What should we do when Experts Disagree?

This simple question is never asked by pundits and thought leaders today. To them the answer is self-evident: whoever is backed by the most powerful interests wins...

Readers will immediately recognize the person on the left. Sitting next to him in this picture taken from his residence in Berlin in 1930 is Rabindranath Tagore. Tagore was an Indian poet, writer, playwright, composer, philosopher, social reformer, and painter of the Bengal Renaissance.

Tagore was the first non-European to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was knighted in 1915 by King George V (Tagore subsequently renounced the honorific after the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre).

The two giants in their respective fields of reductionist science and beauty/mysticism came together to discuss the nature of ultimate reality. Historians regarded the conversation as riveting. Einstein argued that objective reality existed outside our conception of it. Tagore felt that the two were inseparable.

Ironically it seems that quantum physics is proving Tagore correct. Josh Mitteldorf, PhD offered a thoughtful and digestible summary of what observational evidence tells us of the role the observer plays in measurable phenomena. The fact that there is a role at all supports Tagore’s perspective.

In an earlier essay Mitteldorf offered the following:

1. Quantum physics needs an “observer” outside of physical matter to be complete and consistent

2. There is solid experimental evidence that human intention can affect quantum probabilities

Here is his follow up essay:

The Hard Problem, Inverted

Of note, the topic of the Einstein-Tagore conversation was not new. Three years earlier Einstein openly debated this topic with another towering figure in quantum physics, Neils Bohr, at the 1927 Solvay Conference. Bohr sided with Tagore on the matter.

Where are we today?

I think this topic is vital to understanding who we are as individuals and a species, but this isn’t the topic I wish to explore here. The Covid pandemic brought us to a more practical but no less pivotal conundrum: what should we do when experts disagree?

The vast majority of people are not experts, even in their own fields of study. How then are we supposed to negotiate a situation where two groups of experts disagree on what is and what is to be done?

If we were being truly rational we would have to acknowledge that as non-experts we cannot know which group of experts is more right. The experts, by definition, know more than we do. We are thrown into a space of uncertainty—a space that can be disquieting for many people.

Fear and unease tend to shut down logic and introspection. This fact has been used to great effect by those who espouse the views of powerful interests. We must preemptively strike against the most likely suspects before they strike us! We must deploy a poorly tested medical intervention upon the world before more people die from a preventable disease!

In other words, it is generally considered more prudent, at critical times, to act first and seek more information later. In my experience as an anesthesiologist I am well aware of the importance of intervening promptly, however I am also aware of the fact that bad outcomes in medicine and in the operating room can occur when actions are taken based on incorrect assumptions that are not challenged early enough.

In a previous post titled, “Why listen to an anesthesiologist in the middle of a pandemic”, I described how one of my most influential mentors, Dr. Frank Murphy, eloquently guided us anesthesiologists-in-training around situations where a person’s life hangs in the balance:

“Don’t just do something. Stand there.”

Of course he wasn’t suggesting to not act at all. He was imploring us to gather information quickly. Listen. Observe. All three can be done while “standing there”. Only after bringing your full attention to bear on the potential catastrophe in the making is it wise to act. Furthermore, once a course of action is chosen, it is vitally important to consider what assumptions are being made.

So, how does one approach a situation where experts disagree? If we are to be rational, logical and open minded we should acknowledge that we cannot know who to believe based on the substance of the two arguments alone. But we should be able to see that:

• Both sides are mirror images of each other

• Both claim the other is inexplicably gullible

• Both claim the other is spreading dangerous misinformation

There is only one major difference between the two groups: One side is pleading for a debate. The other views that as an exercise in futility that will lead to dangerous outcomes.

The fact that one side refuses to be challenged does not mean that they are wrong. However we must ask, how would those who refuse to answer probing questions from dissenting experts ever know if their understanding was incomplete or incorrect?

There is also another emotional aspect to this. Let us say that you are the expert and you wish to convince a non-expert on the legitimacy of your position. How would you approach someone who does not have the background and capacity to fully understand what you do? Would you mock them? Would you refuse to engage in an open conversation?

If experts are so smart they should easily see that they possess knowledge and experience that others do not. Why then would they denigrate and not explain? You don’t have to be an expert in any field to see that this would be self-defeating— if your real intent was to educate and unify. Experts who refuse to address the doubts of their non-expert audience aren’t seeking agreement, they are seeking compliance.

In the end we non-experts cannot choose who to believe based on objectivity alone. We have to rely on something outside of objectivity, something that we possess but rarely engage properly. I would call this power our intuition. Does such a thing even exist? I believe it does. If it didn’t, we would be living in a reality where we might remain hoodwinked into serving interests that aren’t our own for a very long time—if not interminably. I don’t think reality works that way. Reality, in my opinion, is merciful.

This is a major difference between the meeting of Tagore and Einstein 94 years ago and what is happening today. There are no meetings, discussions or exchanges of ideas. One side is censored, demonitized, deplatformed and even threatened. The other preaches from their pulpits of corporate funded media.

Amazingly, so-called thought leaders today seem absolutely blind to the real predicament we are in. Earlier in this newsletter I exposed people like Dr. Paul Offit, Sam Harris, PhD and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, PhD by using simple common sense which is readily available to non-experts who are thinking clearly.

These are the sorts of ideas that I recently explored with Rev. Carol Saunders on her podcast “The Spiritual Forum”. Saunders has a degree in Chemical Engineering. She immediately saw through the deception with regard to the mRNA vaccines. She’s also an adept interviewer which allowed us to cover a broad range of topics from the mystery of anesthetic gases, evidence of reincarnation, the JFK assassination, karma, the power of remaining in uncertainty and how to access our innate ability to see objectively.

I have been interviewed on these topics many times in the past. This was a particularly good conversation. I invite you to listen to it and support her work:

Conclusion

The question of what to do when experts disagree is an important one because it allows us to understand the seriousness of what is manifesting in America and around the world. For eight decades fear has driven us to deplete our prosperity to maintain a country that is highly militarized. More recently, fear drove us accept an experimental medical intervention without any idea of its mid to long term dangers. Most concerning is that fear also drove us to accept that certain opinions were not allowed to be considered.

Open discussions, especially between those who are qualified to speak on scientific matters, is the only way to mitigate fear in a system that is strengthened by it. Make no mistake, if a society allows scientists to be censored and punished it will allow anybody to be silenced.

One doesn’t need to know anything about history to understand this will lead to dark places for nearly everybody, no matter which experts you happen to agree with right now.