We are constantly warned against being misled by false information when it comes to our health. What we believe comes down to our trust in “experts”, and who we choose to trust.
Not everyone who claims to be an expert is one. An expert in one field is not necessarily an expert at all.
We often make decisions about who we trust based on superficial clues. We are often influenced by the confidence with which someone speaks, how authoritative they seem, or how compelling they sound. Some people believe that the loudest voice is the most important.
We may feel that we understand science, but few of us are able to verify all claims made by so-called experts.
How can we tell the difference between experts who are credible and those who are not? Here are the four things that I look for.
1. Experts who are not honest with their clients don’t accept uncertainty
Humility is one thing that distinguishes trustworthy experts. They are aware of the limitations in science, gaps in evidence and their own limitations.
They communicate this very clearly.
Uncertain? There are many questions, but no answers. Welcome to the scientist’s mind
The dodgy expert, on the other hand, is often characterized by their false certainty. They present problems in a simplistic, black-and white manner and draw conclusions with a misplaced level of confidence.
It is their appeal. A message that is neat, clear and concise and minimizes complexity, nuance and uncertainty can be very persuasive. It’s often more effective than a message that is messy and accurate.
Early in the pandemic, some “experts”, relying on emerging information, claimed that COVID wasn’t worse than flu. This conclusion was based on unfounded certainty.
2. The expert who is not objective doesn’t try to be objective
When communicating science, credible experts use a disciplined and well-established approach. Credible experts present their understanding in a clear and concise manner, backed up by evidence. They also try to eliminate bias and emotion from their thinking.
The language used to describe scientific thinking reflects the principle of objectivity. Experts aim to provide the best information possible to help the public make their own decisions, not to manipulate them.
Experts who are not trustworthy often use emotional language to manipulate emotions. They may also insert political agendas or make personal attacks on critics. It is a very powerful tool to manipulate opinions if the evidence is not there.
The use of emotional testimonials from phony experts, who falsely claim that people have “beat cancer naturally”, can be harmful. They give patients false hope and may lead them to abandon treatments they know work.
3. Experts cherry-pick evidence
Contrary to what some would like you to believe, scientists can only come together when there is a lot of evidence that points in the right direction.
Experts are able to evaluate evidence critically, which is one of their most important skills. This means analyzing its strengths and weakness, assessing the reliability of its evidence, and synthesizing what it all indicates. This requires that they have a thorough understanding of the area in which they are experts.
Experts who are not trustworthy don’t behave like this. They are more likely to ignore inconvenient data that contradicts their narrative, and embrace flawed or even discredited studies. They cherry-pick the evidence that suits their argument.
This tactic is difficult to detect if you do not have a full understanding of all the evidence, something that shady experts take advantage of.
When you find yourself relying on one study despite its poor quality, this is a red flag.
The most famous example of cherry picking is when dodgy scientists rely on one discredited study to make the false claim that MMR vaccines (measles mumps rubella) cause autism while ignoring a vast amount of evidence which clearly shows that there is no link.
Read More: The Monday medical myth: MMR vaccine causes Autism
4. Experts who are not trustworthy don’t change when the evidence changes
Even when new evidence is presented, experts who are not credible can be stubborn in their beliefs.
Genuine experts, on the other hand, are open to new evidence and willing to adjust their opinions accordingly. Openness is sometimes portrayed as weakness but in reality it’s a sign of an expert wanting to know the world.
This is evident in the way we now view stomach ulcers. In the past, stomach ulcers have been blamed on spicy foods and stress. But that has changed after Australian gastroenterologist Barry Marshall swallowed Helicobacter Pylori in order to show its role.
It is not generally recommended to do this kind of self-experiment. This was the first step of a larger body of research which ultimately proved that bacteria and not lifestyle was the primary reason for ulcers. The led to the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Marshall, his colleague Robin Warren and other pathologists and researchers.
This example shows that when clinicians and scientists were presented with evidence, they admitted to being wrong about the cause of stomach ulcers. The clinical practice improved as doctors prescribed antibiotics to kill ulcer-causing bacteria.
Here’s how science can inform practice to continually improve health outcomes.
In a Nutshell
True expertise is characterized by intellectual humility, commitment to high quality evidence, willingness to engage in nuance and uncertainties, flexibility, as well as the ability to navigate different opinions with respect.
Contrary to this, shady experts make claims that they have all the answers. They dismiss uncertainty, cherry pick studies, attack people who disagree, and rely on emotions and ideology rather than facts.
Hassan Vally has not disclosed any relevant affiliations other than their academic appointment.
