The importance of challenging expertise

Even great minds can be swayed by the prejudices of the age.

Bill Durodié


As everyone now knows, science is contested. Of course, many aspects of science continue unchallenged – things like the electron mass or the structure of DNA. But other aspects, such as the speed of light, are open to constant refinement. Some aspects will soon cease to matter entirely to everyday science.

But the sort of science we are most familiar with right now, the science of exploring the unknown, is very different. It is an emergent process – a messy, gradual approximation towards truth, replete with uncertainty and ambiguity. It is advanced by human beings within social systems. And this appreciation of it as neither firm nor fixed, as not grounded in clear or inviolable evidence, is currently contributing to a cultural epiphany.

Almost every aspect of the coronavirus outbreak has been, and will continue to be, drawn into question by scientists and others for some time. That is how it should be. The origins, extent, actions, infectivity, durability and lethality of the virus are disputed, as are the best way to mitigate its spread and treat its associated diseases. Discussions of all these things draw on models, with built-in assumptions about all these aspects, as well as assumptions about how people behave.

The experts disagree on various issues here. This is because their interpretation of what currently passes for the available evidence – on everything from fatality rates to the benefits of wearing masks, from lockdowns to the reliability of tests – matters as much as the evidence itself. It is a competition for meaning within science.

That some scientists are venal, fallible and selfish may come to be as important as their virtue, diligence and humanism. The systems they work within matter, too. Mechanisms for the peer review of their work, the success, or not, of their funding applications, and the pursuit of promotions, are all open to gaming and interference. These are all framed by what some sociologists call ‘cultural scripts’.

After all, who decides what questions should be pursued in all this, what matters most and what ought to be prioritised. How any ensuing data (limited as it is in both scope and specificity) is to be interpreted is another key issue. Inevitably, decision-makers (and scientists) have other agendas, too – as we all do. Science, then, is not an exact science, but a deeply cultural activity.

A short contribution, titled ‘Misanthropy and Political Ideology’, to the American Sociological Review in 1956, illuminates some of the issues raised here. Its author, Morris Rosenberg, wanted to explore how individuals’ political ideologies are formed. He noted the research on factors such as personality characteristics, interpersonal relationships and group affiliations, among others. In his opinion, however, what had been overlooked was our fundamental attitudes about human nature or, as he highlighted in the title of his piece, misanthropy.

At its heart, democracy rests on having faith in the rationality of people. This affects how we interpret the actions of others, and it shapes what we each think is necessary for society to function. In other words, our most deeply held views of what human beings are like shape ‘the principles, practices and policies of a political system’, he argued. He sought to measure faith in people, correlating this against how we view our relationship to government, free speech and state control.

His conclusion was that, more than any other factors, these things determined individuals’ political outlooks. And what was true then about politics is also true today in relation to science and scientists, not least because science and scientists increasingly hold sway over much political decision-making. But what do we actually know about these people, about scientists? That the PM’s adviser, Dominic Cummings, attended a recent meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) pales into insignificance when we begin to ask what the actual scientists really think about us.

We know full well how recent events – from Brexit to Trump and beyond – have led elites to question the rationality of the people and, implicitly, democracy itself. How many of this expert group of scientists potentially share these prejudices? And how might that shape decision-making? As we know, the dominant impulse in public-health circles is a patrician one – one of the state telling the people what is for their own good.

We see scientific questions being contested now every day. Maybe the next time a politician or scientist talks with such certainty about ‘the science’ – in relation to climate change or our diets – we ought first to think about how they view other people, free speech, and whether they look to the state, rather than the people, to control things.

Bill Durodié is chair of risk and security in the department of politics, languages and international studies at the University of Bath. Visit his website here.

Picture by: Getty.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are – 14 weeks into Britain’s three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldn’t have done that without your support. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


James Knight

4th May 2020 at 5:59 pm

I expect many in the US have realised that paying the WHO $500million does not look like good value when all they have to offer is wash your hands and stay at home.

Covid19 is to Public Health experts what 9/11 was to the US intelligence community.

Christopher Tyson

4th May 2020 at 4:42 pm

Is easy to laugh at Socrates these days, he didn’t like the advance of writing, he thought that people’s minds would become lazy. In our digital world, if you find yourself defending the arts or the humanities, it does feel as though history has moved on, as though your time has past.
Is it that you study the arts or the humanities because you’re to thick to be a scientist? No not at all, plenty of big brained people create novels and artistic works. Sometimes it’s just what you’re into. You might what to become a sociologist to understand your neighbourhood. or to find out if everyone’s family is as crazy as yours. Or a psychologist, to find out if other people have weird thoughts like you do, or an economics in the misguided view that this will help you to become rich. There are countless reasons for doing countless things.
Nonetheless in terms of making money, getting a prestigious or well paid jobs, or even being employable at all, things seem to be moving in the direction of data, digital, The Science.
I still believe that the ability to write a novel is a great one, and that reading a novels is good for you in some respect, I also believe in the Cartesian individual, even a scientist has to be a person, indeed Descartes is held up as one of the originators of science, and his graphs are still all over the place (Cartesian axis).
Back in at school circa 1976, we had to make a computer programme, we did it with a whole bunch of cards and we had to draw black marks on these cards (you had to be there). There was a computer in the school those of us who got good marks for our programmes were invited to use the computer during our lunch break. When I got there the geeks had already monopolised it, I couldn’t get a look in, I got fed up and went off to play football.
I loved football and pop music, there’s stuff in life that you like that doesn’t pay you anything.
But if there are any kids reading this, make sure you work hard at school, playing football and larking around is all very well… etc.

Gareth Edward KING

4th May 2020 at 5:14 pm

Christopher, I recognise what you said at the beginning (we were probably at school at the same time period) but towards the end you became rather maudlin. It’s impossible to say how important it is working at school or otherwise. As you can probably appreciate, at the end of the day it’s one class background that really makes or breaks it for an individual, plus a heavy dose of luck. My father was an obvious social climber but that was only because at that time (in the mid to late 60s) the opportunities were there for him and he took them with vigour. In my case, when I left ‘home’ (early 80s) the same class-breaking moulds were almost all gone, so as a result I’ve gone backwards class-wise despite my excellent education and qualifications at all levels.

Christopher Tyson

4th May 2020 at 6:47 pm

I hope I’m not maudlin, and there was a bit of parody in what I said. But I am schizophrenic about education, and it’s a big question, you can reject formal education but still educate yourself in other ways. It’s easier to be cheeky about education too, if you’ve had one (I have), and a formal education can give you something to rebel against, and a kind of structure.
I can relate to ‘we don’t need no education’ but I’d be wary about encouraging kids not to do their school work and antagonising all their parents.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.