Updated: 2025-08-05
The evidence strongly suggests we are experiencing a significant crisis of expertise, characterized by declining public trust in institutions, expert failures, and the emergence of alternative information ecosystems that challenge traditional authority.
Public trust in government has plummeted to near-historic lows, with only 22% of Americans trusting the government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time” as of 2024 [1]. This represents a dramatic decline from the 1960s when trust levels exceeded 70%. The erosion extends beyond government to encompass media institutions, with accounts from inside NPR describing how the organization “lost America’s trust” through perceived political bias and groupthink [2].
Martin Gurri’s analysis identifies this as part of a broader “revolt of the public” against traditional authority structures, driven by the information revolution that has democratized access to knowledge while exposing expert failures in real-time [3]. The crisis manifests not just as skepticism but as active rejection of expertise across multiple domains.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant institutional failures, with experts and institutions struggling to provide consistent, accurate guidance [4]. Economic experts have faced particular scrutiny, with repeated failures to predict major economic events and an acknowledgment that “economists don’t know what’s going on” regarding fundamental economic dynamics [5][6].
The scientific community faces its own credibility crisis. Research fraud has become industrialized, with one analysis finding that fraudulent publications have increased dramatically [7]. The replication crisis suggests that many published research findings may be false or unreliable [8]. High-profile cases, such as Harvard revoking tenure from a star business professor over research misconduct, highlight how corruption reaches elite institutions [9].
Traditional gatekeepers have lost their monopoly on information distribution. Alternative media platforms, from Substack newsletters to podcasts, now compete directly with established outlets [10]. This shift has created what some describe as a “coordination problem” where smart people make collectively poor decisions due to misaligned incentives and information bubbles [11].
The New York Times and other legacy media outlets are criticized for losing their way, prioritizing ideological narratives over objective reporting [12]. This has created space for “podcast bros” and other non-traditional information sources that, despite criticism of contributing to “brain rot,” often provide perspectives excluded from mainstream discourse [13].
The crisis reflects deeper tensions about status and class. Experts increasingly form a distinct class with shared educational backgrounds, cultural values, and economic interests that may diverge from the broader public [14]. The “competence crisis” threatens complex systems as ideological considerations sometimes override merit in hiring and promotion decisions [15].
Some argue the crisis is fundamentally about status competition, with credentialed experts defending their privileged position against challenges from outsiders [16]. This dynamic creates perverse incentives where experts may prioritize maintaining their status over acknowledging uncertainty or error.
Not all observers view this as purely negative. Some defend the rise of “non-experts,” arguing that specialized knowledge can create blind spots and that outsider perspectives often provide valuable insights [17]. The democratization of information, while chaotic, has exposed many expert failures that might otherwise have remained hidden.
The challenge lies in distinguishing legitimate skepticism from destructive cynicism. As one analysis notes, the question becomes “Can you trust anybody?” in an environment where traditional authorities have lost credibility but alternatives may be equally unreliable [18].
The crisis of expertise appears to be a genuine phenomenon with multiple reinforcing causes: technological disruption of information systems, repeated expert failures, institutional corruption, and growing class divisions. Resolution likely requires fundamental reforms to how expertise is developed, validated, and communicated, along with greater humility from experts about the limits of their knowledge. The path forward remains uncertain, but ignoring the crisis risks further erosion of social trust and institutional effectiveness.
Pew Research Center - Documents the dramatic decline in public trust in government from over 70% in the 1960s to just 22% in 2024.
The Free Press - A 25-year NPR veteran explains how the organization lost public trust through political bias and lack of viewpoint diversity.
Martin Gurri - The Revolt of the Public - Argues that the information revolution has enabled a public revolt against traditional authority and expertise.
Yascha Mounk - Frances Lee and Stephen Macedo discuss widespread institutional failures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Economist - Acknowledges that economists struggle to understand and predict fundamental economic dynamics.
Not On Your Team - Critiques the repeated failures of economic experts to predict major economic events.
Science.org - Reports on how scientific fraud has become industrialized with dramatically increasing fraudulent publications.
NCBI/PMC - Examines evidence suggesting many published research findings may be false or unreliable.
WGBH News - Reports on Harvard’s rare decision to revoke tenure from a professor over research misconduct.
The Honest Broker - Identifies warning signs of institutional decline and the rise of alternative information sources.
The Seeds of Science - Explains how coordination problems lead smart people to make collectively poor decisions.
The Economist - Critiques how the New York Times has prioritized ideology over objective reporting.
Nathan Cofnas - Discusses the rise of alternative media like podcasts and criticisms of their influence.
Conspicuous Cognition - Analyzes how elite failures have triggered populist backlash against expert authority.
Palladium Magazine - Argues that ideological hiring threatens the competence needed to maintain complex systems.
Slow Boring - Frames the crisis of expertise as fundamentally about status competition.
Aporia Magazine - Defends the value of non-expert perspectives in challenging expert blind spots.
Wall Street Journal - Questions whether anyone can be trusted in the current information environment.
In recent years, many observers have warned that we are facing a “crisis of expertise” – a decline in the public’s trust in experts across fields such as science, medicine, economics, and governance. Examples often cited include populist political movements and misinformation campaigns where expert advice is dismissed or derided. For instance, during the 2016 Brexit campaign a leading proponent quipped, “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts… saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong” – a statement that struck a chord with voters’ skepticism toward the claims of economists, scientists, and other authorities [1]. Similarly, American commentator Tom Nichols argues that people increasingly reject expert guidance as a way to assert their independence, even treating “ignorance… as an actual virtue” and equating “to reject the advice of experts” with personal autonomy from “nefarious elites” [2]. This “death of expertise” thesis holds that anti-intellectual attitudes, amplified by the internet’s leveling of information, have led many to question or overrule professionals in matters ranging from medical treatment to public policy, sometimes with harmful consequences [2]. In Nichols’ view, the erosion of respect for credentialed knowledge – combined with the ease of finding self-confirming information online – is undermining rational debate and decision-making in society [2].
