Experts do not exist in fields of knowledge where ultimate truth has been established. The general public and specially news media will consult experts in hopes to learn the latest insights and the latest truth about the subject of their inquiry.
Why experts say "NO" to most new ideas
New ideas follow the Pareto principle, also called the 80-20 rule in that 80% of new ideas are wrong or of questionable value and 20% range from good to brilliant. The problem is to try to determine which 20% are the ideas that range from good to brilliant. Unfortunately often very bad ideas are successfully promoted to where they are accepted as "good" by the general public and experts alike. On the other hand some absolutely brilliant ideas are totally ignored and get never accepted because of rejection by so called "experts" and by all vested interests that would suffer loss of power or money from the implementation of a good or brilliant new idea. Experts routinely say "no" to everything that conflicts with their currently held beliefs. They are, like most people, negatively influenced by several aspects of human nature such as arrogance, egotism, short-sightedness, lack of imagination, closed-mindedness, stupidity, lack of logical reasoning ability, irrationality and other such human traits. Most people lack confidence to rely upon their own ability to think things through in a logical step by step analytical manner and they are afraid to take responsibility for the conclusions they might reach without the assistance of "expert opinion".
Experts have indeed vast knowledge about all the good and bad ideas in their specific field of expertise that have been studied in the past and that have become part of their body of expert knowledge and beliefs. Experts are indispensable for giving advice on ideas that have already been accepted by them as good ideas (and the irony is that many of those ideas turn out to be bad ideas many years later). Those old and already studied ideas are the body of knowledge on which experts base their expertise. They reject most new ideas based upon the fact that new ideas differ with their body of knowledge. The better the ideas are the farther they stray from the expert body of knowledge and the more likely they are ridiculed or ignored by experts. Mediocre ideas that do not stray too far from the expert knowledge and beliefs have the best chance of making it through the expert approval process of acceptance or rejection of new ideas.
Over 90% of the time, experts are called upon by news media to give their opinion about ideas that have been already rejected or accepted by the expert body of knowledge and only 10% of the time they are asked questions about new ideas that they know nothing about. They will be able to give swift responses on questions about the 90% subject matter that they have already expertise on because these are already part of their accepted or rejected body of knowledge.
Experts know little or nothing about brand new ideas.
The problem arises when experts are expected to pass judgment on the 10% absolutely new ideas that they know little or nothing about. Plain logic dictates that truly new ideas must guaranteed differ with the body of knowledge that experts base their expertise on. If these new ideas would not differ from the old accepted ideas, they would obviously not be new ideas. When asked questions about such truly new ideas, experts should honestly respond that they have no knowledge and/or expertise. But no, experts do not have such honest humility, they do not want to look stupid by not giving an answer. They will arrogantly and swiftly ridicule any new idea that they know nothing about.
The better new ideas are and also the worse the new ideas are, the more they stray from expert knowledge and beliefs and the more likely they are immediately dismissed by experts as nonsense. Inventors of very good ideas have to suffer this all the time. It takes them many extra years to be vindicated (if they have the stamina and are still alive).
The reasons often given by experts for their swift rejection of new ideas
The reasons experts give for their rejection of new ideas are hilarious for their illogical stupidity. Experts start out by declaring "I am very open-minded, but . . . (beware of open-minded experts, they never are, they only use that phrase to give weight to their rejection that comes after the word "but"). Here follows a selection of my favorite expert illogic: "If this new idea were true then, as an expert, I would certainly know about it " or "If this new idea were really true then all the experts in this field of knowledge would be wrong." or "If this new idea would be true, someone would have come up with this idea a long time ago and it certainly would have been implemented years ago." or my all time favorite "If this idea would be true, it would invalidate everything we know about . . . . (this body of expertise)." All these answers sound logical and apparently are very convincing to the general public, because experts keep getting away with this stupidity and new ideas do not get the attention and recognition they deserve. This of course safely dispatches the majority of the 80% bad new ideas to the dustbin, but sadly it also sweeps most of the 20% good ideas away and specially the brilliant ideas because they often stray the farthest away from mainstream "expertise". It deprives the general public and the economy as a whole from the few brilliant ideas among them. In addition, experts seek to buttress their stupidity with a dose of ridicule that is generally delivered with an arrogant clownish smirk or grin on their face to underscore their lowly opinion of the new idea. Try sometime to ask experts about new ideas on any subjects in economics, health, manufacturing, taxation or any other field of expertise and you will now no longer be surprised by their stupid attitude toward new ideas.
