Here’s why you don’t need expert opinion when common sense will do

Remember, “experts” gave us Obamacare.

New data indicates that believers in traditional marriage are less likely to follow “expert opinion” on social matters.

And that’s actually a really good thing.

A newly released survey by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago found that those who value expert opinion are more likely to support same-sex marriage. The same effect also applied to issues like climate change and health care policy, and actually crossed party lines in many areas.

One can almost hear the triumphant shouts from the Left, using its findings to only further reaffirm the stereotypes that anyone who disagrees with them must simply be backward, uninformed sheep.

If this was indeed the case (the story mostly flew under the radar this week, generating little commentary in public fora), the belief wouldn’t be all that different from uber-liberal comedian Amy Schumer, who recently contended that “those people” who oppose presidential candidate Hillary Clinton just “aren’t informed” enough to make “meaningful arguments.”

And so goes the typical argument against those of us who still oppose the LGBT lobby’s political agenda.

We’re troglodytes from a bygone era. We don’t listen to the slew of social “experts” who attempt to ply us with every platitude they can to change our understanding of the family and its crucial role in society. When we refuse to change said beliefs because of our faith, or simple common sense, we’re honored with such labels of “bigot,” “ignorant,” and “discriminator.”

After all, we don’t listen to the “experts” … which actually makes complete sense, given the philosophical wasteland that we currently inhabit.

The agenda of making those of us who dissent from the enlightened ones’ “expertise” on the issue of gay marriage is merely endemic of a broader and inescapable culture of experts who, as Alasdair Macintyre explains in his classic, “After Virtue,” seek to justify their control over culture, society, and state by their supposed expertise. You may call them technocrats.

Our current understanding of expertise, Macintyre explains, is a product of the modern era. The Scottish philosopher goes on to explain that what began as the Enlightenment’s desire for empiricism has become a system in which society today is overseen by “expert” bureaucrats and technocrats who pretend to know the things that make them proper arbiters of the social order.

This system is a product of modern and post-modern relativism — there is no right or wrong. That leaves us at the mercy of those who are trained in the realm of the social sciences. It’s assumed in this framework that these social sciences have some sort of predictive power, and the experts of those sciences intrinsically know what’s best for us and society as a whole. But this sort of thinking has obvious and dangerous flaws.

First and foremost, the science is never “settled,” as many like to claim with global warming.

In fact, the science constantly changes.

Best practices constantly adapt; this is the nature of any kind of science. We can’t even say that the expert of today is going to be the expert of tomorrow. Yet, in a world without truth and where common sense and basic human reason are simply folk religion and myths, they are merely relics from days gone by.

“But,” Macintyre writes, “the notion of social control embodied in the notion of expertise is indeed a masquerade. Our social order is in a very literal sense out of our, and indeed anyone’s, control. No one is or could be in charge.”

Modern society naturally assumes that those who sit in ivory towers or in labs — products of the academy — necessarily have a better handle on our social order than those who have real-life experiences every single day. In short, the label of “expert” has been applied to the compliant elites to maintain their control over people and institutions.

If the “experts” cannot be trusted to tell us what we should have for breakfast, why should they be trusted with our most important institutions — least of all the bedrock of our society?

But rejecting this expert testimony is dangerous to the elites and their expertise.

“It is of course that if social science does not present its findings in the form of law-like generalizations, the grounds for employing social scientists as expert advisors to government or to private corporations become unclear and the very notion of managerial expertise is imperiled.

Obamacare was given to us by experts, yet we’ve seen its host of problems:

the co-ops are collapsing,

millions nationwide are regularly blindsided by the skyrocketing premiums, etc.

And who can forget Obamacare architect and MIT professor Jonathan Gruber admitting in 2014 that it was the job of the social managers to essentially deceive the American people into supporting it?

Five years later, middle-class Americans have lost their previous insurance and are now forced to live with the fruits of the experts’ labor.

Or take the number of times that health and nutrition “experts” change their decrees on things like bacon fat and egg yolk.

If the “experts” cannot be trusted to tell us what we should have for breakfast, why should they be trusted with our most important institutions — least of all the bedrock of our society?

So perhaps the remaining marriage refuseniks in our society are less likely to listen to the experts. But, again, that isn’t something to denigrate; it’s something to celebrate.

Viva la resistance.

Source: Here’s why you don’t need expert opinion when common sense will do