There is certainly evidence of heightened skepticism toward experts. Controversies around climate change, vaccines, and other scientific issues often feature segments of the public dismissing the scientific consensus as biased or elitist. In the United States and elsewhere, trust in institutions and professions has become sharply polarized. People from different political camps may accuse scientists or other experts of having hidden agendas: for example, some on the left suspect researchers of being influenced by corporate interests or prejudices, while some on the right portray experts as ideologically driven technocrats [3]. High-profile expert failures and mixed messages – such as economists failing to predict financial crises or public health authorities changing guidelines during a pandemic – have further fueled public wariness. When experts are perceived to have been “consistently wrong,” as Michael Gove suggested, it validates the feeling that expert opinion might be no more reliable than lay opinion in certain cases [1]. Moreover, the democratization of knowledge access means that anyone can Google information or join online communities that bolster their own beliefs, undermining the traditional gatekeeping role of expert institutions. These trends contribute to a sense that expertise is “under siege” in the public square.
However, the notion of an absolute collapse in trust may be overstated. Surveys do not show a universal loss of faith in expertise or science across the board. In fact, longitudinal data (e.g. the General Social Survey in the U.S.) indicate that public confidence in the scientific community has remained robust over time [3]. Americans today express more trust in scientists than in almost any other societal institution except the military [3]. Fields like medicine and education have seen modest declines in public confidence over the decades, yet they are still held in higher esteem than institutions such as government, the media, or big business [3]. Globally as well, most people continue to value scientific knowledge and expert guidance in principle. For example, confidence in the benefits of science has slightly increased since the 1990s in the U.S., and Americans tend to have more faith in science than the publics of many other countries [3]. This suggests that we are not witnessing a wholesale rejection of expertise or science itself. Rather, people still generally trust experts in the abstract and appreciate the need for expert knowledge – a fact often obscured by the loud public conflicts over specific issues.
Sociologists and analysts argue that what we are experiencing is a more nuanced crisis of legitimacy, not a simple anti-expert revolt. Gil Eyal, who studies the relationship between knowledge and power, describes today’s situation as a “pushmi-pullyu” dynamic of unprecedented reliance on expert knowledge alongside heightened skepticism and scrutiny [4]. Modern societies depend on experts more than ever to navigate complex, high-stakes problems. Yet precisely because expert advice now heavily influences policies and impacts everyday life, it has become more politicized – subject to questioning and contestation from various publics. Eyal notes that the increasing “scientization of politics” (i.e. using scientific expertise to guide policy) has provoked a corresponding “politicization of science,” wherein scientific findings and expert pronouncements are frequently entangled with political identities and agendas [4]. These two processes feed into each other in a “recursive crisis of legitimacy” – a cycle in which experts’ authority is continually challenged even as we continue to depend on their knowledge [4]. In other words, the public’s skepticism is not simply born of ignorance; it is also a reaction to the real power that experts wield in shaping policy and society. Questions of who gets to be considered an expert, how much deference they should be given, and who holds them accountable when they err are at the heart of this crisis [3]. Healthy debate over these questions can be beneficial, up to a point. Eyal and others suggest that some degree of pushback against experts – asking for justification, considering alternative viewpoints – is “natural and appropriate” given that experts are fallible humans with their own biases and interests [3]. Such pushback can even improve science and policymaking, by forcing experts to recalibrate or explain their claims more clearly.
The predicament, then, is that we both need experts and distrust them in certain contexts. Are we truly living through a “crisis of expertise”? Many scholars would answer yes, but they stress that it’s a complex crisis. It manifests in high-profile clashes (like populist politicians rallying against academic elites, or segments of the public refusing vaccines despite medical advice) that create the impression of wholesale anti-scientific sentiment. These clashes are real and concerning – they expose how misinformation, populist rhetoric, and resentment toward “elitism” can erode the public’s willingness to heed expert counsel. Indeed, commentators like Nichols warn that if disregard for expertise becomes commonplace, society risks making disastrous decisions in areas like public health, the environment, and national security [2]. At the same time, beneath the noisy conflicts, general respect for expertise lurks in how people still fly on airplanes designed by engineers, take medications tested by medical experts, and use technology built by specialists. The “crisis” is less about people abandoning expert knowledge entirely, and more about redefining the relationship between experts and the public. In this redefinition, accountability and transparency are key: experts must communicate clearly, acknowledge uncertainties, and avoid the perception of overstepping into political advocacy, while citizens must remain open to credible evidence even when it challenges their preconceptions.
In conclusion, we are indeed in a fraught period for expertise, marked by tension and recalibration rather than total collapse. The phrase “crisis of expertise” captures genuine challenges – visible in the skepticism toward expert pronouncements on pressing issues and the ease with which falsehoods can spread – but it also risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if we paint the situation too bleakly. A more accurate view is that society is renegotiating how expertise earns trust and authority. Experts are under the microscope, expected to prove their legitimacy in the public eye, while large segments of the public are learning (sometimes painfully) that not all “alternative facts” are equal. Whether this era will ultimately undermine expert authority or lead to a healthier, more dialogic interplay between experts and citizens depends on how both sides respond. If experts engage with the public humbly and transparently, and if the public learns to balance healthy skepticism with respect for specialized knowledge, the current “crisis” can be overcome. In the meantime, it’s clear that complacency is no option – both experts and laypeople must actively work to rebuild trust, combat misinformation, and reaffirm why, despite its imperfections, expertise remains indispensable in tackling the complex problems of modern life.
Sources:
Richard Portes (2017) – “Who needs experts?” (London Business School). Portes defends the value of expertise in response to rising populist skepticism. He cites UK politician Michael Gove’s famous line, “I think the people… have had enough of experts,” as emblematic of public distrust. Portes argues that while experts do make mistakes (e.g. economists missing the 2008 crisis), their knowledge is still crucial for informed policymaking. Source: London Business School – Who Needs Experts?
