Have you noticed how often we’re told to “trust the experts” these days? Not listen to them and consider the evidence and weigh up the arguments, but just open your mouth and swallow the medicine – “you know it’s good for you” !
Somewhere along the way, questioning became confused with conspiracy, scepticism became confused with ignorance, and asking perfectly reasonable questions became something to apologise for. That should concern every single one of us because progress has never been driven by blind obedience. It has always been driven by curiosity, challenge and the occasional awkward individual who refused to accept, “Because we said so,” as a satisfactory answer without checking their sources (yup that’s me).
History is littered with examples of organisations, governments and corporations assuring the public that everything was perfectly safe, understood and perfectly under control, only to admit or have to admit that perhaps things weren’t quite as clear-cut or as everyone had been led to believe or that they had made a big mistake. Tobacco companies denied the dangers of smoking, asbestos was marketed as a safe material for construction and even in school chemistry labs, leaded petrol was defended for decades, contaminated blood scandals unfolded, emissions tests were manipulated, intelligence used to justify wars turned out to be deeply flawed, and countless financial institutions assured us that the economy was fundamentally sound right up until it wasn’t.
None of these examples require wild theories or rabbit holes, because they are simply chapters from history that demonstrate one uncomfortable fact: authority has been wrong before, sometimes accidentally /negligently and occasionally deliberately. It’s for this exact reason that I find it extraordinary when anyone suggests we should stop asking questions simply because someone important made a statement – since when did:
1. a job title become evidence?
2. a government logo become proof?
3. a blue tick become a substitute for critical thinking?
4. a well drafted public statement become a fact?
We seem to have created a world where appearance carries more weight than substance, where confidence is mistaken for competence and where repeating the same message loudly enough somehow transforms opinion into fact – I call it “the emperor’s clothes” and often find myself in the role of the child pointing …
The irony is that the people who built modern science would probably be labelled awkward today because science was never meant to be a belief system. Science is a process of having a theory, accepting that it could be wrong, doing the necessary work to test your theory, correcting yourself and finally, over time, obtaining results that hopefully substantiate your thinking. Real scientists should welcome scrutiny because this is exactly how weak ideas are discarded and strong ones survive; if a claim can’t withstand questioning, perhaps the problem is not with the person asking the question ?
None of this means every alternative explanation is correct, nor does it mean every official statement is false – these are two positions that save people from having to think. The real world is considerably more complicated than that, which is precisely why critical thinking matters. Evidence should matter more than status, transparency should matter more than reputation and consistency should matter more than carefully managed public relations. We should judge ideas on their merits, not on the size of the organisation or the perceived status of the person presenting them, the number of letters after someone’s name or how many years of perceived spotless career they have spent at the head of a national health agency.
I feel that maybe some of the greatest dangers facing society today is not misinformation alone but also our growing habit of outsourcing our thinking and/or business success to people we have never met simply because they occupy perceived positions of authority or because a social media platform has “suggested” them to us. We are bombarded every day by headlines, online monetisers, politicians, corporations, celebrities, academics and self-appointed experts, all insisting that their version deserves our unquestioning acceptance.
I don’t think that it is wrong to ask, “How do you know that?” It’s such a small question, yet it has exposed frauds, uncovered corruption, advanced medicine, improved engineering and challenged bad policy throughout history. Perhaps that is why some people appear so uncomfortable when questions are asked because they are forced to give explanations and some are unable to do this – they just read what an employee has written for them. Explanations also invite scrutiny: scrutiny demands evidence and evidence can either support a claim or expose its weaknesses. That process should never frighten honest people because truth has an habit of surviving examination; only fragile narratives that depend upon nobody looking too closely take exception to this.
Maybe that is the lesson we should take from the long list of assurances that have later unravelled is that trust should be earned continuously rather than automatically given. Healthy scepticism is not the enemy of progress; it is one of the reasons progress exists at all. Every major improvement in medicine, engineering, technology, law and society began because someone was prepared to ask an uncomfortable question that others preferred to avoid.
So the next time somebody tells you to stop asking questions because “it was read out on the news/the experts have told us/John from accounts sent us an email”, remember something very simple. Your boss, neighbour, favourite podcaster can be wrong, but so can a multinational corporation and government department, especially since the advent of the internet when scams, spoofing and fake IDs have become common.
History itself shows us that entire professions or schools of thought can be wrong for years before eventually correcting course- remember Gallileo? If that makes you pause before accepting the next confident headline at face value, then perhaps that pause is not a weakness at all, but the beginning of genuine critical thinking
I don’t believe that asking people to explain themselves is a bad thing and helps us learn; sharing podcasts that relate to topics that encourage people to start asking questions is also not wrong and how good would it be see debating societies back in schools, so children can be encouraged to discuss, question and ultimately agree to disagree.
What do you think?
FAQs
Is questioning authority the same as rejecting expertise?
No. Expertise deserves consideration, but expertise is strengthened by evidence, transparency and the willingness to be challenged.
Why is critical thinking important?
Because it helps distinguish between claims supported by robust evidence and those supported primarily by confidence, repetition or authority.
Does history justify scepticism?
History certainly justifies asking questions. Numerous well-documented examples show that governments, companies and institutions have sometimes made serious mistakes or misled the public.
