0
Bowing down to the experts
24 November 2007
[indent]Should only 'experts' be allowed to have opinions at the council table? Should only 'experts' be allowed to speak on an issue? Should only 'experts' be allowed to create a vision for this community, or to defend that vision? Should the rest of us keep our mouths shut when we don't agree with the 'experts'?
Apparently some think so. In Friday's Collingwood Connection, Mayor Chris Carrier is quoted as dismissing concerns about our precipitous rush towards commercial growth, saying, "If we start pretending that we are experts, we are getting into dangerous ground."
That strikes me as an elitist approach to government more suited to an oligarchy than a democracy. There is no good reason to belittle dissent. Democracy is based on dissent, not on having everyone simply nod their heads, and raise their hands to vote when told to do so.
Here are two online definitions as to what the term 'expert' means...
And here's another definition from Wikipedia:
None of these definitions indicate any necessity for particular degrees or levels of education. If that were true, none of us would be experts in the realms of planning, policing, financial management, recreation, libraries, museums, schools, traffic management - all among the many things council is expected to understand, debate and make informed decisions about.
Most definitions of expert seem to focus on a person's ability to make wise decisions, not on any paperwork that accompanies them. That's the definition of a 'specialist' - not an 'expert.'
I myself like Arthur Bloch's definition: "An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy."
If only 'experts' were permitted at the table, we'd have few people elected, certainly no one new to municipal government because you'd have to already have experience to get to the table (a conundrum - where would they get that experience in the first place?).
But if you accept that we can learn, we can analyse, we can listen and we can make decisions based on what we have assessed, then we at the table can all become experts in the business of running a municipality - that is, if you accept the term expert as meaning someone who can make sound decisions, perform skillfully and have more knowledge about the tasks at hand than the average resident. Not that we all will, or do - but we all have the potential, if we apply ourselves.
Of course we each have strengths and weaknesses - that's why we have nine people, so our collective expertise covers a wider range. Reduce our numbers and you reduce our collective wisdom, but you also increase our collective weaknesses.
Being the mayor of this or any other town doesn't make anyone an 'expert' by virtue of office alone. The office does not confer wisdom, learning, insight or expertise. Being diligent, researching, asking questions, listening, learning, expanding one's horizons, however, can do so: And that applies to all of us, not just one person at the head of the table. So, Mr. Mayor, if you belittle our opinions for not being 'experts' you had best discredit and stultify your own, because you are no more 'expert' than any of the rest of us in any of these matters.
The assumption that, since we are not "experts" in some narrow formal or scholarly definition, we should not be eligible to voice an opinion represents a very Soviet-style management. But that wouldn't be out of place in this current council, where democracy has taken such a severe bruising already. It would also open the door for greater abuses: having 'cheque book consultants' and other paid experts determine our growth, our future, our development and our vision. Just hire the 'expert' who will tell you what you want to hear, then hold it up for all to agree upon. What could be simpler?
And council would be, oh so much easier to manage! But as Bertrand Russell quipped, "Even when the experts all agree, they may well be wrong."
We were not elected to simply pay homage to any elite 'experts' and unquestioningly obey their dictates even when they ran counter to our conscience. We were elected to serve this community and try to make it the best we believe it can be. Expressing our opinions - even those annoying dissenting opinions - is part of that.
'Experts' such as the mayor would like to see rule over us also have far too narrow focus for such a wide-ranging task as municipal government. As Harry Truman said, "...an expert was a fella who was afraid to learn anything new because then he wouldn't be an expert any more." That's why we generalists are best in the role of government - because we CAN learn something new.
And so I will continue to express myself, even if the mayor doesn't think that, not being one of his vaunted 'experts,' my opinion is therefore worthless. I will continue to argue this plan for commercial growth is flawed, it's a serious mistake, and it will have long-lasting, deleterious effects on the rest of the town. I am reminded what Henry David Thoreau wrote in Life Without Principle:
The late Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki, author of Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, wrote, "In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s mind there are few." I am glad I am still a beginner and retain my capacity for possibilities.[/indent]
Apparently some think so. In Friday's Collingwood Connection, Mayor Chris Carrier is quoted as dismissing concerns about our precipitous rush towards commercial growth, saying, "If we start pretending that we are experts, we are getting into dangerous ground."