Tom Nichols (2017) – “How America Lost Faith in Expertise” (Foreign Affairs). Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise, contends that anti-intellectualism and information overload have led many to reject experts. He observes that some now regard “ignorance… as a virtue” and dismiss expert advice as elitist, a trend he calls the “death of expertise.” Nichols warns that this erosion of respect for experts – fueled by the internet leveling the field between knowledge and opinion – poses a “giant problem” for democracy and decision-making. Source: Foreign Affairs – How America Lost Faith in Expertise
Musa al-Gharbi (2020) – “The Crisis of Expertise” (Heterodox Academy blog). Al-Gharbi analyzes whether there truly is a “war on science” or “death of expertise.” Citing survey data, he notes there has been no general collapse in public trust in science – Americans still rank the scientific community as one of the most trusted institutions. However, he highlights a paradox: overall faith in science coexists with intense polarization over specific issues (climate change, vaccines, etc.), where people question experts’ motives. The article, drawing on sociologist Gil Eyal’s work, suggests reframing the problem: rather than simply bemoaning public ignorance, we should study how expert authority is built, maintained, and contested in society. Source: Heterodox Academy – The Crisis of Expertise
Gil Eyal (2019) – The Crisis of Expertise (Polity Press book summary via Columbia University). Eyal, a sociologist, argues that we are not witnessing a one-dimensional “assault on science,” but a dual phenomenon of increased reliance on experts alongside increased skepticism. He describes a “recursive crisis of legitimacy” wherein the growing use of scientific experts in policymaking (the scientization of politics) provokes greater political contestation of science itself. This feedback loop leads to an unstable mix of authority and doubt. Eyal’s view is that the “crisis of expertise” is fundamentally about struggles over the role of experts – who is considered an expert, how much influence they should have, and how to ensure their accountability – rather than a wholesale rejection of knowledge. Source: Columbia News – The Crisis of Expertise (Book announcement)
Based on the provided sources, the consensus is that we are living through a significant crisis of expertise. This crisis is not simply about experts being wrong, but is a multi-faceted problem rooted in declining public trust, repeated and high-profile expert failures, and a transformed information environment that has fundamentally altered the relationship between the public and institutions of authority [3, 4, 19].
The crisis is characterized by several key factors:
Empirical data shows a stark decline in public confidence in major institutions. Trust in the U.S. government, for example, has fallen from over 75% in the early 1960s to near-historic lows of under 20% today, indicating a broad erosion of faith in the institutions that rely on and credential experts [4]. This decline is fueled by a series of significant and visible failures by experts across various domains:
The digital revolution has fundamentally changed the information landscape. Martin Gurri argues in The Revolt of the Public that the internet and social media have shattered the information monopoly once held by legacy institutions like governments, academia, and major news outlets [3]. This has empowered the public to access alternative information, openly criticize official narratives, and form networks outside of traditional authority. This new dynamic means that expert pronouncements are no longer received by a passive audience but are actively contested in a chaotic digital public square [3, 11].
This is exacerbated by the declining trustworthiness of the media gatekeepers themselves. Former insiders and critics argue that institutions like NPR and The New York Times have lost credibility due to perceived ideological bias and internal turmoil, pushing audiences to seek information elsewhere [13, 15].
Several analyses argue the crisis is not just about competence but has become entangled with status, class, and politics [2, 19]. In this view, “expertise” is now perceived by many not as a source of objective knowledge, but as a tool used by a high-status, highly educated class to enforce its own social and political preferences. When experts opine on contentious issues like COVID-19 policies or climate change, their recommendations are often seen as expressions of their social standing rather than neutral, factual advice [19, 20].
This perception fuels a populist backlash, where distrust of experts becomes a way of resisting a perceived ruling class [2]. This transforms disagreements over facts into much deeper conflicts over status and identity, making them harder to resolve [20].
The crisis also stems from the inherent difficulty of managing modern, complex systems. Even with good intentions, experts and institutions can fail due to coordination problems, where individually rational actions lead to collectively poor outcomes [18]. As our systems (in technology, finance, and governance) become more complex, they become more fragile and susceptible to a “competence crisis,” where the skills required to manage them are increasingly scarce or misaligned with institutional incentives [21]. This suggests that the failures are not just the fault of individuals, but are baked into the structure of our institutions [1].
In conclusion, the evidence points to a deep and multifaceted crisis of expertise. It is driven by a feedback loop of real expert failures, plummeting public trust, a revolutionary shift in the information environment empowering public skepticism, and the entanglement of expertise with social status and political polarization [3, 4, 19].
The question of whether we are living through a crisis of expertise revolves around the erosion of public trust in experts and institutions, failures in expert-led decision-making, and systemic issues like fraud, bias, and incompetence across fields such as science, economics, media, and government. Based on a review of the provided sources and supplementary analysis, the evidence strongly suggests that yes, we are indeed experiencing such a crisis. This is not merely a perception driven by misinformation or populism but is rooted in repeated institutional failures, declining trust metrics, and structural problems that undermine the credibility of expertise. However, this crisis is nuanced—it is often intertwined with issues of status, coordination, and elite capture rather than a wholesale rejection of knowledge [18][19]. Below, I outline the key evidence, counterpoints, and implications.
Public trust in key institutions has plummeted, signaling a broad crisis of authority. For instance, Pew Research data shows that trust in the U.S. federal government has fallen from highs of over 70% in the 1960s to around 20% in 2024, with similar declines in trust toward experts in science and medicine [4]. This erosion is linked to high-profile failures, such as the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, where institutions like the CDC and WHO provided inconsistent guidance on masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, eroding credibility [1]. Political scientists Frances Lee and Stephen Macedo argue that these failures stemmed from politicization and bureaucratic inertia, exacerbating public skepticism [1].
