Why experts are useless!
Well, you caught me. The title is pure clickbait. Surely there should be female experts in our world. The actual message I want to convey with my text might meet with less resistance with a different title: "Why an Expertocracy is Pointless!" This really doesn't seem like a particularly bold thesis to me, even though there are definitely still plenty of people who desire such a "rule of expert knowledge." If you're one of them, let me try to convince you otherwise.
by Pascal Deniz Degen
by Pascal Deniz Degen
But that would be nonsense! Why? Because I don't want to write for an academic audience in which words are used to impress others in one's own circle. Look at me, listen to me, I know how to talk! At first you might be happy, especially if you don't come from this academic class yourself, you finally belong, you understand something now and thus you also understand exactly who doesn't belong, oh you stupid little ignorant people, you still have to learn.
What a foolish attitude. Talk about how to improve the world, what you should, may or must do, but talk in such a way that the people it concerns don't even understand that it's actually about them, and you end up wondering why the people you want to help don't listen to you, who is the simpleton here?
What does this have to do with art, you might ask. I apologize, I've strayed from the actual topic. Although, maybe philosophy and art aren't very different. Both have a problem with elitist behavior, people who think they know exactly what's going on and know better than everyone else. Who actually has the upper hand, the one who consumes the art or the one who creates it, or maybe the one who evaluates it as a real critic?
Please don't get me wrong, as someone who creates art myself or wants to create it, I definitely see a justification for the artist's opinion to play a role. In the same way, I see a certain legitimacy for the critic who brings expertise to the table, but the "normal citizen" also has a right to understand the work of art as he or she understands it. For example, when I read a book like Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky, I don't want to know what Dostoyevsky actually wanted to tell me, and I don't want to have to buy a second book in which someone else is trying to force an interpretation on me. I want to use my own head, have my own interpretation, and know what this book will do for me in my life.
So I am a great advocate of a more democratic concept of art, even if I am aware of the downsides. I also find it very unpleasant if any old person were to pretend to be an art expert, but let's consider the alternative. What is better if we exclude a huge group of people from participating in a discussion from the outset because we think they are too stupid, or if we fundamentally open up the space and discuss it with "the Others". This does not mean, by the way, that an artist on stage has to let his audience dictate everything to him and only ever has to satisfy the needs of that audience. It is mutual, both the artist and the audience have rights AND responsibilities. As the saying goes: nowadays not everything is art (even if it may sometimes seem that way) but there is art for everyone.
And now? What does that mean? What should this text culminate in?
Quite simply, in the request to leave art alone so that it can develop. It will never be appropriate to ask "What is art allowed to do?" but only "How is art allowed to do?"
To go back to the point, it makes no sense to ask "Can art/philosophy be academic?" Because the answer is clear: yes, of course, it must be! It makes much more sense to ask, "Can art/philosophy remain academic?" Here the answer is clearly no!
The context is as follows: If we want important information to reach a broad audience, then we must not shy away from perhaps saying This text was inspired by an episode of the podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience." The show's eponymous host (Joe Rogan) is certainly controversial. I'm not an active listener of this podcast myself, but the equally controversial Douglas Murray (author and journalist) was a guest in episode 2303, so I listened to the episode. Sitting opposite him was Dave Smith (comedian). You'll see, the two men's professions will play an important role later on.
The topic of the podcast is the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israel-Gaza War. Douglas Murray explicitly sides with Ukraine and Israel, respectively. He thus represents the opinion that prevails in "legacy media," i.e., the traditional media (such as newspapers, radio, etc.).
Dave Smith, on the other hand, is at least skeptical of the traditional media. It represents the "new/independent/alternative media." Feel free to pick an adjective, because that would bring us right to the core of this new type of media: You can choose which news you consume. Anyone can broadcast something, so you're no longer dependent on a major news channel that serves you everything pre-cooked.
