What they are saying is that the best, most highly qualified, most awarded and lauded experts in the world are not infallible.
Popular mythology has it that children and older people are most at risk of being ‘conned’ by someone peddling an untruth (or at least the ‘economic truth’) but the reality is that nearly everyone could probably raise their critical thinking bar!
A fascinating report came out of Melbourne University last week warning against having blind faith in expert opinion. And there is a message in it to all of us, when consuming information and listening to expert advice.
University of Melbourne’s Professor Mark Burgman is the co-author of an article with Professor William Sutherland from the University of Cambridge, published in the prestigious journal, Nature (14 October) that essentially argues that governments and bureaucracies risk bad decision making and poor policy making by relying too heavily on the opinions of star experts.
They say that governments making policy decisions often seek the advice of one highly regarded individual (let’s call it the Professor Bloggins principle), or will convene a panel of highly regarded people with diverse expertise across relevant areas.
And…well… is that SUCH a bad idea?
Human frailties
Well, yes. Burgman and Sutherland argue that the accuracy and reliability of expert opinions is compromised by “a long list of cognitive frailties.”
“Estimates are influenced by experts’ values, mood, whether they stand to gain or lose from a decision, and by the context in which their opinions are sought,” they say.
“Experts are typically unaware of these subjective influences,” the article says.
“They are often highly credible, yet they vastly overestimate their own objectivity and the reliability of their peers.”
In an interview with the University of Melbourne publication, The Voice, Professor Burgman is perhaps more direct, saying, ‘society relies on the judgement of experts, and when experts are wrong, bad things can happen’.
“Experts are error-prone, over-confident and prey to a host of motivational and contextual biases.”
“They can have high status, they can be very experienced, they can appear credible and be spectacularly wrong.”
Without getting too carried away, the message is that the best, most highly qualified, most awarded and lauded experts in the world are not infallible. They are still humans and, yes, despite their best efforts and intentions, will inevitably be subject, to greater and lesser degrees, to human frailties.
Professor Burgman says history shows experts often get it wrong. For example, Australians were once told that cane toads were not a threat to the local environment (ha!). And of course, in 2003, much of the world came to the conclusion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Putting it in perspective
Before we get too cynical and superior, it must be pointed out that the authors are not advocating that governments and policy makers dismiss or ignore expert opinion. Of course not.
Rather, they say that because policymakers use expert evidence as though it were data, “they should treat expert estimates with the same critical rigour that must be applied to data.” [Not accepted in blind faith!]
“Experts must be tested, their biases minimised, their accuracy improved and their estimates validated with independent evidence. That is, experts should be held accountable for their opinions.”
We can learn from this too
The same principles can be applied in a simpler way to the information we gain from any sources – whether talking with friends, reading from websites or listening to media commentators.
If you want real, unbiased information, you need to think smart! Look behind the opinion, consider not only the qualifications and expertise of the spokesperson but what influences might be involved, what information might be emphasised, dismissed or even missing altogether. Is there something for the commentator to gain from the opinion? What other expert opinions are out there? How well supported and reputable are they?
Bias, as these authors say, is often not deliberate (at least not commonly among the scientific profession) but we are all human. And luckily us humans can think too, regardless of our age!
