I know that this subject has been discussed many times before, and I want to compile a list of references of essays on what I and no doubt many others think of as a ‘plague of punditry’ on our society. Please send them along!
Two defining properties of broadband internet and endless cable reporting of one sort or another—immediate, near-universal (American) access to information of every color, and anonymity—cause problems for the world. You can argue the presumed benefits of free speech and broader perspective derived from the same two properties, but I make the case that significant, identifiable costs counter those presumed benefits. There is a viral strain of individual conceit among us, a presumed expertise on the part of individuals across broad ranges of issues. Feeding it is an impotent form of faith – by definition, uncritical – among readers, watchers, and listeners. What results is a dangerous lack of public scrutiny for well-versed, even well-meaning positions, and a lack of critical and systematic thinking across the public.
There are two categories of pundit in my mind right now: the scientist who wanders too far, and the political ideologue/gamesman. I’ll ramble in Part I (and edit in subsequent days, as this is my own little wiki) on the first kind.
When an individual makes arguments across a broad range of topics by adhering carefully to grounded theoretical perspectives—in other words, applying disciplinary perspectives to specific problems—then such arguments are bounded and can be included in syntheses of different perspectives that draw more accurate pictures of complex problems. For example, theory from the fields of human behavioral ecology, psychology, anthropology, economics, finance, and physics can, when properly bounded, provide perspective on complex problems in the world. But problems arise when economists assume the roles of climate scientists or psychologists—or, vice versa—supplanting a collection of disciplinary perspectives with just one. This is justified, perhaps, by conceit and/or well-deserved accolades from within their disciplines of expertise. Disciplinary expertise does not justify isolated leadership on complex problems (unless that leadership takes the form of an efficient manager: the best public policy officials are those who can interpret, weigh, and synthesize contributions from different fields in order to maximize social welfare). Such outcomes are indicative of the abandonment of commitments to scientific objectivity—we end up muddling dialogues, and confusing a civil society reliant on the honest synthesis of the sciences and systems of values to solve complex problems.
What about the political ideologue/gamesman? I have to get my act together…Moving to Maine from California in one day 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }