When seeking to determine how important the opinions of experts are in the search for knowledge, it would be appropriate to first define what exactly “expert”, “opinion” and “knowledge” really mean in the context of this discussion. An expert is defined as “a person who has special skill or knowledge”. During our Theory of Knowledge course, we defined knowledge as justified true beliefs. These two definitions are important, because they allow us to distinguish between experts and people assumed to be experts. For the purpose of this discussion, I will use following definition of opinion: “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”[1]. This definition is flexible, since it encompasses knowledge as well as beliefs that are untrue; therefore, it will allow for greater breadth of discussion. In addition, the role of experts in a field relies on their opinions regarding that field, so, in effect, the role of experts and that of their opinions is one and the same.
First off, it is important to determine what limits knowledge in the given area of knowledge in the first place. For example, if new discoveries rely on a pre-existing base of detailed theoretical knowledge, as is often the case with advanced research in mathematics or natural sciences, then experts are the only ones that can contribute at all. During one of our Mathematics lectures, we watched a film about Fermat’s Last Theorem[2], a highly complex mathematical problem, and the role of renowned mathematician Andrew Wiles in solving it. While Wiles had a central role in proving the theorem, it was after sharing his preliminary proof with other mathematicians that an error was discovered and later corrected. This demonstrates the fact that often, experts do have a significant role in discovering new knowledge, but also in making sure that the beliefs that the said knowledge consists of really are true and justified.
However, if knowledge is limited by other factors, such as physical proximity, it is possible for a layman to make a significant discovery. It is not unheard of for a farmer to stumble upon a significant archeological find while plowing his fields, for example. Of course, the archeologists who then excavate the site and interpret the findings are important in their own right, but in such a case the discoverer acts as a kind of catalyst in the search for knowledge, and is crucial. Furthermore, this example proves that the role of experts in the search for knowledge differs among areas of knowledge. As demonstrated, experts in mathematics are important throughout the whole process of discovery, while in history, they are essential only in the evaluation of discoveries (of course they may find discoveries as well, but it is not necessary for the discoverer to be an expert).
My proposed second factor in the role experts have, the degree of influence they hold in a field, is well-demonstrated by two examples I came across while leafing through my chemistry textbook. The first is that of Boris Belousov, who submitted a paper on an experiment deemed “impossible” by the editor of a scientific journal. The editor did not even bother to test the experiment, which later turned out to describe a completely legitimate chemical phenomenon. The second is that of Svante Arrhenius, who submitted a controversial thesis for his doctorate at the University of Uppsala. “This was a revolutionary idea, and his work was not well received by the university authorities, who awarded him the lowest possible passing mark for his thesis. In 1903, after the brilliance of his work on electrolytes had been fully recognized, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.”[3]
These two examples demonstrate that even legitimate scientific theories and discoveries may not carry much weight when their author is not an influential member of the field. It is probably likely that if Arrhenius had first been awarded the Nobel Prize, and then submitted his thesis, his supervisors would have reacted more favorably to his theories.
Additionally, Arrhenius’s example introduces us to the difference between experts and authorities. An authority is defined as “a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.”[1] While it is possible to be both an authority and an expert, not all experts are authorities, and not all authorities are experts. The search for knowledge is best served when the authorities themselves are experts, and are able to judge new ideas open-minded way. Sometimes the authorities can, in effect, act as gatekeepers in the field, admitting only researchers who agree with the current theories, to the detriment of the field. Authorities in a field, no matter whether they are experts or not, influence the search for knowledge simply by determining the direction of research.
This discussion of the difference between experts and authorities ties in nicely with my third point, which states that the importance of experts in a field depends on whether the “expert” is really an expert with knowledge to back up his claims or merely perceived as such. Authorities who are not experts may often be perceived to be experts, and thus have a counterproductive influence on the search for knowledge. Such is the role of Ancel Keys. In the book Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes, an investigative science journalist, claims that the so-called lipid hypothesis, the hypothesis that cardiovascular disease develops as a result of excessive intake of dietary fat, is based on flawed science. A large portion of the book discusses the role of Ancel Keys, a researcher at the University of Minessota, had in popularizing the lipid hypothesis despite lack of firm scientific evidence.
“In 1957, the American Heart Association opposed Ancel Keys on the diet-heart issue. The AHA’s fifteen-page report castigated researchers—including Keys, presumably—for taking ‘uncompromising stands based on evidence that does not stand up under critical examination.’ Its conclusion was unambiguous: ‘There is not enough evidence available to permit a rigid stand on what the relationship is between nutrition, particularly the fat content of the diet, and atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease.’
Less than four years later, the evidence hadn’t changed, but now a sixman ad-hoc committee, including Keys and Jeremiah Stamler, issued a new AHA report that reflected a change of heart. Released to the press in December 1960, the report was slightly over two pages long and had no references. Whereas the 1957 report had concluded that the evidence was insufficient to authorize telling an entire nation to eat less fat, the new report argued the opposite—“the best scientific evidence of the time” strongly suggested that Americans would reduce their risk of heart disease by reducing the fat in their diets, and replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats.”[4]
In fact, Keys’ impact was so large that even 50 years later, the authors of a research paper comparing three different diets wrote a conclusion that was completely in contradiction with the data they gathered. Here is the abstract:
"RESULTS: Both the Low and Moderate Carbohydrate groups lost significantly more weight as well as inches from their waists and thighs than the Control group, while the Low Carbohydrate group lost a greater percentage of body fat. Although the Moderate Carbohydrate group showed significant reductions in serum cholesterol, the Low Carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein.
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate approaches to weight loss such as a moderate-carbohydrate low-fat diet may be prudent."[5]
It clearly demonstrates how the researchers are complying with the pseudo-scientific dogma started by Keys, even in light of empirical results which contradict it. Keys was perceived as an expert, but his theories turned out to be false. In the end, he ended up significantly harming the search for knowledge in the science of nutrition and disease.
It is relatively simple to determine who an authority in a certain field is. However, determining who the true experts are is another matter entirely. Perhaps this is why people often assume that being an authority in a field is synonymous with being an expert, leading to a lot of confusion. When evaluating someone’s claims and trying to determine whether they are an expert or not, it is important to pay attention to whether their goal seems to be to report unbiased information, rather than persuade. In addition, authorities who don’t acknowledge counter-arguments and limitations are less likely to be credible.
References
1. "Opinion." The New Oxford American Dictionary. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
2. Fermat's Last Theorem. Dir. Simon Singh. Horizon, 1997.
3. Neuss, Geoffrey. Chemistry for the IB Diploma: Standard and Higher Level, for the 2007 Programme. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.
4. Taubes, Gary. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health. New York: Anchor, 2008. Print.
5. Wal, Jillon S. Vander, Michael I. Mcburney, Nancy Moellering, Jorene Marth, and Nikhil V. Dhurandhar. "Moderate-carbohydrate Low-fat versus Low-carbohydrate High-fat Meal Replacements for Weight Loss." International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 58.4 (2007): 321-29. Print.
