## Colophon tags:: url:: https://rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true %% title:: Weaponization of Expertise type:: [[clipped-note]] author:: [[@rbnmckenna86.substack.com]] %% ## Notes > Weaponization of Expertise — [view in context](https://hyp.is/_5R6qCI-EfCUxFdsqkz2Uw/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) ⬆️ date:: [[2025-04-26]] tags:: > Beyond taking a closer look at the motivations of populist voters, Russell and Paterson sketch the contours of what they call “populist epistemology”. Populist epistemology combines two components. The first is scepticism about elite knowledge and elite claims to knowledge. This component has a lot in common with the critique of technocracy and technocratic knowledge in Jeffrey Friedman’s excellent book Power without Knowledge, which I have previously written about. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/DzbwJiI_EfCDbh8gWeUgWw/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) ⬆️ “populist epistemology”. > The second component is a defence of common sense and commonsensical knowledge. It is a bit unclear what this component really amounts to. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/NAWz4iI_EfCyfqM9DoetCg/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) > The final part of the book examines how elites have reacted to populist challenges. In Russell and Paterson’s view, they have reacted badly. They have doubled down on the behaviours that are responsible for the rise of populism, like elite overreach. They have also manufactured a crisis—the “post-truth” crisis—with its attendant worries about fake news and misinformation, in the attempt to explain what has gone wrong without acknowledging their part in the problem. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/gS6W_CI_EfCaN7NlpzUr_Q/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) ⬆️ [[* Misinformation and Disinformation Impact Debate]] > This is, of course, not to say that misinformation does not exist. Indeed, misinformation exists and has always existed. Their point is that it is not responsible for any of our current problems. If anything, it is the other way round: populism creates a kind of “market” for misinformation, because people who come to distrust elites go looking for “alternative experts” and alternative sources of information — [view in context](https://hyp.is/OQ_tHCMHEfCKkgeLvhhEyA/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) > It must be emphasised that Russell and Patterson do not reject expertise. Rather, they advocate for epistemic humility—acknowledging uncertainty, valuing debate, and recognising that policy issues involve both facts and values. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/u9n5QCMHEfCY59MisdE-bA/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) > In their view, the lesson to take from the various public health missteps during the COVID-19 pandemic is not that scientists are idiots because they made so many mistakes. The lesson is rather that the fact they made some mistakes shows that some scientists were often lacking in this epistemic humility, and that it was wrong to restrict debate on things like school closures, lockdowns and masks:Hindsight is not the correct judge of a decision, which may have rested on stable grounds when first made, but reversals made in hindsight shed an uncomfortable spotlight on why silencing dissent is so problematic. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/xhB7CiMHEfCoZ_dMayeiNw/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) > At this point I cannot resist a snide aside. (If you want to hear my real criticisms, skip to the next section!). There is an extremely odd point in Russell and Patterson’s discussion of populism. At one point they say, almost in passing, that “populism across history and across the globe is a single phenomenon”. Even if this is true, they provide absolutely no reason for thinking it is true. They pay absolutely no attention to manifestations of populism across history. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/6Upn6CMHEfCls6dZ3qREyg/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) > Moreover, they only pay attention to manifestations of populism outside the US when they can be understood as similar to populism in the US, in the 21st century, post 2016. There is barely any discussion of populism in Latin America or Asia. There is a bit of discussion of populism in Europe, but no discussion of populism in Eastern Europe. This is quite confusing: their basic analysis of populism is that it is a reaction to globalism and neoliberalism. This is a promising basis for understanding populism across the globe (though perhaps not history). But they don't even begin to pursue it. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/9kccDCMHEfCKmcdIfmJeBg/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true) > Instead, their story shares a common problem with the simplistic narratives around populism and misinformation that they want to criticise. It is a story that seems almost entirely based on two events in 2016 and their aftermath: the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum. This is, to say the least, an impoverished basis for understanding populism—especially if you profess to think that populism “across history and across the globe” is a single phenomenon. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/_94heiMHEfCplYv_KaTlJw/rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-expertise?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true)