This really seems to be the root of the problem. Professional and academic communities seem to be influenced by big money intent on making more money and garnering further influence more than ever and more effectively than ever — or at least anytime since the heart of the Cold War era. Expertise itself is not dangerous — like you say, it’s unquestioned analysis and one size fits all solutions from experts that represent the true danger to our lives and liberties.

I would ask though — why ignore the influence of the economic-political system of non-experts that drives legislation, regulatory policy (or lack thereof), foreign policy etc? Is it the experts driving policy or the politically connected policy makers influencing experts? Some of the examples you cite of the harm caused by blind obedience to experts are spot on. But several are more complicated than presented. For instance the CIA (intelligence experts) provided the Bush-Cheney administration with ample evidence that an invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unnecessary and ill-advised. It was advice from experts that the Bush administration chose to ignore for both political, economic and perhaps even personal reasons. The financial crisis 2008–9 was indeed a failure of experts, including the Fed Chair to make the right call. However, there is enormous political pressure on financial experts, not to mention potential financial gains or losses for themselves and/or the companies for which they work. The market economy has had booms and busts since it emerged out of the long shadow of mercantilism. It is also clear that deregulation of the kind that the Bush administration implemented tends to lead to bigger booms and more disastrous busts. So did the experts mislead us in that instance? Yes. And no. Did the experts warn Americans of the coming crisis? Most did not. However, to do so could have led to an even greater or at least sooner implosion as Americans raced to cash in mutual funds etc. This would have been (and still is) unacceptable to the political and economic elite. If the markets are going to plummet, they will be the ones to cash out first. But of course if we pay attention to basic patterns such as the ones I listed above, we can become less reliant on experts without having to distrust entire categories of people, entire institutions or dispute everything said by someone formally trained in a given field. I think one must also allow for the fact that in some cases because the challenges that experts in many fields are tasked with taking on are often brand new, multi-faceted, fluid — in a word — hard, they will sometimes get it wrong. That does not mean that people were wrong to heed the advice of experts, as long as it was offered in good faith. It also does not mean that one would be well-advised to follow non-experts. Experts wrong = non-experts correct is not good math.

There are also many instances in which experts are correct in blaming non-experts, particularly, again, political elites for not listening to their guidance. Climate change is a great example. You have an entire political party that continues to even acknowledge the existence of a problem and another party unable or unwilling to implement the suggested measures. This is not a failure of those with expertise. It is indeed a failure of non-experts rooted in maintaining the status quo or expanding personal or company profits.

Can the experts be trusted? I guess it depends on which experts and to what extent they are allowed to use their expertise to reach and share conclusions that are in the interest of the general public. In terms of the Covid crisis I think, or at least hope, your friend is probably right. Are there conflicts of interest that should restrain our full trust in the CDC? Unfortunately yes. But there is also massive political pressure that to some extent at least, the CDC seems to be ignoring or merely giving lip service to, which I would mark down as a positive sign.

Anyway, excellent article. A lot of great stuff to think about. Stay healthy.