The Cult of Expertise: Hubris and the Erosion of Critical Thinking, By Brian Simpson and Chris Knight (Florida)

The reverence for "experts" and the degree-holding technocratic/chattering class has become a cornerstone of modern discourse, yet their track record in recent years reveals a troubling pattern of hubris, intellectual arrogance, and a resistance to self-reflection. From economic forecasts to immigration policy, national security, and climate predictions, the so-called experts have repeatedly misjudged outcomes, often dismissing common-sense perspectives while clinging to dogmatic assumptions. This post explores the systemic flaws in the cult of expertise, drawing on examples from the early months of the Trump administration and beyond, to argue that the unchecked arrogance of credentialed elites undermines critical thinking and public trust.

The first six months of the Trump administration exposed the fallibility of expert predictions across multiple domains. Economists with prestigious degrees warned that Trump's tariff proposals would trigger a recession, skyrocketing inflation, and plummeting job creation. They argued that trade deficits were inconsequential and that free trade, regardless of fairness, was the only path to prosperity, showing globalist bias. Yet, contrary to their dire forecasts, tariff revenues increased, personal income and savings rose, job creation surpassed expectations, and the stock market hit historic highs. The disconnect between these predictions and reality suggests a failure to consider practical realities, such as the leverage of the U.S. consumer market or the willingness of trade partners to negotiate to avoid losing access to it.

Similarly, immigration experts insisted that only "comprehensive immigration reform" could address illegal border crossings, dismissing Trump's pledge to secure the border as unfeasible. Yet, when border enforcement was prioritised, illegal crossings plummeted, crime rates dropped, and job opportunities for citizens increased. The notion of voluntary deportation, ridiculed by academics, proved viable when incentives like free flights and reapplication opportunities were offered. These outcomes highlight a recurring theme: experts often value theoretical models over practical solutions grounded in observable realities.

National security provides another case study. Experts warned that targeting Iran's nuclear facilities would ignite a Middle East conflagration, spike oil prices, and unleash terrorism. Instead, a precise 25-minute strike led to lower oil prices, a ceasefire, and no significant escalation. The same experts who downplayed Iran's nuclear progress before the strike later exaggerated the threat of surviving enriched uranium, revealing a tendency to shift narratives to preserve their authority rather than reassess their assumptions.

The persistent errors of the expert class stem from a deeper issue: an intellectual arrogance embedded in the cult of expertise. This hubris manifests in several ways:

1.Institutional Insulation: Many experts emerge from elite universities where ideological conformity often trumps critical inquiry. Faculties, overwhelmingly Left-leaning, foster environments where dissent is discouraged, and non-meritocratic criteria like diversity, equity, and inclusion shape academic culture. This insularity produces graduates who are less equipped to engage with diverse perspectives or question prevailing orthodoxies. The result is a cohort of experts who view their credentials as a shield against scrutiny rather than a tool for rigorous analysis.

2.Disconnect from Reality: The isolation of academia from the practical concerns of everyday life breeds a disconnect between experts and the public. Economists who cannot run a small business, military strategists outmanoeuvred by real-world conflicts, and climate scientists reliant on implausible models like RCP8.5 (as seen in the Met Office's exaggerated 2070 forecasts, discussed at the blog today), demonstrate a lack of grounding in practical realities. This detachment is exacerbated by the financial security of university endowments and federal grants, which shield academics from the consequences of their errors.

3.Resistance to Self-Reflection: The expert class rarely acknowledges its mistakes, instead doubling down on flawed predictions or shifting narratives to maintain credibility. For instance, the 51 intelligence officials who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation never retracted their statements despite evidence to the contrary. Similarly, economists who predicted inflation from Biden's spending later pivoted to other concerns when inflation did materialise. This refusal to engage in critical self-reflection perpetuates a cycle of overconfidence and error.

4.Polarisation and Bias: The visceral reaction to figures like Donald Trump amplifies expert bias. His unconventional style and disdain for elite norms provoked a reflexive opposition that clouded objective analysis. Experts who might have otherwise evaluated his policies empirically instead dismissed them outright, choosing ideological purity over accuracy. This bias is evident in the misrepresentation of Trump's NATO stance, where his push for increased defence spending was framed as an intent to destroy the alliance, despite resulting in 23 nations meeting their 2% GDP commitments.

The cult of expertise has far-reaching consequences. Public trust in institutions erodes when predictions consistently fail to materialise, as seen in the inaccurate polling of the last three U.S. presidential elections or the discredited narratives around the Steele dossier and Trump-Russia collusion. When experts choose narrative over evidence, as in the case of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment's reliance on the Steele dossier, they risk undermining their own legitimacy and fuelling scepticism among the public.

Moreover, the dismissal of common-sense perspectives stifles innovation and problem-solving. Ordinary Americans, who questioned the wisdom of unchecked trade deficits, open borders, or appeasing adversarial regimes, were often proven right when policies shifted to address these concerns. The success of practical measures, like border enforcement or tariff negotiations, underscores the value of pragmatic reasoning over academic dogma.

To break free from the cult of expertise, the expert class must embrace humility and critical self-reflection. This requires several steps:

Diversify Perspectives: Universities and think tanks must foster intellectual diversity, encouraging debate and challenging ideological conformity. This could involve reforming hiring practices to accept merit and openness over political alignment.

Engage with Reality: Experts should be encouraged to interact with the practical world, whether through real-world problem-solving or collaboration with non-academic professionals. This could bridge the gap between theoretical models and lived experience.

Acknowledge Errors: A culture of accountability, where experts publicly correct their mistakes, would rebuild trust and enhance credibility. This might include issuing retractions or revising models when new evidence emerges, as seen in the climate community's gradual retreat from RCP8.5.

Value Common Sense: Experts must recognize the wisdom in practical, non-credentialed perspectives. The public's intuitive understanding of trade imbalances or border security often aligns more closely with outcomes than academic theories.

The cult of expertise, characterised by hubris and intellectual arrogance, has led to a string of misjudgements that undermine public trust and hinder effective policy-making. From economic forecasts to national security and climate predictions, the expert class has repeatedly overestimated its predictive power while dismissing practical solutions. By fostering a culture of humility, engaging with diverse perspectives, and grounding analyses in reality, experts can move beyond the limitations of their credentials and contribute to a more rational, effective discourse. The failures of the past, illuminated by the early Trump administration and beyond, offer a chance to rethink expertise, not as a badge of infallibility, but as a tool for inquiry and collaboration in service of the public good.

This is all very idealistic, and is not likely to occur soon without the cult of expertise crashing even lower. It is something which remorselessly must occur. Let a thousand flowers of intense scepticism bloom!

https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/30/the-decline-and-fall-of-our-so-called-degreed-experts/