The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Expert Opinions Chirps

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

I have written several Chirps about expert opinions, which I have collected into this article. I believe that it is important for the American people and politicians, when they listen or read expert opinions, that they keep in mind the above quote before they rush to judgment and implement a policy based on expert opinion. We should also remember that for every expert, there is another expert with a contrary opinion. Consequently, whenever a politician states that ‘experts agree’ or they make a general statement about expert opinion to justify their policies, you can be assured that they are only listening to the experts that they agree with and ignoring the experts that they disagree with. Therefore, always be wary of expert opinion and politicians that generalize expert opinion. You must always carefully weigh expert opinions, listen to the contrary expert opinions, and apply some common sense to their opinions before reaching a judgment and instituting a public policy.

06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top

In 1910 the Irish periodical “The Irish Homestead” the editor, George William Russell, wrote a piece about legislation that included the following:

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”

As can be deduced by any intelligent and critical observer, nothing has changed since this quote was originated, and I suspect that this quote has been true throughout history. Indeed, it has become even worse since the 20^th century progressed. In the 21^st century, the experts on top modus operandi have become entrenched. The bureaucrats, the technocrats, the policy wonks, and a host of others claiming to be experts want to be decision-makers for governmental and social policies in America. And politicians often defer to these experts to disclaim responsibility for the bad results of their decisions.

What we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong. Wrong because they lack sufficient knowledge of all aspects of an issue, wrong because the facts they rely on are incorrect, wrong because they have an unrealistic belief in the accuracy of their statistics and modeling, and most importantly, they are wrong because they lack wisdom. And sometimes, the experts have hidden agendas for their expert opinions. Hidden agendas to accomplish what they believe to be good for Americans, but that they believe Americans cannot fully understand the good they wish to achieve.

The reason we elect politicians should be for them to make wise judgments based on expert opinions and the voice of the people. Politicians also often pick and choose experts that agree with their political agenda, and just as often discount experts that disagree with their political agenda. We should also expect politicians to be leery of expert opinions and to make their own judgments. And we should expect these politicians to take responsibility for their decisions. But the American people also have a responsibility. The responsibility to elect wise politicians and hold them accountable for their decisions. If the politicians and electorate cannot take on this responsibility, then we will continue to have experts on top.

07/19/21 The Party of Anti-Economics

From the Wikipedia article on Economics:

“Economics is the social science that studies how people interact with value; in particular, the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics focuses on the behaviour and interactions of economic agents and how economies work. Microeconomics analyzes basic elements in the economy, including individual agents and markets, their interactions, and the outcomes of interactions. Individual agents may include, for example, households, firms, buyers, and sellers. Macroeconomics analyzes the economy as a system where production, consumption, saving, and investment interact, and factors affecting it: employment of the resources of labour, capital, and land, currency inflation, economic growth, and public policies that have impact on these elements.”

Economics is a soft science due to its complexity and numerous interactions between the complexities. It is, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to reach sound conclusions or predictions with economics. Economics is also a dynamic science rather than a static science, as a change in one of the complexities or interactions propagates throughout the other complexities or interactions, which then feedback into the other complexities or interactions. However complex and interactive economics is, it is real and important within society, or as the saying goes, ‘money makes the world go round’ - Paul Van Der Merwe.

Every law, rule, or regulation that government creates, modifies, or removes has an economic impact. Whether it is a small or large impact depends on what it impacts and the economic feedback impacts as a result. And all these impacts are subject to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. Given the large size and intrusiveness of the Federal Government, we can safely say that even the smallest addition/change/removal can have a large economic impact due to the propagation effect of economics. Within the Federal Government, the budget, the deficit spending and the debt, the taxing, the expenditures, the laws and regulations, etc., have an impact not only on the Federal government but on all of society. And people and businesses react differently to these changes, which also adds to the economic feedback impacts on society.