According to Murray, comedian Dave Smith has been speaking extensively about both wars for some time. Smith doesn't deny this. In his "reporting," Smith focuses primarily on the suffering of the Palestinian population and on contextualizing the constraints imposed on Vladimir Putin, which ultimately led to the war.
No matter what position you take on the respective conflicts, based on my title and this description, you can probably guess what a major point of contention was between the two. Exactly, the right to speak about a topic.
Let me add a little extra detail on that. Look, if you make the mistake of studying two humanities subjects (believe me, I don't know what possessed me to do that), you'll very quickly be confronted with a major problem in your discipline. This happened to me on my very first day at university. It was even my very first lecture. My professor at the time gave the following example:
Imagine you had shoulder pain. What would you do? Probably go to the doctor. The doctor would, of course, examine you and ask questions: "How long have you had the pain? What have you done?" We know the procedure. The doctor would ask, you answer, and then an expert opinion would follow. In the end, you would get the typical answers: "Painkillers, cool, rest!"
Okay, so what do you do now? Most people do what the doctor advised. You probably wouldn't start a discussion in his office about whether the pain might be originating from another muscle, a tendon, or the shoulder joint. Well, in times like these, when everyone is trying to figure out their own symptoms on Google or ChatGPT, the "gods in white" aren't what they used to be either--but you get the point of my little example, don't you?
Now imagine the second situation. You've studied philosophy (it's wonderful, but marketing it is a bit complicated). You've even gotten to the point of getting a professorship in practical philosophy and have a distinct expertise in moral philosophy, the sub-discipline of philosophy that could be roughly summarized with the question "How should I act?" After careful consideration, you've come to the conclusion that donating is a moral obligation! Bring that up at the next birthday party when you're asked what you're doing as a philosophy professor.
Believe me, at least once the following sentence will be heard: "Well, I see it a little differently!"
You could call it the "curse of the humanities." Everyone imagines they can say something about the topics in which they have expertise. At the same time, however, this is also the great strength or "blessing of the humanities." Everyone can contribute to the topics in which they have expertise. Look, it's especially in discussions with people "outside the field" that you often gain interesting insights and new approaches that you can then develop further. You learn how to present your arguments correctly and how to bolster them against all possible objections. In return, you have to accept that you won't always be taken too seriously, which is bad if your ego gets a bit too big.
Let's go back to our lab coats. How much do you think the brain surgeon learns for her next operation at the birthday party, or who can she talk to about it? Exakt, fewer people will doubt her expertise, but she will be less likely to be able to talk about it with others. Every discipline has its advantages and disadvantages.
I don't want to be misunderstood here either. I would always give priority to the expertise of the humanities. Just because everyone can contribute doesn't mean that the opinion of everyone involved is equally valuable, or that everyone should speak out on the topic. I simply can't contribute anything to brain surgery, and perhaps in some situations I shouldn't say anything about the question of moral responsibility.
Comedians Dave Smith and Joe Rogan also admit this. Well, not quite as directly, but if you listen closely, they acknowledge the humanities scholars' expert knowledge by clearly distancing themselves from being experts themselves. Because every time Murray makes the argument that "xy is not an expert," they both respond with "xy never claimed to be an expert." So what's the problem?
It's quite simple, and Murray puts it beautifully: If I, as a comedian, have been busy talking about the ongoing wars in every one of my public appearances for more than a year, the Not quite the right weight anymore, is it? Especially when I'm speaking in a public space and thereby shaping other people's opinions, I should think about when I say what and whether I'm entitled to say something. In short: I should be aware of my responsibility.
At a time when traditional media is increasingly losing importance and the "new media" is gaining in importance, one should ask oneself what effect one's own opinion has and whether it is just that, a mere opinion, or real expertise. Because it cannot be denied that we need expertise. There are facts and truths in the humanities as well, however shocking this news may be for some. One example: the Holocaust. It simply makes no sense to argue about whether it happened. There are experts who have evaluated the facts, sources, and historical facts. It's not as if there is one person who says this is how it happened and not otherwise. That's simply not how science works. There's a constant exchange; you have to be able to defend your own theses to your colleagues; only then do they become "mainstream." Understanding this sequence is incredibly important.
