>There is a big difference between thinking for ourselves and the sort of broad rejection of expertise we are seeing, especially in the US. There's a current t

>There is a big difference between thinking for ourselves and the sort of broad rejection of expertise we are seeing, especially in the US. There's a current trend with labeling people who disagree with your narrative as 'rejecting expertise'. People aren't rejecting expertise. They're following different experts than the one's you approve of. Descarte's, maybe you've heard of him, rejected the expertise that the sun revolved around the Earth despite all of the mainstream experts disagreement. This pattern has repeated countless times throughout history: labotomies, thalidomide, antiseptic procedure...that's just science...god knows the number of people executed for going against the expertise backed narrative that a dictatorship is not an ideal form of government. The problem with 'trusting experts' (which is a classic logical fallacy)...is WHICH EXPERTS? At the end of the day it's all a narrative and you pick the narrative you wish to follow backed by the experts that support your narrative. It's disengenous to claim otherwise. And that's literally a politician or leaders job is to sift through all of the experts and all of the other bullshit and try to pull a good decision out of it. And as a human being, that should be your job as well.