Throughout my academic journey, I have extensively explored the concept of dissent and its pivotal role in the pursuit of truth. For those interested, I’ve compiled a selection of my thoughts in various blog posts, as well as in esteemed academic articles, including the award-winning “Cascading Expert Failure” and “Expert Failure and Pandemics: On Adapting to Life with Pandemics,” which I co-authored with Abigail Devereaux from Wichita State University, Nathan Goodman from the Mercatus Center, and Roger Koppl from Syracuse University. My belief in the importance of dissent is so strong that I incorporate it into my teaching. I actively encourage my students to seek out information and challenge my perspectives—after all, the ability to question is crucial for uncovering deeper insights and for both experts and nonexperts to accomplish their respective objectives.
Dissent serves a dual purpose: it compels all parties to fortify their arguments and sheds light on the knowledge each participant brings to the table. This dynamic is eloquently discussed by Nelson and Winter in their 1982 work An Evolutionary Theory of Change. Each party operates under a set of assumptions, often unbeknownst to them, which can significantly affect their conclusions. For instance, predicting commodity prices involves making assumptions about various factors influencing supply and demand, anticipating weather patterns, and considering the likelihood of unforeseen events. Furthermore, since models are simplifications of real-world phenomena, the selection of a model itself is fraught with assumptions about the conditions and variables at play. Dissent and the ensuing dialogue are instrumental in uncovering these assumptions, as well as any biases that may color the expert’s analysis—we must remember that experts are human, too. Questions posed by nonexperts can illuminate what information they prioritize, thereby informing expert advice. Given that much knowledge is tacit, the conversation between experts and nonexperts can enrich both parties’ understanding and refine their interpretative frameworks.
At its core, democracy thrives on the principles of dissent and dialogue: citizens engage in discussions and express differing opinions. Consequently, experts in a democratic society must adopt a similar role, acting as dissenters and conversational partners to nonexperts (and each other). An expert’s ethical obligation is to engage in this role, rather than merely serve as a Yes-Man catering to the preferences of nonexperts. Dissent may prompt nonexperts to reassess their desires, ideally guiding them toward their authentic goals.
In light of this, I propose an expanded interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath tailored for experts: the expert’s duty is to assist, or at the very least, to do no harm. This often entails delivering messages that nonexperts might find uncomfortable. However, such candid conversations could ultimately lead to more favorable outcomes.
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