The people who then form this mainstream are people who have spent years engaging with the topics they're discussing. They invest a lot of time, ideally understand the languages of the respective sources, and try to present the topics as well and simply as possible.
We can continue here and are slowly coming to the end of my considerations. Douglas Murray grants every "non-expert" the right to have their own opinion on certain topics. But one should always keep in mind that the kitchen table with friends, where you talk about everything under the sun, discuss conspiracy theories, or get lost in alternative facts, is different from the biggest podcast in the USA.
Another problem, of course, is that questioning seemingly unquestionable facts was often enough the right thing to do. The Vietnam War, "weapons of mass destruction," or the origin of the coronavirus. These are just a very small selection of examples, all of which are fodder for questioning the mainstream. But you have to be extremely careful here, because just because the mainstream was wrong once doesn't mean you're always right, just because you automatically contradict the prevailing opinion. It's almost ridiculous to write this, but always remember that the mainstream sometimes tells the truth. Always being against it doesn't automatically mean you're right.
Why are experts useless, despite my reasoning? Because it's not about knowledge. Knowledge is irrelevant. As sad as it is to say. A much more important resource than knowledge is trust, and you really shouldn't treat it lightly. You can know everything, but if no one believes you, it's of little use. But a fixation on the accumulation of knowledge is all too understandable. After all, accumulating knowledge is easier than building trust. How can we learn to trust each other more again?
Well, also a philosopher. doesn't always have an answer for everything.
The new media must realize that they have a certain monopoly position--at least among a segment of the population--when it comes to disseminating information and news. This power must be usedYou have to learn to deal with it, better early than late. Otherwise, today's podcasters will become what you accuse yesterday's major news channels of being. Even if great quotes tend to be ridiculed at some point, their philosophical meaning remains: "With great power comes great responsibility!"
May 22, 2025
Pascal Deniz Degen is 25 years old and a true Berliner. He successfully completed his bachelor's degree in history and philosophy in his hometown. His great passion for philosophy led him to Vienna, where he is currently pursuing his master's degree. His self-proclaimed goal is to free philosophy from the clutches of academia and make it accessible to society again.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW BOOK
TICKETS FOR THE SHOW "HE\\'S BACK"
What a foolish attitude. Talk about how to improve the world, what you should, may or must do, but talk in such a way that the people it concerns don't even understand that it's actually about them, and you end up wondering why the people you want to help don't listen to you, who is the simpleton here?
What does this have to do with art, you might ask. I apologize, I've strayed from the actual topic. Although, maybe philosophy and art aren't very different. Both have a problem with elitist behavior, people who think they know exactly what's going on and know better than everyone else. Who actually has the upper hand, the one who consumes the art or the one who creates it, or maybe the one who evaluates it as a real critic?
Please don't get me wrong, as someone who creates art myself or wants to create it, I definitely see a justification for the artist's opinion to play a role. In the same way, I see a certain legitimacy for the critic who brings expertise to the table, but the "normal citizen" also has a right to understand the work of art as he or she understands it. For example, when I read a book like Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky, I don't want to know what Dostoyevsky actually wanted to tell me, and I don't want to have to buy a second book in which someone else is trying to force an interpretation on me. I want to use my own head, have my own interpretation, and know what this book will do for me in my life.
So I am a great advocate of a more democratic concept of art, even if I am aware of the downsides. I also find it very unpleasant if any old person were to pretend to be an art expert, but let's consider the alternative. What is better if we exclude a huge group of people from participating in a discussion from the outset because we think they are too stupid, or if we fundamentally open up the space and discuss it with "the Others". This does not mean, by the way, that an artist on stage has to let his audience dictate everything to him and only ever has to satisfy the needs of that audience. It is mutual, both the artist and the audience have rights AND responsibilities. As the saying goes: nowadays not everything is art (even if it may sometimes seem that way) but there is art for everyone.
And now? What does that mean? What should this text culminate in?
Quite simply, in the request to leave art alone so that it can develop. It will never be appropriate to ask "What is art allowed to do?" but only "How is art allowed to do?"
To go back to the point, it makes no sense to ask "Can art/philosophy be academic?" Because the answer is clear: yes, of course, it must be! It makes much more sense to ask, "Can art/philosophy remain academic?" Here the answer is clearly no!
The context is as follows: If we want important information to reach a broad audience, then we must not shy away from perhaps saying This text was inspired by an episode of the podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience." The show's eponymous host (Joe Rogan) is certainly controversial. I'm not an active listener of this podcast myself, but the equally controversial Douglas Murray (author and journalist) was a guest in episode 2303, so I listened to the episode. Sitting opposite him was Dave Smith (comedian). You'll see, the two men's professions will play an important role later on.
The topic of the podcast is the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israel-Gaza War. Douglas Murray explicitly sides with Ukraine and Israel, respectively. He thus represents the opinion that prevails in "legacy media," i.e., the traditional media (such as newspapers, radio, etc.).
Dave Smith, on the other hand, is at least skeptical of the traditional media. It represents the "new/independent/alternative media." Feel free to pick an adjective, because that would bring us right to the core of this new type of media: You can choose which news you consume. Anyone can broadcast something, so you're no longer dependent on a major news channel that serves you everything pre-cooked.
According to Murray, comedian Dave Smith has been speaking extensively about both wars for some time. Smith doesn't deny this. In his "reporting," Smith focuses primarily on the suffering of the Palestinian population and on contextualizing the constraints imposed on Vladimir Putin, which ultimately led to the war.
No matter what position you take on the respective conflicts, based on my title and this description, you can probably guess what a major point of contention was between the two. Exactly, the right to speak about a topic.
Let me add a little extra detail on that. Look, if you make the mistake of studying two humanities subjects (believe me, I don't know what possessed me to do that), you'll very quickly be confronted with a major problem in your discipline. This happened to me on my very first day at university. It was even my very first lecture. My professor at the time gave the following example:
Imagine you had shoulder pain. What would you do? Probably go to the doctor. The doctor would, of course, examine you and ask questions: "How long have you had the pain? What have you done?" We know the procedure. The doctor would ask, you answer, and then an expert opinion would follow. In the end, you would get the typical answers: "Painkillers, cool, rest!"
Okay, so what do you do now? Most people do what the doctor advised. You probably wouldn't start a discussion in his office about whether the pain might be originating from another muscle, a tendon, or the shoulder joint. Well, in times like these, when everyone is trying to figure out their own symptoms on Google or ChatGPT, the "gods in white" aren't what they used to be either--but you get the point of my little example, don't you?
Now imagine the second situation. You've studied philosophy (it's wonderful, but marketing it is a bit complicated). You've even gotten to the point of getting a professorship in practical philosophy and have a distinct expertise in moral philosophy, the sub-discipline of philosophy that could be roughly summarized with the question "How should I act?" After careful consideration, you've come to the conclusion that donating is a moral obligation! Bring that up at the next birthday party when you're asked what you're doing as a philosophy professor.
Believe me, at least once the following sentence will be heard: "Well, I see it a little differently!"
You could call it the "curse of the humanities." Everyone imagines they can say something about the topics in which they have expertise. At the same time, however, this is also the great strength or "blessing of the humanities." Everyone can contribute to the topics in which they have expertise. Look, it's especially in discussions with people "outside the field" that you often gain interesting insights and new approaches that you can then develop further. You learn how to present your arguments correctly and how to bolster them against all possible objections. In return, you have to accept that you won't always be taken too seriously, which is bad if your ego gets a bit too big.
Let's go back to our lab coats. How much do you think the brain surgeon learns for her next operation at the birthday party, or who can she talk to about it? Exakt, fewer people will doubt her expertise, but she will be less likely to be able to talk about it with others. Every discipline has its advantages and disadvantages.
