The most egregious flaw in this guy's argument is that, contrary to his disclaimer about not advocating a technocracy, he's deceptively arguing that people shou

The most egregious flaw in this guy's argument is that, contrary to his disclaimer about not advocating a technocracy, he's deceptively arguing that people should trust experts beyond their respective areas of expertise. To see this, consider some points that should not be controversial: 1. Experts, properly identified, have much more factual knowledge in their respective fields than others who are laypeople in relation to those fields (the only thing the author gets right). 2. Being an expert in facts related to a particular topic does not mean that the person is truthful, benevolent, unbiased, or candid with the public; nor that his/her intentions, goals or ideology align with those of anyone who is asked to "trust" the expert. 3. Expertise makes one better qualified than others to make value judgments, only to the extent that the value judgments depend closely on factual issues. In other words, if A and B agree that X is a good policy if proposition P is true, but a bad policy if P is false, then the expert in the intellectual area covering P is better qualified to decide the right conclusion - but if A or B claims that X is a good or bad policy for reasons unrelated to P, then that expertise is irrelevant, and a false basis for following the expert's recommendation. Keeping these points in mind, there is no such thing as an expert in "public policy". Someone may be an expert in factual issues that are considered relevant to policies, but making policy decisions intrinsically and pervasively involves value judgments and ideologies, regarding ends as well as means, and therefore is not properly conceived as a realm of expertise comparable to, say, bridge design, reducing infectious disease or conducting accurate polls. Thus, for example, on views like the author's, if you can't recite the statistics about gun-involved deaths and injuries, you're unqualified to have an opinion on gun laws - but this is a gross fallacy unless you've agreed in advance that the right policy depends on those stats. But the latter is a value judgment, not a matter of expertise. In this way he tries to parlay a sort of snobbery about expertise (he's obviously very proud of having been consulted by political leaders) into something like "you're anti-rational unless you shut up and obey". A real expert who's worthy of trust will instead present the facts, as well as possible to a lay audience, including the likely consequences of policy choices, and then defer to the public and a democratic process for decisions.