On Experts

watched a debate on TV yesterday. A political issue of some kind. The point of contention being which side had the momentum — the Democrats or the Republicans. Two things struck me at the time that I'd like to share with you.

First, I hadn't the foggiest notion of what either protagonist meant by the word "momentum" in the context of the issue involved.

Webster's defines "momentum" as "the quantity of motion; the property of a moving body which determines the length of time required to bring it to rest when under the action of a constant force or moment." Webster's also says that the word's popular meaning is "impetus."

So, I did what any red-blooded American seeker of truth would do under the circumstances — I looked up the word "impetus" in the same dictionary and found "the property possessed by a moving body in virtue of its mass and its motion;  applied commonly to bodies moving suddenly or violently, and indicating the origin and intensity of the motion." I also found "impulse," "incentive," and "stimulus."

Well, sir, try as I might, I couldn't fit the words "momentum" or "impetus" or "impulse" or "incentive" or "stimulus" into the context of what was happening and have it make any sense. They might just as well have been arguing whether or not it's possible to calculate the square root of a sonnet.

Second, it occurred to me that the two debaters — both having been designated experts by the host of the show — didn't know any more about what was happening in terms of the issue at hand than you and I do.

You see, the only things you can know are the things you've experienced. All else is nothing more than just word information, meaning that you can't know what you're being told is true; you can only believe that it is. Or not.

Now you can take what's told to you and draw inferences, make judgments, and form opinions. But when all's set and done, all you'll have are inferences, judgments, and opinions. But not knowledge. And until the event involved has run its course will anyone be able to judge whose inferences, judgments, and opinions turned out to be the correct ones. Not before.

So, am I right? That the folks you and I see on TV debating the likely outcome of an unfolding event don't know any more about it than you and I do? Which means that our predictions may turn out to be less valid, equally valid, or more valid than those of the experts. Take your pick.

So tell me, why do we watch? I don't know. But I think P.T. Barnum would have a mighty powerful argument as to why we do.

Think about it.