Importance Of Experts Opinions In Search For Knowledge Philosophy Essay

Importance Of Experts Opinions In Search For Knowledge Philosophy Essay Searching through newspapers, TV news or radio I can easily find the so called: opinions of  experts. Almost every article in The Economist, Guardian consists of at least two quotations of economists, sociologists or lawyers who are mainly professors of the world most famous Universities such as  Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yell or workers of the specialised institutes. All these opinions may be useful in gaining knowledge yet would it  be  reasonable to uncritically accept them as  a  definite knowledge or call it my own knowledge? To answer the question of how important are the opinions of experts in the search of  knowledge I will carry out an in depth analysis of  three main aspects. First of all I  will try to examine who an  expert is and what conditions need to be completed in order to  call someone an authority in  a  specific field. Secondly, I will focus on the process of  transforming an  opinion into my  own knowledge. The last aspect will set down where do  experts gain their knowledge and what are the bases of their opinions. I believe that an  analysis of these three dimensions, extended by an examples of my everyday life and based on specific areas of  knowledge, will be,  to large extent, sufficient for answering whether experts and their opinions are able to  provide me  with an adequate evidence to accept it  as  a  reliable component of  my  knowledge. As I was thinking of how to define an expert I ended up realizing how complex the perception of experts is. I would say that there is no one, ideal definition. However as I think about it,  this is  a person who possess an in depth knowledge in a specific field and relying mostly on the empirical evidence makes researches developing his/hers own understanding of  a  specific phenomenon. My brief definition seems to find an  application in everyday life for example professors from Universities specify only in narrow fields and by probing particular factors, they form their own proven conclusions which are further presented in  magazines or books as  experts opinions. As  I  am most interested in  economics it seems most reasonable to evoke an  authority specialising in this area. Let me focus on Leszek Balcerowicz, who is considered an  expert in regulating the interference of  the government on  the market. First of all he  graduated from the economics faculty, performed in  the most respected national and European posts and was an author of the famous Balcerowicz Plan which transformed Polish economy what provided him with an  empirical evidence. To  my  mind he  possesses enough knowledge to form reliable conclusions of  what he  observes in  market. Yet we need to be aware that he  is  devoted to  a  specific economics school monetarism, therefore his opinions may be  to  some extent subordinate to  his personal beliefs or  biases. However whenever I see his opinion being expressed I know that it will for sure affect my understanding of a given case as  his authority based on experience, reasoning and although inevitably emotions and personal attitude are sufficient for me to call him an  authority whose opinion I base on when creating my own conclusions, point of view that I  call my own. It  may be claimed that I treat Balcerowicz as an expert just because I  am  sympathetic to his creed yet even people that have contradictory economical opinions do  accept his high appointments and take his opinion into consideration at least to confront their and Balcerowiczs ideas. Therefore an authority is not only a person that people agree with and share the same opinion but rather  someone who can  provide us with evidence of his claims. The process of transforming opinion into knowledge is also worth focusing. Studying in the IB programme I realized that experts opinions are only hints that help to interpret facts more widely. The most important thing for me was realising that even if  an expert does his/her best to be fair minded a bit of subjectivity is inevitable. Yet as I became aware of it the subjectivity turned out to have its positive effects. Historical experts seem to  thrive on the conflicts between their opinions about events in their search for knowledge and better understanding of  the past. The same event can attract vastly different opinions, for example the causes of the First World War. Marxist historians blame the development of capitalism whether as German historian, Geiss blames the failure of  diplomacy.  [1]  Hence being a critically thinking person the contradiction of experts opinions makes me understand the problem in  a  wider way, analyse of who I  trust more, whose evi dence is strongly supported and hammer out a compromise. Experts are not born specialists, they gain knowledge and due to  work and understanding of  specific processes they may start being perceived as authorities within the area of their interest. Yet my look concerns mainly history, natural sciences, human sciences but when it  comes to ethics the knowledge that books or expertises may provide becomes less usable. For example my mother is for me the expert of husband wife relations instead of  the fact that her knowledge is   based only on personal experience. Yet the evidence she can provide me with her successful relationship with my father is at that point sufficient for me. The evidence is in my opinion the most important thing while starting to believe in  something and gaining my own understanding of a given thing (note that in the presented essay I am not discussing religion beliefs). First of all the opinion needs to have rational grounds. This means that if my history teacher said that the First World War started as  a  consequence of the assassination of Grand Duke Constantine without giving any proof or  explanation I would probably doubt whether it  is reliable and true. However if he supported it with opinions of  other experts, primary sources (which may be for example some political documents) or  other evidence the thesis would became more reliable and therefore probably accepted by  me for further consideration of context. The last aspect of my concern is the origin of the need to rely on the opinions of experts. Looking for example at arts, what do I need experts opinions for? As it is the most subjective area of knowledge at first I almost saw no difference whether a painting was commented by  an expert or  a  non expert. The only difference that I considered worth pointing was the fact that experts may be more used to commenting on arts and therefore their language and ability to  express feelings may be clearer and more focused. However, as I thought about it more I realized that there is at least one more aspect. A good example is De Aardappeleters (The Potato Eaters) by Vincent van Gogh which I found to create different interpretations in  different context. When I showed the painting to my friends, almost all of them found it  ordinary and only one person out of ten recognized the author. However when I showed them the painting once more, but prefacing it with a history of masterpie ce and Van Goghs assumptions (therefore I was acting like an  expert) all of them changed their attitude towards the painting and started to see it with a wider perspective appreciating the atmosphere and bright idea. To my mind when it comes to history experts opinions are one of the most important aspects in  gaining knowledge for me. Even the primary sources, which seem to be most reliable and unspoiled source of knowledge, have to be interpreted as well. Therefore experts act like an interpreters. Due to their contrary opinions they create an  opportunity for me to see different attitudes to the same event. This not only extends my  perspective but also reminds me that looking at things from only one point of view is like not looking at them at all. To conclude in my opinion experts opinions are valuable in the search of knowledge. Authorities opinions may be sometimes misleading, lack evidence but as I take them into consideration while creating my own point of view I believe that it provides me with better analysis of the subject. Each opinion is somehow true therefore, whenever an expert or a  non expert expresses an opinion I think that it expends my perspective and hence makes me  think more specifically on the problem, analyse it and create my own conclusion.