I don't want to be misunderstood here either. I would always give priority to the expertise of the humanities. Just because everyone can contribute doesn't mean that the opinion of everyone involved is equally valuable, or that everyone should speak out on the topic. I simply can't contribute anything to brain surgery, and perhaps in some situations I shouldn't say anything about the question of moral responsibility.
Comedians Dave Smith and Joe Rogan also admit this. Well, not quite as directly, but if you listen closely, they acknowledge the humanities scholars' expert knowledge by clearly distancing themselves from being experts themselves. Because every time Murray makes the argument that "xy is not an expert," they both respond with "xy never claimed to be an expert." So what's the problem?
It's quite simple, and Murray puts it beautifully: If I, as a comedian, have been busy talking about the ongoing wars in every one of my public appearances for more than a year, the Not quite the right weight anymore, is it? Especially when I'm speaking in a public space and thereby shaping other people's opinions, I should think about when I say what and whether I'm entitled to say something. In short: I should be aware of my responsibility.
At a time when traditional media is increasingly losing importance and the "new media" is gaining in importance, one should ask oneself what effect one's own opinion has and whether it is just that, a mere opinion, or real expertise. Because it cannot be denied that we need expertise. There are facts and truths in the humanities as well, however shocking this news may be for some. One example: the Holocaust. It simply makes no sense to argue about whether it happened. There are experts who have evaluated the facts, sources, and historical facts. It's not as if there is one person who says this is how it happened and not otherwise. That's simply not how science works. There's a constant exchange; you have to be able to defend your own theses to your colleagues; only then do they become "mainstream." Understanding this sequence is incredibly important.
The people who then form this mainstream are people who have spent years engaging with the topics they're discussing. They invest a lot of time, ideally understand the languages of the respective sources, and try to present the topics as well and simply as possible.
We can continue here and are slowly coming to the end of my considerations. Douglas Murray grants every "non-expert" the right to have their own opinion on certain topics. But one should always keep in mind that the kitchen table with friends, where you talk about everything under the sun, discuss conspiracy theories, or get lost in alternative facts, is different from the biggest podcast in the USA.
Another problem, of course, is that questioning seemingly unquestionable facts was often enough the right thing to do. The Vietnam War, "weapons of mass destruction," or the origin of the coronavirus. These are just a very small selection of examples, all of which are fodder for questioning the mainstream. But you have to be extremely careful here, because just because the mainstream was wrong once doesn't mean you're always right, just because you automatically contradict the prevailing opinion. It's almost ridiculous to write this, but always remember that the mainstream sometimes tells the truth. Always being against it doesn't automatically mean you're right.
Why are experts useless, despite my reasoning? Because it's not about knowledge. Knowledge is irrelevant. As sad as it is to say. A much more important resource than knowledge is trust, and you really shouldn't treat it lightly. You can know everything, but if no one believes you, it's of little use. But a fixation on the accumulation of knowledge is all too understandable. After all, accumulating knowledge is easier than building trust. How can we learn to trust each other more again?
Well, also a philosopher. doesn't always have an answer for everything.
The new media must realize that they have a certain monopoly position--at least among a segment of the population--when it comes to disseminating information and news. This power must be usedYou have to learn to deal with it, better early than late. Otherwise, today's podcasters will become what you accuse yesterday's major news channels of being. Even if great quotes tend to be ridiculed at some point, their philosophical meaning remains: "With great power comes great responsibility!"
May 22, 2025
Pascal Deniz Degen is 25 years old and a true Berliner. He successfully completed his bachelor's degree in history and philosophy in his hometown. His great passion for philosophy led him to Vienna, where he is currently pursuing his master's degree. His self-proclaimed goal is to free philosophy from the clutches of academia and make it accessible to society again.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW BOOK
TICKETS FOR THE SHOW "HE\\'S BACK"
Write a comment