On a broader scale, Martin Gurri’s analysis in The Revolt of the Public describes a “crisis of authority” fueled by digital information flows that expose elite shortcomings, leading to populist revolts against experts perceived as out of touch [3]. This is echoed in discussions of elite failures driving backlash, where policies on immigration, trade, and public health have alienated the public, fostering anti-expert sentiment [2]. The Iraq War provides a historical precedent: experts in intelligence and foreign policy promoted flawed narratives about weapons of mass destruction, teaching the public to distrust official expertise [9].
Economics exemplifies expert fallibility. Economists failed to predict or manage events like the 2008 financial crisis, the post-COVID inflation surge, and ongoing economic volatility, leading to admissions that “economists don’t know what’s going on” [5][6]. This has real-world consequences, as policies based on faulty models (e.g., underestimating inflation risks) have fueled inequality and distrust [5].
In science, the crisis is even more acute due to fraud and reproducibility issues. A 2017 analysis estimates that most published research findings may be false, driven by incentives like “publish or perish” that prioritize sensational results over rigor [8]. Recent scandals, including Harvard revoking tenure from a star professor accused of data fabrication [12] and an “industry” of scientific fraud involving fake papers and manipulated data [21], highlight systemic problems. Vox reports that while fraud is rarely prosecuted criminally, it undermines fields like medicine and psychology, where retracted studies have influenced public policy [7]. These issues contribute to a perception that expertise is compromised by careerism and bias.
The media, once a gatekeeper of expert knowledge, has lost credibility. A veteran NPR editor revealed how ideological biases led to slanted coverage on topics like Russiagate and COVID origins, alienating audiences and eroding trust [13]. Similarly, The New York Times has been criticized for prioritizing narrative over objectivity, as detailed in analyses of its internal conflicts [15]. Broader warnings about media manipulation—such as “ten warning signs” of propaganda [14]—and questions like “Can you trust anybody?” in an era of AI and influencers [16] amplify the crisis. This has created space for “podcast bros” and non-experts to fill the void, often spreading misinformation but also challenging elite consensus [11].
The crisis is not just about individual failures but systemic dynamics. One view frames it as a status issue: experts derive authority from social prestige, but when they fail publicly, it triggers a backlash against perceived elitism [18][19]. Coordination problems explain why “smart people do dumb things”—in complex systems, experts in siloed fields struggle to collaborate, leading to cascading errors [17]. A “competence crisis” warns that declining standards in hiring and training (e.g., due to diversity initiatives or bureaucratic bloat) threaten complex systems like infrastructure and tech [20].
Not all sources view this as an unmitigated crisis. Some defend non-experts, arguing that laypeople and outsiders often spot flaws in expert consensus, as seen in citizen journalism during COVID [10]. Nathan Cofnas critiques “podcast bros” for superficiality but acknowledges they democratize discourse, potentially correcting expert overreach [11]. Additionally, while trust is low, surveys show selective trust persists—e.g., people still rely on experts in personal matters like healthcare, per supplementary data from Gallup (which reports 71% trust in medical scientists as of 2023) [22]. This suggests the crisis is more about institutional expertise than individual competence.
Overall, the converging evidence from institutional failures, fraud scandals, and trust declines indicates we are living through a crisis of expertise. This has fueled populism, misinformation, and policy paralysis, as seen in vaccine hesitancy and economic discontent [2][3]. To mitigate it, reforms like better accountability (e.g., prosecuting scientific fraud [7]), transparency in media [13][15], and bridging elite-public divides [18] are essential. Without addressing root causes like status hierarchies and coordination failures [17][19], the crisis risks deepening, undermining societal progress. However, this moment also offers opportunities for renewal, as non-experts and reformers challenge complacency [10].
The question of whether we are experiencing a crisis of expertise has become increasingly prominent in public discourse, with compelling evidence suggesting we are indeed facing significant challenges to the authority and influence of expert knowledge in society.
Multiple indicators point to declining public trust in expertise. Survey data shows that confidence in scientific institutions, while still relatively high compared to other institutions, has become increasingly polarized along political lines [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic exemplified this tension, as public health experts faced unprecedented scrutiny and resistance to their recommendations, despite the scientific consensus on measures like vaccines and masking [2].
Tom Nichols argues that we are witnessing “the death of expertise,” characterized by a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of the division between professionals and laypeople [3]. This phenomenon extends beyond mere healthy skepticism to what he describes as active hostility toward established knowledge and an aggressive assertion that all opinions are equally valid.
The rise of social media has fundamentally altered how information spreads and is validated. False information often travels faster and wider than accurate information on social platforms, creating what some researchers call “truth decay” – the diminishing role of facts in public life [4]. This environment allows non-experts to gain large followings by challenging established expertise, often without the accountability mechanisms that traditionally governed expert discourse.
Several interconnected factors have contributed to this crisis. The democratization of information through the internet, while beneficial in many ways, has eliminated traditional gatekeepers and made it difficult for non-specialists to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources [5]. Additionally, the increasing complexity and specialization of expert knowledge has created a gap between experts and the public, making expert conclusions seem distant from everyday experience [2].
Political polarization has transformed previously apolitical expert domains into battlegrounds for partisan conflict. Climate science, public health measures, and economic policy have all become deeply politicized, with party affiliation often predicting attitudes toward expert consensus more strongly than education level [1].
However, some scholars argue that reports of expertise’s death are exaggerated. Harry Collins suggests that while there are challenges, expertise remains essential and valued in many contexts – people still seek doctors when ill and engineers to build bridges [6]. The issue may be less about rejecting all expertise and more about which experts to trust and when.
Furthermore, historical perspective reveals that tensions between experts and publics are not new. Similar concerns arose during other periods of rapid technological and social change [5]. Some argue that current challenges represent a renegotiation rather than a complete breakdown of the relationship between experts and society.
The consequences of this crisis are significant. Diminished trust in expertise can lead to poor policy decisions, public health crises, and inability to address complex challenges like climate change [4]. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated both the vital importance of expertise and the dangerous consequences when it is rejected.
Addressing this crisis requires multiple approaches. Experts need to improve communication, acknowledging uncertainty while clearly conveying consensus [2]. Educational institutions must enhance public understanding of how expertise is developed and validated [6]. Media organizations need to better distinguish between legitimate debate and false equivalence [3].
Ultimately, while expertise faces serious challenges, its complete rejection would be catastrophic for addressing complex modern problems. The path forward likely requires not abandoning expertise but reforming how it is produced, communicated, and integrated into democratic decision-making.
[1] Pew Research Center (2022) - Documents declining and increasingly polarized trust in scientific institutions, particularly along political lines. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/
[2] Grundmann, Reiner (2022) - Analyzes how COVID-19 exposed tensions between expert authority and public skepticism, arguing for better expert communication. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2021.2018701
[3] Nichols, Tom (2017) - Argues strongly that we are experiencing a dangerous “death of expertise” driven by internet culture and anti-intellectualism. The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. Oxford University Press.
[4] RAND Corporation (2018) - Introduces the concept of “truth decay” and documents the diminishing role of facts in American public life. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html
[5] Eyal, Gil (2019) - Provides historical context, arguing that crises of expertise are recurring phenomena during periods of social change. The Crisis of Expertise. Polity Press.
[6] Collins, Harry (2014) - Offers a more optimistic view, arguing that while challenged, expertise remains essential and valued in many contexts. Are We All Scientific Experts Now?. Polity Press.
Many observers suggest that yes – we are living through a “crisis of expertise.” This phrase refers to a widespread erosion of public trust in experts and professional knowledge. Commentators like Tom Nichols argue that society is experiencing a “death of expertise” – a rejection of expert authority in favor of personal beliefs or internet-fueled misinformation [1]. Nichols notes that many people now confidently rely on quick Google or Wikipedia information and treat “mastery and wisdom” as irrelevant, a trend that gives cover to “corrosive ignorance” [1]. In other words, people increasingly feel “we’re all experts”, and they dismiss the value of trained specialists. This attitude is often framed as a populist rebellion against elitism, but it can lead to public debates where evidence and expert analysis are ignored or shouted down by opinion and emotion (www.beyondintractability.org) (comment.org). Recent events lend credence to the idea of an expertise crisis: from segments of the public denying scientific consensus on vaccines or climate change, to widespread acceptance of conspiracy theories over expert advice. These patterns highlight a growing gap between experts and portions of the public.
Empirical data also show signs of declining trust in experts. Surveys in the U.S. and elsewhere indicate that confidence in scientific and medical authorities has fallen in recent years. For example, a Pew Research Center study found that the share of Americans expressing a high level of confidence in scientists dropped from about 87% at the start of 2020 to around 73% in 2023 [2]. This decline was especially sharp among certain groups during the COVID-19 pandemic – the proportion of Republicans with low trust in scientists roughly tripled (from 14% to 38%) over that period [2]. While a majority still trusts experts generally, the overall trend is downward, and trust has become more politically polarized (www.washingtonpost.com) (www.pewresearch.org). Similar skepticism is evident in other domains: public health officials, climate scientists, economists, and other experts have all seen sections of the public question their credibility and even outright reject their recommendations. High-profile mistakes or conflicting messages (as happened early in the pandemic) can amplify this distrust. In short, many people today are less inclined to defer to expert authority than in the past, fueling the perception of a crisis in expertise.
Why is this happening? Analysts have proposed a variety of explanations for the decline in trust and the “crisis of expertise.” These factors are often intertwined:
Information Glut and the Internet: The digital age has democratized information, allowing anyone with a smartphone to access facts (or falsehoods). Nichols and others argue this creates an illusion of knowledge – people feel as informed as experts after a quick web search, undermining respect for genuine expertise (www.foreignaffairs.com) (www.foreignaffairs.com). In effect, “Google-fueled amateurs” believe they know as much as specialists [1]. This “dumbing down” effect, combined with mass access to higher education, has blurred the lines between expert and layperson in the public mind [3].
Erosion of Institutional Trust: Broader social trends play a role. Political scientist Daniel Drezner contends that rising inequality and elitism have fostered general distrust toward “established authorities”, including experts [3]. When people feel left behind or suspect that elites serve only their own interests, they become skeptical of the knowledge those elites produce. Scandals or errors among professional authorities (e.g. financial experts missing the 2008 crash) also dent the credibility of expert institutions.
Relativism and Culture: Some point to intellectual currents that question the very idea of objective truth. Postmodernist and relativist philosophies, which gained influence in academia, can filter into popular culture and erode confidence that experts are truly “right” about facts [4]. Psychologically, many individuals also rely on intuition or traditional beliefs. Studies find that “magical thinking” and conspiracy theories are surprisingly common even in advanced societies, and these mindsets clash with scientific expertise [5]. People with such views may see expert consensus as “just another opinion” or even a cover-up, rather than a reflection of reality.
Politicization of Knowledge: Many controversies around expertise arise because scientific findings have political or economic consequences. In areas like climate change, vaccines, or public health, accepting expert guidance often implies support for policies that some groups oppose. This entangles science with ideology. Experts may be viewed as biased or agenda-driven if their advice could lead to regulations or social changes that threaten certain values or interests (heterodoxacademy.org) (heterodoxacademy.org). Partisans on both left and right accuse experts of “having an agenda” when research conclusions conflict with their political beliefs (heterodoxacademy.org). Thus, polarization feeds distrust: people tend to reject expert claims that contradict their partisan identity or economic interests.
Deliberate Disinformation: A cynical but real factor is that organized campaigns have actively undermined public trust in expert knowledge. Historian Naomi Oreskes and others have documented how industries and lobby groups sow doubt about scientific consensus to protect their own interests [6]. Famous examples include the tobacco industry casting uncertainty on smoking’s dangers and fossil-fuel interests challenging climate science. These “merchants of doubt” use media and **fake experts to blur the lines, making the public question well-established expert conclusions (www.scientificamerican.com) (www.scientificamerican.com). Over decades, such efforts have had a corrosive effect on trust – if people hear constant conflicting claims, they may stop believing any experts at all.
