Howard's Share: The Crisis of Expertise
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
From Howard: Gil Eyal's "Crisis of Expertise" provides a thoughtful take on the source of a great deal of the fractious partisanship afflicting our societies: who to trust for guidance on important public policy decisions. That this is a descriptive complex analysis, not one that provides clear solution, is perhaps its greatest strength. Eyal seeks to deliver insight rather than prescription. Given the idiosyncrasies of each policy conflict, there is likely no single approach to creating general consensus on who to trust.
The book presented me with new perspectives on the divisions that plague our societies, perspectives that give me increased optimism in a dark time.
Eyal erects his analysis on 5 pillars:
- That our technologies inject a level of both importance and uncertainty/risk into public policy choices that is unprecedented and that our institutions were not built to handle. These have led first to the "scientization of politics", then to the "politization of Science", and ultimately to the conflict and confusion over who to trust when deliberating on policy matters.
- That "regulatory science" (or "policy science") is fundamentally different from "Science" (typically understood as the process to generate and test theories that can be used to predict how the world will unfold). The former comes with a deadline and actions that will have concrete consequences for individuals (or whole societies) that cannot be reversed. The latter is an eternally iterative abstract open-ended dialogue.
- That the complexity of every significant policy issue transgesses the boundaries of any discipline, the capabilities of any group of "experts".
- That there is inevitable tension in who to include in a panel that contains the requisite skills, expertise, and insight to generate the broad trust needed for wide-spread compliance with (or at least acquiesence to) any policy decision.
- That both increasing the transparency/inclusivity of a policy-setting process and reducing the uncertainty associated with a policy are in conflict with the need to action in a timely manner (both tactics can be used to delay implementing a policy that an influential group opposes).
The linked review gives a decent description of the book, but if you have the time, the book isn't long and not a difficult read.
Comments