2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Furniture]

‘Experts’ can be wrong, or more often than not, focused on a small proportion of a problem. Usually the one they are trying to solve results in some other issue.

This is likely a huge part of what has eroded people's views on "expert" opinions.

Too often it feels like the "experts" live in an academic world, and don't notice that their theories don't work out the way they plan in the real world.

 

[TacticalTea]

The reason we don’t have pure democracies is pure democracies tend not to be aggressive or invade anywhere. Switzerland is the only example in the world, and it is one of the best run most successful governments of the last 200 years.

Their citizens are also responsible and capable, voting to tax themselves regularly and regarding many things we all dread as civic duties.

‘Experts’ can be wrong, or more often than not, focused on a small proportion of a problem. Usually the one they are trying to solve results in some other issue.

Or they're simply activists in expert clothing.

 

[dimsum]

Or they're simply activists in expert clothing.

Maybe spending years studying something to the point that you’re an expert may cause you to have some…SME opinions on said subject.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe spending years studying something to the point that you’re an expert may cause you to have some…SME opinions on said subject.

And maybe spending years looking down the same stovepipe may cause you to be blind to the rest of the world.

 

[dimsum]

And maybe spending years looking down the same stovepipe may cause you to be blind to the rest of the world.

Sure, but does that mean what they’re saying is factually incorrect? Or should factual correctness be dependent on the politics of the time?

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure, but does that mean what they’re saying is factually incorrect? Or should factual correctness be dependent on the politics of the time?

They can be factually correct and concurrently irrelevant if they are unaware of the challenges appearing in other stovepipes.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

They can be factually correct and concurrently irrelevant if they are unaware of the challenges appearing in other stovepipes.

Exactly.

Solving one “problem” can create other, worse problems, if one is not careful.

 

[Lumber]

Sounds like not being populist means being an elitist.

No, while elitism is the opposite of populism, there is a third option: pluralism. Elitism is giving power to the elite/experts not because they are correct but simply because they are elite/experts. That's the she problem with populism. You cater to the wants of the many not because what they are asking for is "right" but simply cause they are the many. Pluralism is the misfit ground. Listen to the knowledge and experience of those who are bonafide experts, while also listening and considering to the wants of the many. There are circumstances/decisions where one group would provide a more informed decision that the other.

 

[Lumber]

You said that? Go figure.

I highly recommend you don't ever run for a public office ever. anywhere. An attitude like that is very questionable and concerning

Aw, im touched you are concerned for me!

You haven't watched Men in Black have you?

And don't worry, I couldn't be less interested in something more that running for political office.

 

[Lumber]

Umm no
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages ·

pop·u·lism

noun

1. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
   "the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment"
   • support for populist politicians or policies.
     "the government came to power on a wave of populism"
     
     
     
   • the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
     "art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
     
     
     I think I will have to disagree with you

I don't see how our definitions are incompatible with each other?

 

[Lumber]

Or they're simply activists in expert clothing.

You think every scientist, engineer, doctor, etc out there is just "an activist in exist clothing"?.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And maybe spending years looking down the same stovepipe may cause you to be blind to the rest of the world.

Looking down their noses more like.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The science is settled, believe the experts; and I saw this on YouTube it I heard it on a Podcast, are all very dangerous statements.

 

[lenaitch]

Expert: Knowing more and more about less and less.

 

[Photopilot]

When you breakdown the word Expert you get the following: X is a mathematic symbol for unknown. Spert is a drip under pressure, so an Expert is an Unknown Drip under pressure!

 

[Remius]

People have long abandoned experts as their source of information. They have surrendered to their idolatry of personalities and celebrities.

 

[dimsum]

Looking down their noses more like.

I don’t think that we (as in the CAF “we”) should be throwing too many stones here.

We are the “experts” in defence matters and we complain that the Canadian public/govt doesn’t “get” how important defence is to the nation and its dealings with other nations.

In a sense it’s analogous to this climate change argument: Small military that, by itself, won’t change the world. But we argue for steps and funds to bolster it. Why? Aside from historical sentiment, a more relevant reason is that it is to shore up capability to do something in case things go bad.

The public (based on its voting history) and govts of all parties don’t seem to think it is a high priority. To build up to 2% GDP, we either need to cut other things or raise taxes - neither of which are palatable to the general public. I’m sure there are people honestly wondering why we have a military and we have to convince them of the reasons why.

 

[suffolkowner]

I don’t think that we (as in the CAF “we”) should be throwing too many stones here.

We are the “experts” in defence matters and we complain that the Canadian public/govt doesn’t “get” how important defence is to the nation and its dealings with other nations.

In a sense it’s analogous to this climate change argument: Small military that, by itself, won’t change the world. But we argue for steps and funds to bolster it. Why? Aside from historical sentiment, a more relevant reason is that it is to shore up capability to do something in case things go bad.

The public (based on its voting history) and govts of all parties don’t seem to think it is a high priority. To build up to 2% GDP, we either need to cut other things or raise taxes - neither of which are palatable to the general public. I’m sure there are people honestly wondering why we have a military and we have to convince them of the reasons why.

I find this topic fascinating in that so often on these forums people are told to stay in their lanes and that such and such is a SME and yet it apparently doesnt apply to anything else?

 

[Eaglelord17]

You think every scientist, engineer, doctor, etc out there is just "an activist in exist clothing"?.

No, however the education system is purposely restricting who can become experts based off political views. They either have to hide their personal beliefs or be denied access to the education required to become a expert.

A simple example being judges at the moment. You have to donate to the Liberal party to be appointed a judge. This means that any judges expert opinion who was appointed in the last decade is automatically politically biased. Not exactly a great way to start what should be a non-political impartial experts stance.

 

[dimsum]

No, however the education system is purposely restricting who can become experts based off political views. They either have to hide their personal beliefs or be denied access to the education required to become a expert.

A simple example being judges at the moment. You have to donate to the Liberal party to be appointed a judge. This means that any judges expert opinion who was appointed in the last decade is automatically politically biased. Not exactly a great way to start what should be a non-political impartial experts stance.

The NaPo article (which is not a fan of the LPC) wouldn’t seem to agree with your assessment.

In total, nearly one in five of all 1,308 judicial and tribunal appointments (18.3 per cent) gave to a political party at least once in the decade leading up to their appointment. In comparison, under one per cent of eligible Canadians donate to a political party on average.

A deeper dive into the donation records reveals that more than one in five (21.4 per cent) of the 555 nominees to a provincial superior court since 2016 were Liberal party donors before their appointment, over three times the number of Conservative donor appointees (6.8 per cent).