The correct logic that should be applied to new ideas
The glaring logic (apparently blindingly glaring) is that new ideas, good and bad ones, can only be new if they are different from what experts know and believe. It is then an absolutely illogical mistake to dismiss new ideas as false, just because they differ from what experts know and believe. Unstudied and little studied ideas are most likely following Pareto's 80/20 principle in that they are 80% bad or useless and only 20% of them are ranging from useful to brilliant. This means statistically, that of the 10% brand new ideas that experts may be questioned about, 8% would be useless and only 2% have merit to them. If experts do not immediately mindlessly dismiss new ideas as nonsense, they use the same two very practical but totally illogical methods that normal mortals use to determine whether they like or dislike a new idea. First they compare the idea against their knowledge and beliefs and if the idea is in conflict with what they know and believe, they classify it as false. Second they might want to be fair, and to give the idea a second chance, they will consult other experts about the new idea to see what those experts think about it. The majority of other experts will come to the same conclusion based upon their giving it the same litmus test of comparing it against their knowledge and beliefs. It is the rare expert who will say: "Wait a minute here, I have never heard about this idea. I have no knowledge about it and I need some time to give it some serious thought, after which I will be able to give you a more reasoned and comprehensive answer."
Experts easily attain an impressive 98% right track record
Experts easily attain an impressive 98% track record of being correct. The 90% of questions they have knowledge about will be answered by them according to their currently held beliefs (right or wrong beliefs). And by quickly dismissing the 10% of brand new ideas that they know nothing about as bad or useless, gives them another 8% correct answers (because 80% of new ideas are indeed most likely useless or incorrect). But the remaining 2% good and brilliant ideas are then also dismissed as bad or useless and they would bite the dust for a few years or longer or forever (a loss for the economy and mankind). These experts look then statistically fantastic with a 98% track record of appearing to be right through simply dismissing anything new as false.
Experts are indispensable for a safe society
The reality is that without experts the World would be a much more dangerous place, because experts (and the general public) are risk-averse, they protect mankind from jumping too quickly onto brand new ideas, 80% of which are quite useless or even dangerous. Experts generally say "NO" to everything that is not part of their body of expert knowledge and beliefs. Their automatic 98% track record of appearing right, persuades them into the arrogant belief that they are near failsafe with their expert knowledge and beliefs. It is totally false reasoning that they want to simply validate or invalidate ideas by testing them against their expert knowledge and beliefs. All things new and all new ideas must obviously be different from what experts know and believe in, else they would not be NEW. Mediocre new ideas that tend to stray little from established expert knowledge and beliefs are often only tinkering diversions from established ideas. The small tinkering diversions that do not stray too far from already known and sanctioned expert knowledge are more likely acceptable to experts.
Masters of Minutia
A lot of these tweaked and tinkered details of old ideas are the creations of experts themselves who write papers and publish whole books on these minutia (publish or perish). Experts present their ideas during conferences and other gatherings of their colleagues. Those small tinkered minutia, whether right or wrong, are more easily accepted by the fraternity of experts because they come from a "trusted" source, namely other experts. Most members of the fraternity of experts do not deem these minutia worth their time to thoroughly study and critique and they will give the new ideas that come from their fellow "experts" their quick nod of approval and applause during presentation of papers just because that is the polite thing to do and of course you do not want to upset the members of your fraternity of experts because you need their nod of approval and applause on some future occasion when you come up with a minute tweak to some old idea and when you need their vote for nomination for a Nobel prize nomination or other such recognition. This is the method by which a lot of drivel, passable, mediocre and outright bad ideas, sneak into the accepted body of expert knowledge and beliefs. When such drivel then blithely is referenced a few times in other papers and presentations by other "experts" it becomes gospel and taints all the research and "expert" advise by including this drivel and minutia myths in future work and study.
The source of brilliant new ideas
Brilliant new ideas will not likely sprout from the minds of mainstream experts. It will be a rare expert who will dare to oppose the whole fraternity of experts by declaring that everything they believe in is wrong and false and that it should all be swept aside in favor of bright new and simple ideas. There are a few such daring experts, but they are soon declared heretics and even lunatics and they swiftly lose all standing in their expert circles of their fraternity of "experts". Most really brilliant new ideas sprout from the minds of people with a reasonable level of intelligence who are not associated with a fraternity of experts nor are hamstrung by prevailing dogmas adhered to by those fraternities.
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
—Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
Experts deprive the World of the most brilliant new ideas
Experts are the ones called upon by most people to judge the validity of brilliant new ideas. Experts are also the least likely to give brilliant new ideas a chance because of their unbridled arrogance. As a society we have no choice other than to defer to experts for evaluating new ideas. Because brilliant new ideas stray the farthest from the cozy comfort of the accepted expert knowledge and beliefs, those brilliant ideas are the most likely ones to get the swift ax from experts and often are ridiculed with illogical expert arguments such as: "If this idea would be valid, it would invalidate everything there is known about this . . . (whatever subject matter). It would invalidate everything Nobel Prize winning Professor so-and-so has to say about it and all University Studies from (a long list of Universities follows) and all books and papers written by Professor so-and-so (a long list of credentials follows)." The only hope for new brilliant ideas is to beg experts to set aside their understandable arrogance when judging ideas that are truly new and stray far from their comfortable expert body of belief and knowledge and that they set aside their self-interest of preserving the status-quo. New ideas obviously change the expert body of knowledge and sometimes partially or even totally destroy and replace expert knowledge. That should not be a problem for an expert who does not mind having his expertise destroyed or diminished and replaced by worthwhile new insights. Those expert are rare indeed who do not mind to have their expertise temporarily diminished. Most experts will initially seek to swiftly destroy new ideas with false information and ridicule. Then if that does not destroy the new idea they will viciously attack it and if that does not kill it they will change it slightly and present it as their own and make as if they knew it to be a good idea all along and they try to associate it with their name. Funny, the way these things go.
