There has been a marked decline in the use and respect of expertise in society today, driven by complex social, political, technological, and cultural changes. This decline is not uniform or absolute—recent surveys show that the majority of people in many countries still express trust in scientific experts—but the authority and influence of experts are increasingly questioned and challenged across key domains of public life.
Changing Nature of Expertise
The twentieth and early twenty-first centuries were defined in many societies by a widespread deference to established expertise, whether in science, medicine, law, or public policy. The “knowledge society” depended upon credentialed experts to interpret complex realities and propose actionable solutions to societal problems. However, the authority of traditional experts has been eroded in several ways:
- The mass expansion of higher education has democratized access to knowledge but also contributed to a decline in the perceived distinction between experts and non-experts.
- Expertise is no longer seen as the domain of a small elite; today, a wider range of professions and even self-proclaimed “experts” lay claim to specialized knowledge, making it harder for the public to discern genuine authority from superficial or untested opinions.
Drivers of Decline
Delegitimation
One primary driver is delegitimation: the public undermining and questioning of expert authority, accelerated by populist politics and the rise of alternative media. Traditional institutions that protected and promoted experts—such as government, media, and academia—have faced mounting skepticism. The internet, and especially social media, has allowed critics, populists, and conspiracy theorists to bypass traditional gatekeepers and reach massive audiences with anti-expert rhetoric.
High-profile cases—such as political leaders overtly dismissing the guidance of scientific and health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic—have further driven a wedge between experts and segments of the public. The result is a culture where expert consensus on issues from climate change to vaccines is often met with suspicion or outright hostility.
Demystification
Demystification refers to the increasing visibility of experts’ backgrounds, affiliations, and conflicts of interest. As the roles and personal lives of experts are scrutinized like never before, the distinction between objective guidance and self-interested opinion blurs. When experts are associated with political, corporate, or ideological agendas, their perceived neutrality is compromised, further diminishing trust.
Decomposition and Diversification
Decomposition describes the fragmentation of expertise, as multiple professions and voices—such as consultants, influencers, and “citizen scientists”—claim status as experts. With so many contenders, the public is left to navigate a noisy marketplace of ideas without clear standards for weighing competing claims. Public disagreements among credentialed experts, although normal in science, are now amplified and interpreted as evidence that “experts don’t know what they’re talking about”
Cognitive Bias and Anti-Intellectualism
The rise of confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that supports preexisting beliefs—makes it easier for people to reject expert advice that contradicts their views. The proliferation of online misinformation—sometimes called an “infodemic”—facilitates the spread of falsehoods over facts.
A culture valuing emotional intuition and subjective experience over logic, evidence, and expertise further erodes expert authority. As Tom Nichols writes, an “unfounded arrogance” in much of modern culture leads individuals to believe their opinions are as valid as anyone’s—even in technical domains requiring years of specialized training.
The Role of Technology and Media
Digital technology is a double-edged sword: while it allows access to unprecedented volumes of information, it also enables the viral spread of misinformation and empowers “fake experts” whose credentials are often unverifiable. The endless stream of headlines and sound bites encourages superficial engagement rather than deep understanding; media content is simplified for maximum attention, rarely providing context or critical analysis.
Journalism, once a crucial mediator between experts and the public, has increasingly prioritized entertainment and affirmation of existing beliefs, rather than fostering informed debate or fact-checking claims.
Societal Implications
This decline has sobering consequences for democratic societies and science-based policy-making. When citizens reject expert guidance, they risk ignoring the evidence-based practices that have improved health, safety, and prosperity. Challenges like pandemics, climate change, and technological disruption cannot be managed without drawing upon the collective wisdom of specialized professionals.
Polarization and populist movements often exploit anti-expert sentiment, fueling public divides and undermining social trust. When expertise is ignored or sidelined, public debate becomes a contest of conflicting opinions rather than a means of approaching truth or consensus.
Responsibilities of Experts
The crisis is not only the fault of the public; experts themselves bear responsibility. Some experts have overstated their certainty, failed to acknowledge uncertainty, or made catastrophic errors that have damaged public confidence. Conflicts of interest, arrogance, or disregard for broader social values can alienate ordinary citizens. True expertise requires not only knowledge but humility, self-awareness, and a commitment to ethical conduct.
Opportunities for Renewal
Despite these trends, recent research demonstrates that a substantial majority of people—especially in many Western countries—still trust scientists and believe they should play an active role in society and policy-making. The challenge is to restore and reimagine the relationship between expertise and the public, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and two-way dialogue. Experts must communicate clearly, listen to public concerns, admit mistakes, and engage with society in ways that build trust.
Creating avenues for meaningful public participation in deliberative processes, rather than relying solely on top-down models of expertise, can help bridge the current divide and revitalize democratic decision-making.
The decline in deference to expertise in society today is a multifaceted trend with deep roots and significant consequences. While skepticism and scrutiny are healthy in a democracy, a wholesale rejection of expert knowledge threatens the informed governance and collective progress societies rely upon. Both experts and citizens must adapt: experts by embracing humility and openness, and citizens by renewing commitments to critical thinking and informed debate. Only through this reciprocal relationship can the social value of expertise be preserved and strengthened for the challenges of the 21st century.