That strikes me as an elitist approach to government more suited to an oligarchy than a democracy. There is no good reason to belittle dissent. Democracy is based on dissent, not on having everyone simply nod their heads, and raise their hands to vote when told to do so.
Here are two online definitions as to what the term 'expert' means...
Quote
a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully;
adept: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude.
adept: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude.
And here's another definition from Wikipedia:
Quote
An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.
None of these definitions indicate any necessity for particular degrees or levels of education. If that were true, none of us would be experts in the realms of planning, policing, financial management, recreation, libraries, museums, schools, traffic management - all among the many things council is expected to understand, debate and make informed decisions about.
Most definitions of expert seem to focus on a person's ability to make wise decisions, not on any paperwork that accompanies them. That's the definition of a 'specialist' - not an 'expert.'
I myself like Arthur Bloch's definition: "An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy."
If only 'experts' were permitted at the table, we'd have few people elected, certainly no one new to municipal government because you'd have to already have experience to get to the table (a conundrum - where would they get that experience in the first place?).
But if you accept that we can learn, we can analyse, we can listen and we can make decisions based on what we have assessed, then we at the table can all become experts in the business of running a municipality - that is, if you accept the term expert as meaning someone who can make sound decisions, perform skillfully and have more knowledge about the tasks at hand than the average resident. Not that we all will, or do - but we all have the potential, if we apply ourselves.
Of course we each have strengths and weaknesses - that's why we have nine people, so our collective expertise covers a wider range. Reduce our numbers and you reduce our collective wisdom, but you also increase our collective weaknesses.
Being the mayor of this or any other town doesn't make anyone an 'expert' by virtue of office alone. The office does not confer wisdom, learning, insight or expertise. Being diligent, researching, asking questions, listening, learning, expanding one's horizons, however, can do so:
Quote
...expertise is a characteristic of individuals and is a consequence of the human capacity for extensive adaptation to physical and social environments.
The assumption that, since we are not "experts" in some narrow formal or scholarly definition, we should not be eligible to voice an opinion represents a very Soviet-style management. But that wouldn't be out of place in this current council, where democracy has taken such a severe bruising already. It would also open the door for greater abuses: having 'cheque book consultants' and other paid experts determine our growth, our future, our development and our vision. Just hire the 'expert' who will tell you what you want to hear, then hold it up for all to agree upon. What could be simpler?
And council would be, oh so much easier to manage! But as Bertrand Russell quipped, "Even when the experts all agree, they may well be wrong."
We were not elected to simply pay homage to any elite 'experts' and unquestioningly obey their dictates even when they ran counter to our conscience. We were elected to serve this community and try to make it the best we believe it can be. Expressing our opinions - even those annoying dissenting opinions - is part of that.
'Experts' such as the mayor would like to see rule over us also have far too narrow focus for such a wide-ranging task as municipal government. As Harry Truman said, "...an expert was a fella who was afraid to learn anything new because then he wouldn't be an expert any more." That's why we generalists are best in the role of government - because we CAN learn something new.
And so I will continue to express myself, even if the mayor doesn't think that, not being one of his vaunted 'experts,' my opinion is therefore worthless. I will continue to argue this plan for commercial growth is flawed, it's a serious mistake, and it will have long-lasting, deleterious effects on the rest of the town. I am reminded what Henry David Thoreau wrote in Life Without Principle:
Quote
If a man walk in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer; but if he spends his whole day as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making earth bald before her time, he is esteemed an industrious and enterprising citizen. As if a town had no interest in its forests but to cut them down!
The late Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki, author of Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, wrote, "In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s mind there are few." I am glad I am still a beginner and retain my capacity for possibilities.[/indent]