Not everyone agrees that the situation is an outright collapse of trust in expertise. Some evidence suggests a more nuanced picture. For instance, surveys show that science and experts are still held in high regard relative to many other institutions – in the U.S., the scientific community remains one of the most trusted institutions (second only to the military), even if trust has declined slightly (heterodoxacademy.org). Sociologist Gil Eyal argues that what looks like a “crisis of expertise” is a two-sided phenomenon rather than a universal rejection of experts [7]. He describes it as a “pushmi-pullyu” dynamic: society relies on expert knowledge more than ever, yet at the same time people are more suspicious and critical of experts’ claims [7]. In Eyal’s view, there is no simple “war on all science” – the distrust is focused mainly on “regulatory” or policy-linked sciences, where expert advice directly informs public policy (e.g. epidemiology, climate science, economics) [7]. Fields of science that stay in the lab or have no political impact are not under the same level of attack. This implies that the conflict often arises where expert knowledge intersects with people’s lives and interests. Who gets to be considered an expert, and how much influence they should have over policy, becomes hotly contested (heterodoxacademy.org). Eyal and others note that skepticism toward experts can sometimes be “natural and appropriate” – especially when decisions are high-stakes, expert predictions have uncertainties, or experts have made visible mistakes in the past (heterodoxacademy.org). In fact, a healthy scientific process encourages scrutiny and debate. From this perspective, some level of public distrust is a corrective force against technocratic overreach, pushing experts to explain themselves better and to be accountable [7].
So, are we in a crisis of expertise? By most accounts, we are witnessing a real and worrying decline in the public’s willingness to trust experts, with serious implications. When large segments of society reject expert guidance – on vaccines, climate change, public health, or other critical issues – it becomes harder to solve collective problems, and misinformation can flourish. Nichols warns that a world where everyone’s opinion is treated as equally valid can “[give] cover to corrosive ignorance,” ultimately harming society [1]. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic showed how distrust in expertise can translate into resistance to health measures, spread of false cures, and higher death tolls. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that this “crisis” is not absolute: people still rely on doctors, engineers, and other experts in many areas of daily life, and overall scientific progress continues. The challenge lies in bridging the gap between experts and the public. To address the expertise crisis, experts and institutions may need to earn back trust – by communicating more clearly, acknowledging uncertainties, and engaging with the public’s concerns (www.theguardian.com) (www.washingtonpost.com). In summary, we are living through a moment of serious tension between expert knowledge and public perception. The erosion of trust in expertise is real, driven by multiple factors, and it demands attention because society runs on expert input – and losing that foundation is indeed a crisis [1].
Sources:
Tom Nichols (2017) – The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. Nichols argues that the public’s rejection of expert knowledge – fueled by a false sense of “egalitarian” knowledge from the internet – has led to a “death of expertise.” He warns that when feelings and uninformed opinions are elevated over facts, expertise becomes meaningless, creating “a world where mastery and wisdom are treated as irrelevant” and giving rise to dangerous ignorance (comment.org). Source: Comment Magazine interview. (Nichols’s view is also detailed in his 2017 book and Foreign Affairs essay.) [^](https://comment.org/the-death-of-expertise-as-a-decline-of-trust/)
Brian Kennedy & Alec Tyson (Pew Research, 2023) – Survey on Trust in Scientists. These researchers present data showing that public confidence in scientists has declined in the United States since before the COVID-19 pandemic. They report that in 2023 about 73% of Americans had at least a “fair amount” of trust in scientists, down from 86–87% in 2019/early 2020. The decline was most pronounced among Republicans – the share of Republicans with low trust in scientists roughly tripled from 14% in 2020 to 38% in 2023, indicating growing polarization in trust toward experts (www.pewresearch.org) (www.pewresearch.org). Source: Pew Research Center report. [^](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/)
Daniel Drezner (2017) – The Ideas Industry (and commentary on expert trust). Drezner suggests that the so-called crisis of expertise is tied to a broader erosion of trust in institutions, exacerbated by rising inequality. As disparities grow, the public becomes more cynical about “established authorities,” including experts, viewing them as distant elites not serving ordinary people’s interests. This skepticism toward the “expert class” is part of a populist backlash against all elites. Drezner sees the decline in trust as partly rooted in these socio-economic trends that make people less willing to defer to credentialed experts. Source: Analysis summarized in Federico Brandmayr (2021), citing Drezner. [^](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368431020910298)
Steven Pinker (2018) – Critique of Relativism and “Post-Truth” Culture. Pinker and others have argued that intellectual trends like postmodernism contributed to the expertise crisis by undermining the notion of objective truth. He points out that decades of academic relativism – where truths are seen as subjective or socially constructed – have inadvertently legitimized public skepticism toward scientific facts. In this view, the spread of “anything goes” relativism from campus to culture has made it easier for people to dismiss experts, since all knowledge is seen as just another “narrative.” Pinker sees this as one factor enabling today’s “post-truth” mindset, where scientific evidence can be rejected as just one opinion. Source: Interpretation based on Pinker’s commentary (summarized in Brandmayr 2021). [^](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368431020910298)
J. Eric Oliver & Thomas Wood (2018) – Public Belief in Conspiracies and the Supernatural. These political scientists note that a large segment of the public holds irrational or pseudoscientific beliefs – for example, belief in conspiracy theories, astrology, or other forms of magical thinking. In their book Enchanted America, they argue such intuitionist thinking makes people distrust scientific experts who contradict those beliefs. This cultural backdrop means that even in modern societies, many individuals are predisposed to be skeptical of expert knowledge, favoring folk wisdom or conspiratorial explanations instead. Oliver & Wood see this enduring popularity of “magical beliefs” as one contributor to the crisis of expertise, especially when coupled with uncertainty or social stress (journals.sagepub.com). Source: Their research as summarized by Brandmayr (2021). [^](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368431020910298)
Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway (2010) – Merchants of Doubt. Oreskes and Conway document how deliberate disinformation campaigns have undermined public trust in expert science. They show that industries and political groups strategically sow doubt about scientific findings to prevent policy action – for example, tobacco companies casting uncertainty on smoking’s harms, or oil lobbyists questioning climate change. This “manufactured doubt” strategy, often amplified by compliant media, has “skewed public understanding” of many issues (www.scientificamerican.com). As a result, the public becomes unsure what to believe and grows suspicious of official experts (seeing them as possibly biased or wrong). Oreskes argues that this corrosive skepticism is intentional, and it significantly contributes to the current crisis of expertise by eroding the credibility of science in the public eye (www.scientificamerican.com). Source: *Merchants of Doubt (book) and interviews.* [^](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/cross-check/merchants-of-doubt-author-slams-corrosive-climate-change-skepticism/)
Gil Eyal (2019) – The Crisis of Expertise (sociological perspective). Eyal offers a nuanced view: he agrees there is heightened public skepticism of experts, but he emphasizes that society also depends on expertise more than ever. He describes a “two-headed pushmi-pullyu” situation – an unprecedented reliance on expert knowledge alongside increased suspicion of that knowledge [7]. According to Eyal, the conflict is most intense in areas where science meets policy (“regulatory science”), and it raises questions about ** who qualifies as an expert and how experts should interact with democracy** (heterodoxacademy.org). Importantly, Eyal notes that some skepticism is justified and inevitable. Given the complexity of modern problems and the fact that experts can err, public questioning of expert claims can be a “natural and appropriate” reaction in certain cases (heterodoxacademy.org). Rather than a straightforward war on expertise, Eyal sees the current moment as a call to redefine the social contract between experts and the public, improving transparency, accountability, and public engagement to rebuild trust. Source: Eyal’s analysis (2019), as cited by Musa al-Gharbi (2020). [^](https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/social-science-crisis-expertise/)
The question of whether we are living through a “crisis of expertise” is a central debate in contemporary society. While the term “crisis” implies a sudden and catastrophic breakdown, the reality is more complex. There is substantial evidence to suggest a profound and growing disconnect between experts and segments of the public, leading to an erosion of trust in established knowledge and the institutions that produce it. This phenomenon is not a simple rejection of all expertise, but rather a multifaceted challenge driven by technological, political, and cultural shifts.
Several converging factors support the argument that the traditional authority of experts is under significant threat.
The Rise of the Internet and Social Media: The digital age has fundamentally altered the information ecosystem. While it has democratized access to information, it has also flattened the hierarchy of knowledge. On platforms engineered for engagement rather than accuracy, a peer-reviewed scientific study can appear alongside a conspiracy theory with equal visual weight. This environment fosters the illusion that all opinions are equally valid, a phenomenon political scientist Tom Nichols calls “the death of expertise” [1]. Algorithms create filter bubbles and echo chambers, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and making it easier for misinformation and disinformation to spread rapidly and gain undeserved credibility [6].
The Politicization of Factual Issues: Increasingly, scientific and factual matters have become proxies for political and cultural battles. Issues like climate change, vaccine efficacy, and public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have been framed not as technical problems to be solved with expert input, but as questions of political identity and personal freedom. When political leaders and media figures actively cast doubt on institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), public trust inevitably erodes. This turns adherence to expert consensus into a partisan act, making reasoned debate based on shared facts nearly impossible [3].
Past Failures and Perceived Bias of Experts: Trust in experts is not unconditional and has been damaged by high-profile failures. Intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq War, the inability of economists to predict the 2008 financial crisis, and shifting public health guidance during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic have all contributed to public skepticism [4]. These events create a lasting impression that experts are either fallible, biased, or serving interests other than the public good (e.g., corporations or political agendas). This perception fuels the belief that elite institutions are untrustworthy and that their guidance should be questioned or ignored.
Growing Individualism and Mistrust of Institutions: Nichols argues that a culture of narcissism contributes to the crisis, where individuals feel their own uninformed opinions are as valid as an expert’s considered judgment [1]. This is compounded by a broader decline in trust across nearly all major institutions, including government, media, and academia. A 2022 Pew Research Center study found that only 29% of U.S. adults have a great deal of confidence in medical scientists to act in the best interests of the public, a significant drop from 40% in 2020 [2]. This suggests a broader disillusionment that makes people less willing to defer to any form of authority.
While the evidence for a crisis is strong, some scholars argue this framing is too simplistic. They propose that we are not seeing a blanket rejection of expertise, but rather a renegotiation of trust and authority.
A Crisis of Institutions, Not Expertise: This perspective suggests that people have not lost faith in expertise itself, but in the large, seemingly unaccountable institutions that house it. An individual might trust their personal doctor while distrusting “the medical establishment” or “Big Pharma.” This indicates a preference for relational, localized trust over abstract, institutional trust [5]. The problem, then, is not a rejection of knowledge but a crisis of institutional legitimacy.
Selective and Strategic Trust: People are not rejecting all experts; they are often “expert shopping.” In a polarized environment, individuals may seek out and amplify the voices of credentialed contrarians who validate their pre-existing beliefs. For example, a person skeptical of climate change may not reject science entirely but will instead champion the views of the very small minority of scientists who question the mainstream consensus. This is less a “death of expertise” and more a “weaponization of expertise” in partisan warfare.
A Correction to Unchecked Authority: Some observers argue that a degree of public skepticism is healthy for a democracy. It can serve as a check on the power of technocrats and force experts to be more transparent and better at communicating their findings to the public. The early failure of public health officials to explain the rationale behind changing mask recommendations during COVID-19, for example, demonstrated that authority is no longer sufficient; clear, empathetic, and transparent communication is essential for maintaining public trust [4].
