Brace yourself: I am going to talk about television again - briefly.
I grew up in the 70s and I watched a lot of crap on TV, but I am not going to claim that Donnie & Marie or The Gong Show were big influences in my life. No, this post begins with an intentional lesson I learned from – don't laugh – an ABC After School Special.
The episode was called Dear Lovey Hart: I Am Desperate. I have not seen it since its first airing in 1976, so I may remember some of it incorrectly, but the gist is what matters. In this story, a boy talks a reluctant teenager (Carrie) into starting an advice column in their school's newspaper. At first she and the boy write the letters themselves, but the column takes off and she answers real letters from classmates who do not know the columnist's identity. One of the letters describes the torment a girl endures as an overweight teenager. Lovey Hart answers this by saying, "I have one word for you: DIET."
"Dear Lovey Hart" soared in popularity. She was everyone's hero until (you guessed it) things went terribly wrong. Her advice led people to act and those actions caused problems of all sorts, since Lovey Hart gave of all sorts of advice. The scene that stuck with me involved Carrie's father who, unaware that his daughter was responsible, told her that the girl who had been teased about her weight was in the hospital. Undiagnosed diabetes turned deadly when the girl tried to diet without first consulting a doctor. "Lovey Hart" had good intentions, but she gave bad advice because she just didn't know better.
I am reminded of this often.
Much of the work of traditional skepticism involves debunking claims such as psychic phenomena and new-agey stuff that requires little more than good critical thinking to detect (although it often requires quite a bit of expertise to 'debunk'). There are numerous lists and "baloney detection kits" available which describe the common signs that a claim is pseudoscientific. Outright fraud, particularly in mainstream science, is more difficult to detect and knowing whether the source is an expert or not is irrelevant in those cases, since they are deliberately deceptive. However, a great deal of modern skepticism is devoted to discussion of claims which are not obviously wrong and not outright lies; they are plausible (in the layperson's mind) claims made by people who believe that those claims are true.
For example, Jenny McCarthy clearly believes what she says and her claims are not unreasonable to someone who does not know the history of the anti-vax movement and does not have enough accurate information about vaccines and how they work to evaluate the claims critically. McCarthy has no expertise in biology, psychology, or any other science, yet she has promoted her unfounded ideas about autism, its causes, and its treatments in books, on TV, and speaking engagements for years. She may be an extreme example, especially given the number of experts who have tried to educate her, but the number of people (particularly on the internet) who speak or write about issues for which they are unqualified is astonishing.
Science ignores authority and cares only about evidence, but most evidence cannot be evaluated properly without knowledge and expertise. I, for example, must rely on information from others to determine if claims about cancer treatments are true. I have the expertise needed to evaluate most of the research methods involved in studies, but if the study is well-constructed, the conclusions could still be limited in ways which might never occur to me or they may have implications I would not see. On whom do I rely? How can a reader, viewer, listener, or audience member determine if the speaker or author knows what they are talking/writing about.
Credentials such as formal education are an indicator of expertise, but they do not guarantee it. In addition, experts do not remain experts if they do not keep up with their field. For example, a couple of years ago a student complained to me that one of the instructors in my department told their class that, "We just don't know if vaccines cause autism or not." The instructor had a PhD from a prestigious school and was a licensed therapist whose practice included children. The opposite is also true: expertise does not require formal education. We learn through experience as much as, if not more than, through formal education. But this takes years of work and/or study, just as education does.
Good advice and good information are not as easy to spot or to produce as one might think. In a decade of teaching I have reviewed or read hundreds of textbooks, all written by experts with great credentials, and I have yet to find one without mistakes. But, what you find in a textbook is much more likely to be accurate than what you'll find in a magazine. Credentials are meaningful; they are just not guarantees.
In addition to education/credentials, consider the length of time the author/speaker has been working in the specific field they are discussing. Many people today feel that "paying dues" is for someone else, but remember the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It is only at the highest levels of competence that we understand where our gaps in knowledge are. Becoming an expert at anything takes about ten years of study or practice – 10,000 hours. Don't accept less.
Now the big question: am I saying that people should never give advice, speak about, or write about, things outside of their expertise?
Yes and no.
There are degrees of expertise and there are ways for non-experts to present material to audiences without misleading them or risking their well-being. If you have little or no background in a field, citing peer-reviewed literature is not enough in most cases because single studies do not tell the whole story. Listening to a podcast or reading a popular press book on the topic does not make one an expert, either. However, thorough research, consulting an expert (or two), and careful wording, can go a long way toward ensuring that the information one puts out there is accurate.
Examples within skepticism are not difficult to find. Many other skeptics with expertise in specific areas routinely discuss the validity of claims outside their fields, including me. Donald Prothero, a paleontologist/geologist, recently posted an article about overgeneralizations made about first names and success in business. Phil Plait, an astronomer, writes about vaccines (and anti-vaxxers) often on his blog, Bad Astronomy. Brian Dunning, a computer scientist with writing and filmmaking skills, covers a variety of topics in Skeptoid and other works. He couldn't possibly be an expert in all of them. He's not a dietician, so should he be talking about whether fast food is bad for us? Should any of these authors be writing about things outside their fields?
Well, yes, I think they should. These examples vary in how far out of their "zone" each steps, but in each case, the authors are careful about what they put out there.
Prothero's post required only an understanding of statistics, something with which most scientists are at least familiar. The rest was just good critical thinking. Plait always links to resources by reliable experts and does not draw his own conclusions. Dunning spends approximately ten hours researching each highly focused question, building on knowledge gained from years of experience. Most importantly, he also does not over-interpret the information he gathers, drawing conclusions which go beyond the evidence by making assumptions about what he does and does not know.
Even when writing or speaking about a topic within one's field, research can be extensive and a good writer who cares about the accuracy of their work will consult with one or more others, usually those with more specialized knowledge in areas the piece covers, before publishing the final product. This practice does more than maintain the quality and integrity of the author/speaker's work. It may actually save lives because failing too often means spreading misinformation – the very thing we fight against.
The bottom lines:
1) Evaluate the source of the advice, information, or argument before you accept a claim, even if the claim sounds right to you. If they don't have the expertise to discuss it, consider whether they are drawing conclusions or just reporting them and whether they have thoroughly researched the question.
2) Skepticism and science are for everyone, but teaching others about them is not. If you want to be more than a consumer, take the time to study and gain experience, preferably with a mentor or two. Until then, report on what experts have to say, but be cautious about giving advice or information. You may not understand as much as you think you understand. Don't be a "Lovey Hart".
Barbara Drescher teaches research methods, statistics, and cognitive psychology at California State University, Northridge. Her research interests include perception, attention, learning, and reasoning. At ICBSEverywhere.com, Barbara evaluates claims and research, discusses education, and promotes science and skepticism.