Expertise vs. Expert Opinion

Expertise and expert opinion are different. The two are often confused in the media. Many headlines read: ‘experts say’ or ‘experts agree’. Commentators counsel us to ‘follow the experts’. In many cases this reads ‘follow the science’, as scientists are experts.

Let’s consider how expertise and expert opinion differ. Expertise is something that is acquired and pertains to specific areas of knowledge. A mechanic has expertise concerning, say, a car motor. When you take your car in with a problem, the mechanic can identify the problem and recommend a solution. Assuming the mechanic is competent and honest, the ordinary person can defer to the expertise of the mechanic and follow the mechanic’s recommendation. The problem is well defined and the solution is one from a limited set. There is little or no judgment involved other than in the selection of one option from a limited set of solutions. Simple testing can diagnose the problem. The battery is shot. The solution readily follows: the battery needs replacement. Sure, there are more complex motor problems, but modern diagnostics with car mechanics can easily and readily define the problem and the solution. This all falls within the area of expertise.

The same may be said about one’s dentist, for example. The dentist identifies a cavity and proposes a filling. Easy, peasy. One can readily accept the recommendation of the dentist. This is a question of expertise. Many more examples exist, even in the legal field. As a corporation, do I need to file an annual return in Alberta. Answer: yes. Not complicated. More complicated is: do I need to form a corporation at all? In this case, the lawyer’s expertise advises the client of the options, perhaps makes a recommendation, and lets the client decide. The options are limited. The considerations are limited. This is not an issue like ‘is climate change an existential threat to humanity?’

Expert opinions on complex matters are vastly different from ordinary expertise. In the context of legal proceedings, opinions are not generally accepted as evidence. Expert evidence is an exception. Once qualified as an expert, an expert witness can opine on matters in issue before the court. Typically, opposing expert evidence is given. The judge must decide on which expert evidence to accept. There are several points to be drawn from this legal context. First, on matters of complexity, experts do not necessarily agree. Where there is disagreement, one cannot simply follow the ‘expert’. Second, in the legal context, the judge must decide which expert opinion to prefer when there are opposing opinions. Outside of the legal context, we are in the same position as the judge. When presented with opposing expert opinions, we must decide which ones to prefer.

Many of us defer to the media. An article may say ‘experts say that …’. Without more we accept the conclusion of the experts as reported. If the media fails to note that ‘other experts say the opposite of ….’ we are not given the opportunity to consider or weigh the conflicting expert evidence. Back to the legal context, this would be like a judge hearing only expert evidence from one party and not hearing or considering the expert evidence from the other party.

Again, in the legal context, we used to say that we could find an expert to say anything that we wanted said. Is the main stream media any different? Does the main stream media ‘cherry pick’ their experts when reporting on various issues?

So, how is the non-expert reader supposed to decide between conflicting expert opinions, if even given the option? This is a good and difficult question. All I can suggest is: be aware that expert opinions on complex matters aren’t the same as expertise that you might rely upon regarding more mundane matters like a car repair or dental procedure. In my blog, I hope to provide the other side of expert evidence where the media fails to do so.