Invisibility and the pain of the expert

Before the internet took off less than 25 years ago, knowledge about complex topics was very hard to come by. Much has been made about the explosion of knowledge and the resulting changes, but how has the immense knowledge changed the way we see experts?

Acquiring sound, detailed knowledge still follows the traditional pathways, which we can simplify into two basic approaches: either acquire knowledge and skills by going through schooling and training, or rely on experts who have done just that and then share their knowledge.

What has happened to experts in the last several hundred years in Western culture is an interesting question, at least to us at the K-Landnews.

In the vast universe of human endeavor, there are innumerable specialties beyond the abilities of the blogster, so we split them into "soft" and "hard" science, with the understanding that the boundaries are often less than clear and move over time. But it helps to do this, not least because this is a blog post and not a 1000 page treatise.

The ultimate soft science, theology, has done remarkably well in many ways since the middle ages. Theology has gotten away with discussions that no first grade math student can. The number of angels that fit on the head of a pin, the mechanics of reducing your time in purgatory by spending tons of money on monks to pray for you for years after you die are just two examples that avoid talking about the theological underpinnings of the inquisition and other atrocities.

It is not a surprise that theology, despite more rationality, is still going strong: talking about "nothing" without a measurable basis in reality shields experts. 

Sometimes related, sometimes not, philosophy is a close second, especially where it deals with esoterics. In esoterics, you can make it up, stick to it, and you can be an expert without a decade of training.

The more practical side of philosophy dealing with logic, verifiable observation, and structures does require some training and is useful, although it can be abused, especially when it becomes self-referential, or closed. Which makes art and political sciences a lot more understandable.

Some of the oldest hard sciences have fared well, such as farming and sea-faring have done well. Legends of sea monsters, lunar planting cycles, or prayer for a good harvest and sprinkling tractors with holy water notwithstanding, they were hard sciences long before academics decided that observation and mathematics belonged to them.

Next on the K-Landnews of science harness are the modern tech sciences and their theoretical foundations. The new sciences, or offshoots of older ones given their own name and area of application, count some of the most powerful and controversial ones among them, like nuclear engineering and biotechnology.

Yet, despite promises such as feeding many more people with improved crops or an endless supply of energy, there is tremendous, often unscientific opposition, which leaves experts puzzled, upset and fighting what they perceive as windmills (the Cervantes metaphor, not the alternative energy metaphor).

What beats them?

Money, greed, power?

Yes, but mostly the invisibility of what they are doing. **

Humans have, let's say, issues with invisible things. If you put two people side by side and let them run a distance, people see and understand (or think they do).

If you put two atoms side by side and make them "run" a distance, you have a lot of explaining and convincing to do.

Which is where some of the modern sciences have done a dismal job which was hugely exacerbated but the unholy trinity of money, greed, and power.
Add to this the sort of conspiracy theory validating evil George Monbiot describes in The fake persuaders, for instance, "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move."

So, the number of DNA base pairs to add or change to make a plant produce its own insecticide may well be more similar to the angels on a pin head debate than you like. In the absence of clear, long term study and proof not only of benefits but of absence of harm, what do people do?

The same thing we have done for millennia: pick a belief. 
With the internet, they can get some facts and pick a more informed belief.

The worst thing you as an expert can do?

Fault them for it.

** Don't say computers disprove this. They took off once people could see something "reasonable" instead of command lines, once they could hear music, see photos, and watch movies.