Experts vs. Expertise

In today's world, we often conflate success with competence, an error leading to the stagnation of science and hampering its true pioneers. Alfred Korzybski, the father of general semantics, wisely noted that a map is never the territory it claims to depict. This profound insight echoes through history, revealing leaders who fail to inspire greatness in others because they rest on their past laurels or institutional affiliation instead of striving for new frontiers. 

The widespread belief that success or position equates with competence perpetuates a flawed perspective; it thwarts creativity and originality by discouraging exploration and direct looking. Effective data scientists must steadfastly advance empirical progress over personal vanity and acquisitive materialism. Doing so encourages an environment where true learning thrives within a spirit of play, leading to profound discovery and an cultural reinvigoration. 

Questioning yesterday's "experts" is the beginning of today's empirical science. In fact, challenging established authorities is sometimes a necessary step in advancing our collective thriving. While it's understandable to respect the expertise of professionals, including those with letters after their name and any working for esteemed government agencies, we must also critically evaluate information that claims to have been empirically derived. Regardless of intention, blindly following doctrine without questioning its basis can hinder collective thriving and prevent the discovery of better answers.

A competent scientist's accomplishments serve as stepping stones to further development by others. A person who has reached great heights may not necessarily be competent in venturing into further uncharted territories, but that is not the point. Science is about understanding the universe and is, by definition, a group effort requiring transparent accountability. Joining personality cults of degreed, enthroned ideologues who bestow permission to speak and question is not science. 

In truth, properly discriminating between "experts" and expertise is a necessary condition to scientific advancement. Seeing the difference paves the way for improvements to humanity's collective understanding, fostering creative thinking and inspiring flourishes of experimentation. This heroic pattern lead us into unexplored territories benefitting us all. 

Don't let anyone tell you what science is. Go see it for yourself, because anyone who tells you you can't question what "experts" are saying in the name of science may be the very least scientific among us.