In defense of experts
Experts should be excused for dismissing most new ideas as nonsense. Experts need to make a living too and knowledge and beliefs plus time are the "commodities" experts trade in. Time is the fleeting commodity that must be used as effectively as possible to make use of their knowledge and beliefs. Triage is the "tool" used by all of us to allocating time in the most effective manner for tasks before us. For experts to deal with questions and ideas most effectively they should deal with the 90% old questions they know the answers to and they should routinely dismiss as untrue or useless all the remaining 10% of questions and ideas they do not know much about. Those 10% would require the vast majority of their time and place them in great jeopardy of being wrong and being wrong would diminish their stature as an expert. These 10% of swift dismissals are best dispatched with a dose of illogical ridicule to give the answers some foundation. Reasoned explanations for declaring the new ideas wrong would be more risky because those answers could be tested and found lacking. The additional incentive to dismiss all things new as wrong is that 80% of them are indeed wrong. Hesitating on giving a swift answer also diminishes the stature of an expert because it gives the impression of not knowing (the actual truth) and experts are expected to know, and not answering the questions right away diminishes their stature as all-knowing experts. The most arrogant experts that give the swiftest "NO" answers to all new ideas and those experts that ridicule the new ideas the most forcefully and pertinently, will attain the highest regard as highly respected experts in their field of expertise. Those are the "experts" that are the most frequently approached by the media for expert advice because they can function the best in the media environment of short sound-bites. Media will not want to get sound bites from "experts" that are reasonable and admit that they know nothing about the really new ideas. Time is the only asset we have in life and "experts" have learned to trade it for money in the most efficient way by having a swift answer to anything they know nothing about.
An observation about TIME
After our body and our health, TIME is our most important commodity, in fact TIME is gained and lost depending on the condition of our body and our health. Time is generally not appreciated as a commodity, but in reality it is the master commodity from which second and third tier commodities are derived. Time is the fleeting first tier commodity that can be converted into the vitally important second tier catalyst commodity of knowledge and the third tier commodities of goods and services. Time can also be converted into the non-fleeting and most readily convertible form of time, namely the seemingly all important money. Money is convertible into all other commodities including the purchase of time from other people. Unfortunately, money cannot be used very well to purchase more time on Earth for any individual. People are often willing to pay great amounts of money to just hang onto life for a few more days, weeks or months. The fleeting commodity of time is limited in quality and quantity to each person by their health and the condition of their body. Low health, both limits quality and quantity of time available to individuals. If you are interested in improving quality and quantity and gaining more of the commodity "TIME" then it might behoove you to have a look at http://www.fastexercise.com/
Some examples of the damage experts do to new ideas and insights:
The Earth used to be flat until it was proven to be round by ancient scientists in Greece and Egypt a few hundred years BC. But "experts" were able to keep it flat for over 1700 more years until after the Middle Ages.
In the early 19 hundreds a German Scientist Alfred Wagoner advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift and the giants of expert geologists ridiculed him for his new hypothesis. Nobody is laughing anymore because the theory of continental drift has been accepted and confirmed by all the "experts" in the field.
The following snippets were copied by me from Wikipedia: The links do not work
Knowledge is what is known. Like the related concepts truth, belief and wisdom. There is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge.
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association, and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose.
Truth. A common dictionary definition of truth is "agreement with fact or reality". There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree. Many theories of truth, commonly involving different definitions of "truth", continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition. Like the related concepts of truth, knowledge, and wisdom, there is no precise definition of belief on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of belief. There are at least three "flavors" of belief. There is rational belief that is based on anecdotal evidence and on informal and formal research. There is extra-rational belief (this is not the same as irrational belief) that is derived at by strong internal conviction through personal reflection. These are beliefs derived at by your own philosophical reflection. And there is irrational belief that is not based on any reasoning process and is adhered to through mere uncritical adoption of other people's convictions. This applies to most religious beliefs.
Wisdom is the ability, developed through experience. insight and reflection to discern truth and exercise good judgment. Wisdom is sometimes conceptualized as an especially well developed form of common sense.
Transformative learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning) (or transformational learning) is a process by which people can change their beliefs. It is a process of getting beyond gaining factual knowledge alone to instead become changed by what one learns in some meaningful way. It involves questioning assumptions, beliefs and values, and considering multiple points of view, while always seeking to verify reasoning. There is great debate on what qualifies as “transformative” and whether the process is best understood intellectually, emotionally, spiritually or politically. For instance, transformation can inspire action to change the world, and unfair distribution of resources and power in particular, in order to promote the welfare of all peoples.
For some new ideas I have developed on economics and taxation you can have a look at: http://www.endingrecession.com/ and more importantly http://www.universaltax.com/ .
Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations -- six if one went to Harvard."
--Edgar R. Fiedler,