experience (which may or may not be built on or scaffolded by formal academic education or training).

Some fields, such as medicine or engineering, depend on practical applications of scientific principles. In these areas, experts must be able to demonstrate a combination of academic education and practical experience.

Cautionary notes about “expertise”:

• Some “experts” use academic qualifications in one field to sound credible in another; for example, a computer scientist who pontificates on vaccinations.
• Some journals present themselves as scientific, but articles are not peer-reviewed, and often authors pay to publish their non-peer-reviewed (low quality) work.
• Some “experts” use their expertise for personal gain. Their information may or may not be accurate. If the expert has an ulterior motive for their claims, it is important to give their claim more scrutiny.
• Not all academic qualifications are equal. Experts should be vetted by ensuring that the institution they are citing is accredited and to ensure that they are being truthful about their affiliation with that institution. 
• There are better and poorer practitioners in every field and the esteem of peers is often a good indicator of qualifications. Peer recognition can take the form of publications (as discussed above), as well as memberships/accreditation from governing bodies, such as professional associations, and government licensing boards. (Additional scrutiny may be required to validate these credentials, especially in the case of self-governing organizations; for example, homeopaths in Ontario are legally required to be registered with The College of Homeopaths of Ontario, but that organization explicitly states that it “does not have a role in advocating for or against the efficiency of homeopathy.”)

In some cases, evaluating expertise can literally be a matter of life or death. Many people look to the internet for information regarding medical concerns. There is a wealth of information available from hospitals, medical schools, and health-related non-profit organizations. Again, the validity of the information provided by organizations depends on the credentials of the contributors and compilers. As with individuals, organizations may have ulterior motives, or they may fail to carefully vet their contributors. Recently, questions have been raised about the increasing tendency to provide information generated by artificial intelligence Large Language Models, despite the risk of insertion of information generated by the LLM’s hallucinations or confabulations.

In summary, experts (whether individuals or organizations):

• have formal qualifications, and/or a “track record” of accuracy and credibility,
• are willing to acknowledge when they are wrong,
• do not claim that their expertise in one area gives them the ability or credibility to speak on anything that is outside their field, and
• freely admit that they have their own biases, and disclose their potential conflicts of interest. 

For more on who (and how) to trust, check out the Podcast for Inquiry episode The Search for Truth, with Carolyn Biltoft.

Image by Vilkasss via Pixabay, used under the Pixabay License