>You need medical knowledge to fully understand medical research papers, but you only need to understand human behavior cognition, and perspective to recognize how trusted authorities can compromise data and manipulate outcomes. Here's a key word for you: Compartmentalization, I.e., "layers of need-to-know."
>This is a problem that comes up with a lot of collegiate types: They think in terms of mastering their field of study and thus, in terms of who has more knowledge or "credibility" or "authority" within that field of study, but when we're talking about corruption, their expertise usually doesn't apply at all.
>Here's a simpler way of saying it: You may know all that academia has to offer about medicine, but being a medical expert does not qualify you to say that entities like FDA, CDC, WHO, et.al. are not corrupted somehow or another, especially if you don't understand the mechanics/anatomy of corruption to start with. These are two distinct realms of understanding. Corruption falls under the category of "crime" which falls under the category of "human behavior." Students, experts, and professionals want to think that if something is adjacent to or involved their field of study, their knowledge and expertise are all that are needed to get to the truth, which is a logical fallacy.
>The students, experts, and professionals in the field understand the technicalities presented in the research paper, for example, but law enforcement, intelligence personnel, investigative journalists, etc. discover that the professor who wrote it took a bribe to compromise the study and fudge the numbers. The two are apples and oranges.
>See? It's not hard to understand, but people are just addicted to the concepts of expertise and authority because they relate directly to status and we are social creatures who also crave certainty. When a sense of certainty is difficult to achieve, we create it out of nothing and gift it to ourselves to ease our dissonance. People take so much pride in their "merit badges" of knowledge/expertise/experience that their thinking can become clouded and their sense of perspective warped. We need people like detectives, intel officers/analysts, investigative journalists, (or similarly-skilled people) to uncover the corruption and then experts to repair the damage and restore integrity to the field. Letting experts who were educated by the status quo tell us whether or not there is corruption here or there makes no real sense, it just appeals to our sense of status.
>Ironically enough, trusting whoever has the "biggest" credentials is a horribly unscientific way of making judgments.
—
I hope that I can contribute to the new media after the mockingbird media is destroyed.