The document discusses the limitations of valuing expert opinions in the pursuit of knowledge, arguing that this reliance can stifle new ideas and discoveries. It highlights historical instances where challenging the status quo led to significant breakthroughs, and stresses the importance of encouraging critical thinking and questioning in education. Ultimately, the text calls for a shift away from the traditional reverence for experts to foster innovation and growth in knowledge.

1. How important are the opinions of experts in
the search for knowledge?
Megan Kedzlie
TOK; 11th April.
The Oxford Dictionary defines knowledge as “facts, information, and skills
acquired through experience or education.” But how should we value the ideas
of experts when searching for new information? When do we accept their ETHOS
and their skill, and when do we break free and try new things? Many of the
world’s great discoveries have been because someone challenged the norms of
society. Would Galileo have made the discovery that the universe is heliocentric
if he hadn’t been challenging the church? Would Eratosthenes have discovered
that the world was round and not flat if he wasn’t challenging the society of
Ancient Greece? I believe that it is human reasoning that makes us put more
value in the opinions of so-called “experts” above ourselves, and that subjects
like History and Human Sciences are being held back because of our faith in the
ideas of historians and scientists. That is why there is little value in the opinions
of experts in the search for knowledge.
In the realm of the Sciences, there is always a worry of the value of previous
knowledge versus the finding of something new. There have been countless
studies done that have proved truths that we all needed, which were then
discovered as false or incorrect. An example of this is study stem cells from 2008,
where a team of researchers at the University of Minnesota claimed to have
found a type of cell that could turn into any type of body tissue. A claim of this
magnitude could change so many people’s lives: burn victims, people in need of
organs, cancer patients; the list goes on. But after a magazine read through the
study, many inaccuracies were brought to light, and the team of researchers was
found guilty of falsifying data. But since that study and following sentence, many
people (of whom many were so-called “experts” in their fields) had very differing
opinions on the study. Some, such as Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, are
using the systems and protocols from the failed search to aid their own, creating
more efficient methods to create those miracle cells. Others have used the failed
study to demean the search for stem cells: “The destruction of human embroys to
havest stem cells ‘does not truly serve humanity.’”, as stated by Pope Benedict
XVI.
Humans talk, debate, argue and fight; the most heated moments come from our
passion, and our opinion. Why, as humans, do we seem to reason with ourselves
that those who have more experience have better control and reasoning over
their opinions and ideas than we “normal” beings do? How have we gotten to the
place where we demean our own views just because we don’t believe that we are
smart or as knowledgeable? I have no belief in the idea that the intake of
knowledge doesn’tsomehow increases your perception and understanding, but I
believe that we shouldn’t create an education system- like the ones we are in
today- that implements a “learn-the-test” mentality into children. If we began to
instead teach children to question, and explore, and to become interested in the

2. pursuit and search for knowledge, I think we’d be creating a new generation of
young adults who were bright, and able to adapt and create new ideas: ideas that
would help revive our world both mentality and physically, creating a safer
home for us human beings.
In History, this is not the case anymore, as the ideals of a “revisionist” history are
becoming a new movement, with many younger historians beginning to question
the ideas and theories of the older generation. I believe that this is the way that
all humanities subjects are beginning to follow: revisionist ideas and theories are
going to become a large part of the learning experience. This is the sort of thing
that should be taught. Human reason, and our belief that being an “expert”
makes someone’s thoughts more valid, is the only thing that stops the search for
knowledge in the majority of study: we believe that the truth comes from those
who have studied and explored more than we have, but I believe that this sort of
experience and effort within a belief or view causes extreme bias: this would
lead towards experts not moving past their opinions and beliefs on historical
events, and causing new visions and theories to be halted because of “peer-
pressure” not to publish other ideas. This is the mentality that is halting the
search for knowledge and exploration.
Robert A Heinlein wrote, “Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be
done, and why. Then do it.” and this is the thinking that should be thrown onto
students in school, in my opinion. I believe that many people underestimate the
student, whether in high school, in the workplace, or in life: students are always
expected to be the passive learner, never questioning, just taking in the
information. It’s evident in the set up of major tests like SATs, International
Baccalaureate examinations, GED exams; they all are just for regurgitating
information. I think that this has been fostered by a belief in the value of the
experts. When questioning validity of a source in class, a writer or historian who
has written many books and made many theories is much more valued than an
author whom has only written one. But how can we know how much importance
one source has, just because a certain author has been able to put out more
books? In his book, “Noble Lie”, Plato stated that he believed most people were
not clever enough to look after society’s best interest, which is why there needed
to be a few “clever” people to have the knowledge to lead the rest of flock. This is
where the idea of only elite people knowing the truth in its complete form, and
the leaders telling their people “the noble lie” to keep them passive without a
worry of unrest and riot. I have the opinion that this is how academia is now run,
with the majority of the truth and power lying with the few, and then the books
and knowledge is chosen from what they deem as right and appropriate.
In conclusion, the mentality of many in academia at this moment is one of power
and respect: power over the growth and search for knowledge, and respect for
that which has been discovered in the past. We cannot move forward as a species
if we do not begin to let ourselves grow and invent, to explore and understand,
for all these things will bring about a growth of information, which could help
change the world in so many ways. This bias about trusting the knowledge that
has already been passed down to us is meaningless, a façade left from decades
ago: we need to cut lose and begin to question everything again. Only once we let

3. go of putting the value in opinions of experts, shall we truly start the search for
knowledge again.
Bibliography:
Aldhous, Peter. "Anatomy of a Stem Cell Controversy." New Scientist. Reed
Business, 13 Oct. 2008. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.
Kegnor, Paul. "God and Stem Cells." NCRegister. EWTN News, 20 Mar. 2009. Web.
12 Apr. 2013.