And many politicians have little or no sense of economics, which is why they rely on economists to assist them. However, for every economist that states one premise, argument, or conclusion, you can find another economist the states the opposite, which is why you should be wary of what any economic expert states. And you should never take it at face value or create laws and regulations solely based on economics or economists’ opinions. Or, as it has been said:

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
  - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

Most Congressional Representatives and Senators often started out in the law or education professions, and many started out as public servants (a nice-sounding term for a career politician). Some have been businesspeople or doctors, while others could be deemed community activists, along with a smattering of other professions. All of these, except the businesspeople, have had professions that are generally insulated from the daily forces of economic commerce. They have not had to meet a payroll nor expend monies for employee benefits, pay governmental business taxes or fees, nor implement governmental regulation into their economic lives. In addition, they have not had to respond to the economic law of supply and demand and competitive pricing. And given my own personal experience, I dare say they have no idea of the complexities of business overhead costs. To these non-businessperson politicians, these are abstracts, while to the businesspersons that are impacted by these laws, rules, or regulations that government creates, modifies, or removes, it is known as ‘The Real World’.

Many of the politicians and bureaucrats who vote for or implement laws, rules, or regulations that impact the economics of society do so primarily for political purposes and pay little heed to economics or engage in wishful thinking about the economic impacts. They pick and choose economists that agree with their policy positions and agendas and discount or ignore economist who disagrees with them. They also rely on static models of economic impacts as these models provide firmer but often less accurate predictions of the economic impacts of legislation and regulations. Alas, so it has been during my entire life. The question is not how to reign in the politicians but how to elect politicians who are more attuned to the economic impacts of government on society.

The answer to the question is for the electorate to pay attention to the economic impacts and ignore the wishful thinking of politicians. Due to the lack of knowledge on economics by the general public, it is often difficult for the general public to separate the wheat from the chaff of what politician says and claims about the economic impacts of their policy positions and political agendas. But the general public can determine the economic impacts by their pocketbook. The Republican Party and the Democrat Party are often at odds regarding governmental tax and spend economic impacts. However, as a generality (which is more or less true depending on circumstances), it can be said that modern America's economic growth and prosperity is greater when the Republicans have the reins of government, while growth and prosperity are often static, modest in growth, or in decline when the Democrats have the reins of government.

This is because the Democrats utilize static modeling to determine economic impacts, and often engage in wishful thinking about economics, and disregard the diverse reactions of people and businesses to their policies. They are also more concerned about public policy agendas at the expense of negative economic impacts, and when negative economic impacts occur, they are inclined to spend more monies to alleviate the negative economic impacts (which rarely works). After negative economic impacts occur, they often make excuses utilizing inane or nonsensical economic platitudes to justify their actions. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Anti-Economics.

11/08/21 The Dismal Science

Economics was long ago called "The dismal science" and for a very good reason. It was a derogatory alternative name for economics coined by the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century because it poured cold water on all sorts of wonderful sounding ideas. In modern economics, it is dismal because of the extensive utilization of mathematics, especially statistics and probabilities, that make it very difficult for the general public to understand economics, or as a Nobel Award-winning economist has said:

“Whether one is a conservative or a radical, a protectionist or a free trader, a cosmopolitan or a nationalist, a churchman or a heathen, it is useful to know the causes and consequences of economic phenomena.”
 - George J. Stigler

It is also important to understand the economic details (i.e., the empirical data) of any situation, for:

"Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils."
 - Mark Dawson

This is especially true when trying to understand governmental legislation and policies, for they have direct, indirect, and consequential impacts on our society. And many politicians have little or no sense of economics, which is why they rely on economists to assist them. However, for every economist that states one premise, argument, or conclusion, you can find another economist the states the opposite, which is why you should be wary of what any economic expert states. And you should never take it at face value or create laws and regulations solely based on economics or economists’ opinions. Or, as it has been said:

