The Death of Expertise: Part 2 - Social Media v. People Who Actually Know

Eight days ago, I was casually scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed when I saw for the first time that Hurricane Irma would be a category 6 hurricane.  I teach science, so I know that there is no such thing as a category 6.  Giving my non-sciencey friend the benefit of the doubt, I assume she did not know this.  However, I looked at the source of the article and did not find that it came from NOAA or NASA or the National Weather Center or any kind of remotely believable source.  This is a smart woman who teaches kids about credibility of sources in research, and she is passing along something from a site with no weather credibility (or arguably no credibility on any topic).  Over the course of the next few days, I saw similar articles posted multiple times on both Facebook and Twitter and had people tell it to me in person.  When I told them there was no such thing as a category 6, they would reply with, "Yeah, but it's going to the be the same conditions as if there were."  This doesn't make sense.  It reminds me of when students ask me what UV light WOULD look like IF we could see it.  It just doesn't exist that way, so no.

The internet has the power to connect us to so much information - if we take the time to find it.  Social media has the power to bring us together with a diverse array of people with perspectives from various cultures, beliefs, and political viewpoints - if we only used it that way.  For the first time in the history of the world, we can find out about scientific research from the researcher - if we go past the first page of a Google search.

Sadly, the invention with the power to bring us in contact with a wider variety of people has actually divided us into tribal groups, reading only the articles posted by those we already agree with.  Sadly, the powerful tools we have at our disposal have not led to greater connection with experts.  We passively consume whatever article our Facebook friends post regardless of source.  Chances are, they didn't actually read the article but passed it on based on the headline.

We had already been primed by 24-hour news not to expect experts in our news broadcasts (see last week's post).  Then, we started trusting the wisdom of the crowd.  (To see how well that worked out, we need only look at the ruined reputations of those men accused by Reddit users who thought they could do police-work in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing.)  As we started getting more and more of our news from our phones, we stopped caring where the information came from.  A blogger you follow disagrees with your doctor?  Who do you believe?  Someone posts a meme about a chemical you've never heard of.  Clearly, you can conclude that chemical is dangerous and the people who make it are evil without looking it up. Expert, amateur, and nut are all there, in one place, appearing to have equal value.  

When an actual meteorologist replied to my friend's post about the hurricane, people argued with him.  Later that week, Raleigh's most famous meteorologist, Greg Fishel, had to take time out of his broadcast to address this.  I ask, as I did last week, "Do we really have to slow down for these people?" But even after these experts weighed in, people continued to say to me, "Yeah, but it's the same as what it would be if it did exist."  We live in a "Yeah, but" world because we cannot be bothered to find out if we are getting information from people who actually know what they are talking about.

Teachers, there has never been a more important time to teach your students about credibility of sources.  Teach them the appropriate place for Wikipedia.  Don't allow them to use Answers.whatever.answer.com as sources for research.  Teach them how to tell the difference between a credible source and a non-credible one.  Model wisdom for them by not sharing everything you read on the internet.  When you do share, tell them why you find that source trustworthy.