Blog
As for health information, who should you trust? 4 ways to see a suspicious “expert”
Apr
When it comes to our health, we are constantly warned against misinformation. However, for most of us, what we think ultimately comes down to who we trust, including “experts” we trust.
The problem is that not everyone who presents himself as an expert is actually an expert. And an expert in one area is not necessarily an expert in everything.
The reality is that we often rely on superficial tips to decide who to trust. We are often excited, as someone probably says, their perceived authority or how his story sounds. For some, it is simply the loudest voice that has the greatest importance.
Even if we think we have some understanding of science, few of us have time or the ability to verify each claim made by each so -called “expert”.
So how do you distinguish reliable experts from those who are not? Here are the four things I look at.
1. Suspected experts do not recognize uncertainty
One thing that separates trustworthy experts from suspects is their humility. They have well respect for science restrictions, gaps in evidence and even limitations of their own specialist knowledge.
And, what is crucial, they communicate clearly.
Read more: Uncertain? Many questions, but there are no clear answers? Welcome to the scientist’s mind
However, one of the most common features of a suspicious expert is that they are misleading certain. They often present problems in too simplified, black and white terms and draw conclusions with incorrect confidence.
This is of course part of their appeal. A neat clear message that disregards uncertainty, complexity and nuance can be convincing-often even more convincing than messy, but a thorough message.
One of the most crucial examples of unjustified confidence was the confident claim of some “experts” at the beginning of the pandemic that Covid was not worse than flu, a conclusion that ignored uncertainty in emerging data.
2. A supportive expert does not try to be objective
Credible experts follow a well -established and disciplined approach when communicating science. They present their understanding clearly, support them with evidence and try to remove emotions and bias from their thinking.
The basic principle of scientific thinking is the pursuit of objectivity – and this language reflects. Experts generally try to provide high -quality information to lend a hand society make informed decisions for themselves, instead of manipulating them to draw specific conclusions.
The experts came up often rely on an excessively emotional language, injecting political programs or resort to personal attacks on critics to evoke powerful emotions. This is A powerful tool Down Manipulation of opinions When there is a lack of evidence.
One of the most harmful examples of this is the utilize of emotional references by suspicious experts who claim that people “naturally beat cancer”, offering false hope and often leading patients to abandon proven treatment methods.
3. Experts approached because of the evidence to download
Despite what they want to mislead, they would believe that scientists achieve consensus only if a huge collection of high -quality evidence indicates in the same direction.
So one of the most crucial skill experts is the ability to critically assess evidence. This means understanding his strengths and weaknesses, assessing his reliability and synthesizing what is indicated by the full base of evidence. This task requires a deep understanding of their area of specialist knowledge.
The experts did not do it. They usually reject uncomfortable evidence that is contrary to their narrative and willingly accept defective and even discredited research. In brief: they often make evidence of their position.
Unfortunately, this tactic can be hard to see if you do not understand the full base of evidence, which is something suspicious experts.
Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock
The red flag that you are misleaded, a suspicious expert, is clearly relying on one study, despite its low quality.
Perhaps the most notable example of collecting cherry is the way suspected experts rely on one discredited study to push the false claim that the MMR vaccine (Odra, Pig and Rosary) causes autism, while ignoring the huge body of high -quality evidence that clearly does not show such a relationship.
Read more: Monday medical myth: MMR vaccine causes autism
4. Suspected experts do not change their minds when the evidence changes
Experts have often been stiffly attached to their beliefs, even when novel evidence appears.
However, real experts are satisfied with novel evidence and are ready to change their views properly. This openness is often unjustly depicted as a weakness, but reflects the expert’s desire to thoroughly understand the world.
A striking example of this is changing our understanding of stomach ulcers. Over the years, ulcers were blamed for stress and sizzling food, but it changed when Australian gastroenterologist and researcher Barry Marshall, bold movement Helicobacter pylori To demonstrate your potential role.
His own experiment (which is generally not recommended!) Was the first step in a broader research range, which eventually proved that bacteria, not a lifestyle, were the main cause of ulcers. This Ultimately conducted Marshall and his colleagues pathologist and researcher Robin Warren received the Nobel Prize.
As this example emphasizes, after providing evidence, clinicians and scientists confirmed that they had a bad cause of stomach ulcers. Then clinical practice improved, and doctors prescribe antibiotics to kill the ulcer causing the ulcer.
In this way, learning informs the practice so that we can constantly improve health results.
In a nutshell
True knowledge is marked by intellectual humility, commitment to high quality evidence, readiness to get involved with nuance and uncertainty, flexibility and ability to respect various opinions.
On the other hand, suspicious experts say they have all the answers, reject uncertainty, research on cherry, personally attack those who disagree with them, and more rely on emotions and ideology than evidence.
