The anti-expertise movement is what I would describe as religious fervor, not the other way round.
The anti-expertise movement is what I would describe as religious fervor, not the other way round.
An expert psychologist for example? Her patients can remain depressed, mutilate themselves, kill themselves and even kill others and yet she will remain an "expert" mostly on the basis that she was educated at a place that similarly ineffective experts have claimed is a good place for a psychologist to come from.
I suppose the trouble is experts by education got lumped in by experts by results at some point down the line.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/view/
https://www.cato.org/research/growth-development
how big is the middle part of the venn diagram here?
being skeptical of domain-experts is only 'religious fervor' if the field is cut-and-dried. many aren't
I don't have time for this.
These are both hugely influential policy think tanks which hire experts. They both have hugely differing views on the economy.
Or is providing evidence to support a claim now 'cherry picking' to be dismissed? And if so, aren't you proving my point?