"Book Review: Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters" by Kayla R

            First and foremost, I must start this review disclosing a confession: I wanted to enjoy this book from the moment I simply saw the title scrolling through Amazon. Consequently, I was not disappointed. Published by the largest university press in the world, Oxford University Press, Tom Nichol’s nonfiction Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters is an introspective read about the fractured relationship between experts and citizens and the wave of nonsensicalness that has resulted in the United States due to this disconnect. Nichol’s novel primarily focuses on how this broken bond of respect for expert’s knowledge by those who are not experts, has created a maelstrom of frenzy and inaccuracy specifically in the political realm.

            One of Nichol’s culprits for this wave of increased misinformation is none other than the internet itself. While all can agree the internet is the most innovative technological breakthroughs of the twentieth century, it is of vital importance to remember a galore of information that has been placed on the internet is more than likely, false or inaccurate in some way. Unlike books that must all be fact-checked and peer edited numerous times before publication, most websites on the internet do not have these extensive trials and virtually, anyone can post any misleading information they so please. For example, how many times have you googled a symptom when you were feeling ill and self-diagnosed yourself through posts read online, without seeing a doctor? How many times has your own self-diagnosis been completely inaccurate in your scope of research? I know I sure am guilty of succumbing to this atrocity on multiple occasions. The internet has allowed for us to be exposed to a large amount of information all in a single sitting, while unintentionally taking away from our knowledge by engulfing us in data and allowing us to cherry-pick information that already fits with our prior beliefs through a distortion of rumors, speculation, and downright propaganda found online.

Nichol’s defines this impulse we all have to find information that supports what we already think as “confirmation bias.” Confirmation bias can be extremely dangerous to our society and all citizens among the political spectrum can be at fault. It is extremely common for citizens to live in their own world of media consumption. How often would you see a fiscally conservative depending on CNN for reliable news? Similarly, a liberal ever tuning into Fox for credible sources? The fact of the matter is that Democrats, Republicans, and those in between are all guilty of only utilizing media outlets that already share their beliefs, upholding Nichol’s principle of confirmation bias. Nichol also points out, through a scholarly-based study, when people were confronted with solid evidence that clashes with their previous bias, many of those studied would simply deny the proof presented before them and become even more deep-rooted in their original doctrine. This extreme denial is known as the backfire effect, and because of this, many extreme views are augmented through the internet, broadcasts, and television.

Now you’re probably thinking, “this sounds horrible, how can we fix this problem?” The answer to this question is simple. Vary your media diet. Read credible articles and books that contrast your beliefs and contribute to your understanding of the subject at hand. Be bipartisan in your research of a topic. Stray away from forums in which any uneducated person can make false claims. Be open to any contrasting evidence you find and willing to understand the perspective of those whose opinions differs from yours.  All of the factors listed in the paragraphs prior have promoted a society circumventing competent debaters, sabotaging institutions, and in essence, creating a political realm in which no real change or progress can ever occur.

As you may have already noticed from this review, Nichol utilizes an abundance of logos, a technique in which an author appeals to a reader’s rational using reason, logic, and proof to convince their audience/readers of a particular agenda. In this novel, Nichol’s entire argument is a case of why we should be concerned about the death of expertise. Concurrently in using logos, he is able to allow readers to stop and reflect among themselves to realize they may, in fact, be incoherently part of the problem itself. As well as the strong presence of logos throughout the novel, Nichol also has a distinctive word choice in which he sets a factual-if not sometimes harsh, tone in order to convince readers of the severity of immediate change that must occur in our democracy. Though the level of higher thinking this novel entails may intimidate some from reading this piece literature, those apt to reading this book will have absolutely no regrets and a deeper understanding of their role in the death of expertise.