Conspiracy Theorists – please stop using the Biased Expert Fallacy
It’s lazy, it insults the reader’s intelligence, and most importantly, it’s unethical.
The very best way to ensure that I don’t take seriously your warnings about your favourite conspiracy theory is to suggest, without clear evidence, that the regulator must be in cahoots with the industry/government. As soon as I see or hear that in a presentation, my bullshit detectors are on full alert.
What is the Biased Expert Fallacy?
We’ve all seen it – a regulator’s credibility is called into doubt because they used to work for one of the major companies in the industry they are now responsible for overseeing. The implication being that because they are a “poacher turned gamekeeper” they will be unduly biased towards their former colleagues in the industry.
Assumptions – (they make an Ass out of U and Me)
That makes two very big assumptions: firstly that someone who has been in an industry can’t object to some of its less savoury practices; and secondly that simply having worked in an industry that you’re now regulating somehow automatically makes you dodgy. There is no rational reason to believe either of those things. The first is simply illogical, as I will explain in a moment. The second is just insulting to the vast majority of regulators, most of whom do a spell in industry before crossing the divide into regulation.
Bordering on the libelous
A more pernicious form of the fallacy is to then go and suggest that the regulator is somehow ‘in the pocket’ of the big players in an industry. Or worse (and regrettably we see this all too often around the ‘alternative news’ and ‘truth warrior’ sites), questions are asked about whether the individual regulator is taking back-handers for their approvals, or for turning a blind eye.
And all that is typically wrapped up in a cowardly, arse-covering cop-out like “I’m not saying this is so, but just ask yourself …” Theorists, if you really believe somebody is on the take, have the courage of your convictions and make a straight accusation, don’t wrap it up in plausible deniability crap to save yourself from getting sued for your slanderous bile. That’s just cowardly.
To be clear, I’m not talking here about industries in which the regulator is voluntarily funded by the participants. There is a very clear ‘agency problem’ with that arrangement – which is why a number of the more questionable industries opted for voluntary regulation before it got foisted on them by statute. I’m talking about accusing individuals of malfeasance with no evidence whatsoever.
But I digress.
Why we need expert regulators
The people best placed to know whether individual players within an industry are up to something undesirable, are the very people who understand the industry. Experts who know that a particular process cuts corners or carries dangers that the layman wouldn’t recognise. And who better to know the corners that get cut, than someone who has been on the inside, seen it first hand and decided to do something about it?
Someone on the inside
As I said earlier, the Biased Expert fallacy assumes that nobody from an industry can object to its dodgy practices. But surely it’s equally likely that an industry insider who then joins the regulator will be doing so precisely because they are concerned about dodgy practices, and they want to control them without risking their livelihood.
These insider experts know where to look, they know the questions to ask, they recognise incomplete answers, and they know how to spot abuses as they are happening.
The end-game
So what happens if the Biased Expert fallacy is allowed to take hold? The logical end-point is that no regulator will ever employ someone from within the industry, for fear of their credibility or impartiality being challenged. Or, at best, no-one from within the industry could ever rise to head up a regulatory body – which is not exactly going to encourage quality recruitment to regulatory positions.
We then end up with toothless and incompetent regulators, around whom the miscreant players can run technical rings, baffling them with industry jargon that the regulator isn’t up to speed about. Sure, we can employ academics as regulators, after all, they should be at the cutting edge of the technology and theory. But there is no substitute for someone who has actually been at the coal-face and can call bullshit on excuses and justifications.
Regulators with good intent
My biggest issue with the excessive use of the Biased Expert Fallacy is that it comes from a place of assuming wrong-doing. Anyone who has been employed in an industry is assumed to be crooked, or at least looking out for their mates, not the public. And heaven forbid that they should have been successful in the industry, and risen to any position of power – now they absolutely must be dodgy to want to join a regulator!
Whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty?
Damaging credibility (yours, not theirs)
Lazy conspiracy theorists all over are making the same mistake, of accusing potentially well-meaning regulators of self-interest purely on the basis that they have worked in the industry they are regulating. That results in a great many such accusations being defeated through simple lack of evidence. Or worse still, through evidence to the contrary.
And that’s a real problem for those of us who wish to challenge the accepted paradigms and are open to exploring whether the path(s) the world is on are in fact the best ones for humanity and the planet. Because every false accusation, every lazy assertion, every claim that doesn’t have adequate basis in demonstrable fact, each and every unjustifiable cry of “Wolf!” makes it harder for the real good guys to expose the real bad guys.
It’s lazy, it’s ineffective, and it harms your cause. Stop it.
