1
Experts and Claims
Name
Professor
Institution
Course
Date
2
Constructions of social problems reflect altering patterns of institutional power, as seen
by the diminishing sway of ministers and the increasing weight held by medical professionals.
Social issues are frequently discussed using religious terminology in places and communities
where religious authorities wield the most power. In contrast, in areas and communities where
medical authorities wield the most sway, social issues are typically comprehended using medical
terminology. At different points in time and various locations, many schools of thought have
developed on the characteristics of those who should be regarded as experts and the fields of
knowledge they specialize in. Experts are considered to be the primary sources of authoritative
information, and others, such as activists, members of the media, and government decision-
makers, may rely on their knowledge. This chapter investigates the function of experts as claim-
makers in the context of solving modern societal challenges. It starts with an investigation of the
significant role that medical authorities play in forming societal issues, and then it moves on to
other types of specialists.
The medicalization of complex problems presents them in a unique light. Sin and
criminality appear to be conceptualized in a manner distinct from that of illness in our society.
Those who commit sin or crime are held accountable for their actions and given punishment,
whereas the sick are not condemned but given care (Best, 2017). On the other hand, the medical
model emphasizes the individual more than the greater community as a whole. According to the
medicalized approach, people have disorders or syndromes that cause them to drink too much,
overeat, and so on; they must address and overcome these difficulties by engaging in healthy
behavior. Medicalization diverts attention from how broader societal structures, such as poverty,
generate these unpleasant situations. This is accomplished by placing the focus on the decisions
that people make.
3
Experts often attempt to defend their professional territory and even broaden the scope of
their control. The procedure may be slow. Think about how pediatrics practice is evolving (Best,
2017). When this branch of medicine began to form in the early 20th century, pediatricians
concentrated their attention on the difficulties linked with newborn feeding. At the time, the milk
supply was frequently contaminated, leading to the terrible illness of many children. But as soon
as new ways were found to keep the milk supply safe, breastfeeding babies became a much safer
practice. As a result, the primary service doctors had been providing was gradually losing its
significance. In response to this need, pediatricians started to focus more on treating different
childhood disorders and, later, the growth and development of healthy children. It is not
necessary to view these attempts as being cynical or self-serving. Experts usually believe that
they possess significant information and provide services that others may benefit from. As a
result, they are always on the lookout for new possibilities to use their experience.
The first instance is from Nathan Ballantyne, and David Dunning's article titled "Which
Experts Should You Listen to during the Pandemic?" According to the information provided in
the article, Coronavirus trespassers tend to speak for themselves on social media and in op-ed
publications. They might potentially displace actual professionals and science communicators
attempting to combat misinformation. One epidemiologist who studies infectious diseases has
voiced concern about "an outbreak of armchair epidemiology." The proliferation of false claims
is analogous to "the release of mock hares for genuine academics to squander their time and
energy pursuing" (Dunning & David, 2020). It is expensive for professionals to identify and
remedy the faults that trespassers make, and there is no guarantee that they will be successful.
When evaluating the knowledge of another individual, it is necessary for us to step outside of our
areas of expertise frequently.
4
A further illustration may be found in Rose Jacobs' article titled "The Downfall (and
Possible Salvation) of Expertise." According to the article, within a few short months of the
first case of COVID-19 being reported in China, the World Health Organization (WHO)
admitted that, in addition to the pandemic, it was also fighting something almost as dangerous
and as complicated: a "massive 'infodemic,'" to use the agency's terminology (Jacobs, 2020).
Because people were unaware of the infection, they began spreading false information, rumors,
and conspiracy theories, which provided political fuel. But it seems unlikely that we will be able
to face and conquer difficulties such as COVID-19 and climate change without the assistance of
and a significant amount of faith in the available professional competence. Due to all of these
factors, addressing mistrust should be a vital issue. It is feasible that science, even though it is
not widely accepted, may assist restore some sense of equilibrium by educating people about
when and why it is appropriate to trust specialists and drawing attention to the boundaries of
what we do know.
5
References
Best, J. (2017). Social problems (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.
Dunning, N. B., David. (2020). Which Experts Should You Listen to during the Pandemic?
Scientific American Blog Network.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/which-experts-should-you-listen-to-
during-the-pandemic/
Jacobs, R. (2020). The Downfall (and Possible Salvation) of Expertise. The University of
Chicago Booth School of Business. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/downfall-and-
possible-salvation-expertise