The notion of a “crisis of expertise” accurately captures the severe challenges facing the role of evidence-based knowledge in modern public life. The combination of a fractured information environment, deep political polarization, and a history of expert failures has created a potent wave of public skepticism and mistrust. While it is not an absolute rejection of all expertise, this trend has dangerous consequences, hindering our ability to address complex collective problems like pandemics, climate change, and threats to democratic stability. We are living through a period where the foundational relationship between the public, experts, and the very idea of objective fact is being contested and redefined, with the outcome remaining uncertain.
The question of whether we are living through a “crisis of expertise” has gained prominence in recent years, particularly in the context of rising populism, misinformation, and declining public trust in institutions. Expertise refers to specialized knowledge and skills acquired through education, training, and experience, often embodied by professionals like scientists, doctors, economists, and journalists [1]. A crisis in this domain would imply a breakdown in how society values, trusts, and utilizes such expertise, potentially leading to poor decision-making on critical issues like public health, climate change, and policy. This response examines evidence for and against the existence of such a crisis, drawing on scholarly and analytical sources. While there are clear indicators of erosion in trust and the devaluation of expert opinion, the situation is nuanced and not universally a “crisis” in all sectors or regions.
Several observers argue that we are indeed experiencing a crisis, characterized by widespread skepticism toward experts, the proliferation of misinformation, and the democratization of knowledge via the internet, which blurs the lines between informed opinion and uninformed conjecture.
One key factor is the decline in public trust in experts and institutions. Surveys show that trust in scientists, for instance, has fluctuated but generally declined in certain demographics. In the United States, a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicated that only 57% of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interest, down from 65% in 2019, with sharper drops among conservatives [2]. This erosion is often linked to events like the COVID-19 pandemic, where expert advice on vaccines and lockdowns faced backlash, amplified by social media. Tom Nichols, in his influential book The Death of Expertise, contends that this represents a broader cultural shift where “everyone is an expert,” fueled by anti-intellectualism and the illusion of knowledge from quick online searches [1]. Nichols points to examples like climate denialism and anti-vaccination movements, where lay opinions challenge established scientific consensus, leading to real-world harms such as policy delays on environmental issues.
The role of technology and media exacerbates this. The internet has democratized information access but also enabled echo chambers and fake news. A 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that 42% of people globally avoid news sometimes or often due to overload or distrust, contributing to a fragmented information landscape where expertise is drowned out [3]. Political polarization further intensifies the crisis; in polarized environments, experts are often dismissed as biased if their findings contradict ideological beliefs. For instance, during the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. election, campaigns explicitly rejected “experts,” with figures like Michael Gove famously stating that “people in this country have had enough of experts” [4]. This sentiment reflects a populist backlash against perceived elitism, where expertise is framed as out-of-touch or self-serving.
Moreover, institutional failures have contributed. Scandals like the 2008 financial crisis, where economists failed to predict the meltdown, or instances of scientific retractions (e.g., in reproducibility crises in psychology and biomedicine), have legitimately undermined credibility [5]. When experts err or appear divided—as seen in early COVID-19 messaging—the public perceives incompetence, fueling cynicism.
Not all analysts agree that we are in a outright crisis. Some argue that what appears as a rejection of expertise is more a crisis of trust or communication, and that expertise remains robust in many areas. For example, Harry Collins, a sociologist of science, suggests in his work on expertise that society has always had tensions between experts and the public, but the current era is marked by “technological populism” rather than a total collapse [6]. Collins posits that while laypeople increasingly question experts, this can lead to healthier scrutiny and accountability, not necessarily a crisis. In fields like medicine, trust in personal doctors remains high (around 77% in the U.S., per Gallup polls), indicating that the “crisis” is selective, often targeting abstract or politicized expertise rather than all forms [2].
Additionally, global data shows variability. In countries like China and India, trust in scientists is higher (over 80% in some surveys), suggesting the phenomenon is more pronounced in Western democracies grappling with polarization [2]. Critics of the crisis narrative, such as those in a 2021 article from The Guardian, argue that labeling it a “crisis” overlooks how expertise has adapted; for instance, open-access publishing and citizen science initiatives have made knowledge more inclusive, potentially strengthening expertise by engaging the public [7].
Empirical evidence also tempers the alarm. A 2023 analysis by the Brookings Institution notes that while misinformation spreads rapidly, expert-led interventions (e.g., fact-checking platforms) have mitigated some effects, and public policy still relies heavily on expertise in areas like technology regulation and disaster response [8]. Thus, the situation might be better described as a “challenge” or “transformation” rather than a crisis.
In summary, there is substantial evidence that we are living through at least a partial crisis of expertise, driven by declining trust, misinformation, and political polarization, as seen in public health and environmental debates [1][2]. However, this is not uniform across all societies or fields, and counterarguments highlight ongoing adaptations and resilient trust in certain experts [6][7]. To address this, rebuilding trust could involve better communication from experts, media literacy education, and institutional reforms to enhance transparency. Ultimately, whether it constitutes a full “crisis” depends on one’s perspective: it is a pressing issue that risks societal harm if unaddressed, but not an irreversible death of expertise.
Nichols argues that there is a crisis of expertise, driven by anti-intellectualism and the equalization of opinions in democratic societies. The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols
The Pew report highlights declining trust in experts, particularly in the U.S., supporting the crisis view but noting variations by demographics. Pew Research Center: Trust in Scientists
The Reuters study shows news avoidance and distrust, contributing to the erosion of expert authority. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022
This BBC article discusses the anti-expert rhetoric in politics, exemplifying the crisis narrative. BBC: Michael Gove on Experts
This Nature article on reproducibility crises in science acknowledges institutional failures that undermine expertise. Nature: Reproducibility in Science
Collins presents a nuanced view, arguing it’s not a full crisis but a shift toward more interactive expertise. Are We All Scientific Experts Now? by Harry Collins
The Guardian piece counters the crisis idea, suggesting expertise is evolving rather than dying. The Guardian: Is Expertise Dead?
Brookings analysis argues the crisis is exaggerated, with expertise still central to policy. Brookings: Trust in Expertise