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

As I have Chirped on, “07/19/21 The Party of Anti-Economics”, this lack of understanding of economics seems to inflict many more Democrats than Republicans, as I have also written about in my Article, “A World of Words versus the World as It Is”. This is because politicians operate in contravention to the first lesson of economics:

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
 - Thomas Sowell

The noted economist and commentator Thomas Sowell has written a book “Basic Economics – A Commonsense Guide to the Economy”, which is a citizen's guide to economics, written for those who want to understand how the economy works but have no interest in jargon or equations. Although this is a hefty book, it is a readable book for the general public. Therefore, I would highly recommend this book if you desire to gain a greater understanding of economics.

09/02/22 Expert Opinion

In the 20th century, we in America have become captivated by expert opinion in all aspects of our society. We have, however, forgotten to be wary of expert opinion, as their expert opinions often come with caveats. Some of these caveats are:

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
 - George Orwell

“Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get in the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge, and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows where it hurts is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialized character.”
 - Winston Churchill

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.”
 - William F. Buckley

I have examined this phenomenon in my Article, “The Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) and Skin in the Game (SIG)”, and my Chirps on “01/09/21 The Intellectual and the Preposterous” and “06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top”, but it bears repeating especially in light of what has happened as a result of our COVID-19 responses.

The major lesson to be learned from our COVID-19 responses is that we should not blindly follow the advice of experts, as experts often disagree amongst themselves, and they rarely consider the impacts of their opinions outside of their field of expertise. There is also the issue of the correctness of their Studies and Statistics, as I have outlined in my Article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave ”.

What we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong. Wrong because they lack sufficient knowledge of all aspects of an issue, wrong because the facts they rely on are incorrect, wrong because they have an unrealistic belief in the accuracy of their statistics and modeling, and most importantly, they are wrong because they lack wisdom. And sometimes, the experts have hidden agendas for their expert opinions. Hidden agendas to accomplish what they believe to be good for Americans, but that they believe Americans cannot fully understand the good they wish to achieve.

Therefore, let us be wary of expert opinion, examine the dissenting expert opinion, and obtain expert opinion from others outside the field of expertise that will be impacted by an expert opinion. If not, then we will continue to be seriously impacted by expert opinion that can be wrong or not examined in light of the impacts outside of the field of expertise.

10/04/22 I Am Not an Expert nor Scholar

Some of my readers have expressed astonishment at the scope of my knowledge. They often wonder how I became an expert on so many topics. But I am Not an Expert, Nor am I a Scholar! A scholar is someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines, and an expert is a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully. An expert or scholar is one who has a depth of knowledge on a subject, but often an expert or scholar does not have much knowledge on subjects outside of their own subject. This is a consequence of becoming an expert or scholar in a subject, as you need to narrow your focus to obtain a depth of knowledge due to the sheer quantity of knowledge on the subject that exists in today’s modern world. I have expertise on several topics within my chosen profession (Computers), but even in these topics, I do not consider myself an expert but a very knowledgeable person on these topics. This is usually the case for most persons in their chosen profession, as to become an expert requires considerable education that often leads to an academic or research career. These are the true experts in any field of knowledge. The precaution about relying upon experts is that they can be wrong, experts within a subject often disagree with each other, and experts who hold forth outside of their subject are no more reliable than anyone else. As such, we should be wary of experts; as I have discussed in my Chirp on, "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top". As George William Russell, the editor of the Irish periodical “The Irish Homestead”, wrote in 1910 about the legislative process, which included the following:

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”

As such, I regard myself as someone who is intelligent and has a broad scope of knowledge but limited depth of knowledge, as well as someone who has gained much wisdom through my life’s experience, as I have explained in my Article, “Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom”. I also attempt to not be wrong in what I say, as I have explained in Chirp on, "11/09/19 To Be Right or Not to Be Wrong". I am also willing to change my opinions based on new or better information or rational and reasoned counterpoint, or as a wise sage has stated:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

and

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin