There’s More to Being a Photographer than Just Owning a Camera. Or, What Makes an Expert?

 © 2020 Charles A. Steele

When we were looking for a photographer for our wedding, several people approached my wife and I saying things like, “My friend Bob just bought a really expensive camera, you should hire him.” And we would ask if Bob is a professional photographer and if we could see samples of his work at other weddings. In response we would be told that Bob loved taking pictures, or that he’s been taking a lot of picture since he got the camera. In one case we even leaned that Bob had taken a class. We did not hire Bob.

Now, does this mean that Bob would have been a bad photographer? No. It is possible that we missed a great opportunity for a big discount. But we had no basis from which to determine how good Bob was; no way to know if he was capable of doing the job. In short, we couldn’t qualify Bob. He didn’t meet the burden to prove he was an expert.

It is apparently unpopular to say, but there is a difference between an expert and a layman. Understanding this difference is increasingly important at a time when talking heads are contradicting each other on critical issues. Information is easy to get. People are feeling validated that they are as good as anyone else in evaluation of that information. Maybe they are. In all likelihood I believe that if an issue is properly explained they probably are. But how do people know that they are working with the proper facts? How does a layman know who is an expert?

This is not a new problem. It has been a reality in legal proceeding since the end of the duel of law. When fighter schools were shut down in the middle ages, combat masters turned to selling themselves to testify in court. If it sounds like an odd shift, remember that at the time, charges of perjury could be met with a dual of law. This led to the inevitable problem. A master swordsman could lie with impunity on the stand since challenging his word could mean death. It didn’t take long for the legal community to realize that a person’s word alone was not enough, witnesses needed to be qualified in some manner before they could testify.

What has evolved is the understanding that there are two types of witnesses: Fact and Expert. Fact Witnesses (AKA lay witnesses) need to have knowledge specific to the case at hand. They can be eyewitnesses to an event or other involved person. The Expert Witness is something entirely different. The Expert Witness gives opinion based on experience, knowledge and expertise. In court cases both are used. So, which is more reliable?

People like to hear from fact witnesses. It is easier to understand and believe someone who says they have direct knowledge of events. Inaccurate or dishonest eyewitnesses are usually picked out during a good cross examination. Even so, data from the Innocence Project does indicate that almost 70% of the wrongful convictions they have overturned were due to inaccurate eyewitnesses.

Expert Witnesses are a more complex issue. Experts don’t usually have any direct knowledge of the issue at hand, they are offering opinions or information based on their understanding of the issue at hand. This greater latitude comes with a need for greater scrutiny. Before we take their word, we need to be able to prove they are qualified to give it.

The role of the expert witness is set out by rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The rule requires among other things that a witness qualified as an expert must possesses the relevant knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and that their testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. These requirements are further refined by rules of admissibility like Frye and Daubert which both require the science be generally accepted in the scientific community to which it belongs. Unfortunately, there is no such rule in the popular press.

This brings us to an issue affecting the general public. We are in a reality where people are being left to themselves to decide what is the scientific truth on complex issues ranging from global warming to the Covid-19 pandemic. And as I said above, the talking heads are contradicting each other. Sometimes this is genuine ignorance, sometimes it is the result of political agenda. So how does the layman qualify the expert?

We don’t have voir dire in the public arena. So, we can’t directly question and evaluate the expert to challenge their knowledge or bias. We can however frequently look at their experience and training by reviewing their CV or resume. We can in some cases evaluate how well regarded their opinions are in the field to which they belong by looking at their publication that have passed peer review. If neither of these are available, then that needs also be considered.

Now, with these concepts in mind consider Dr. Scott Atlas. He is an advisor to the President on the Covid-19 pandemic. Is he qualified? Although he is not an infectious disease expert, he does have experience with public health care policy. In this capacity he is a lecturer at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University which is a public policy think tank. So, in the quick estimate he does seem to have something to offer to the discussion.

But remember that the Hoover Institution is not a medical group, they are a public policy think tank dedicated to individual, economic, and political freedom. So, we do have a means to potentially establish Atlas’ bias. And, if he were to confine himself to public policy advise exclusively to issue of freedom, then I think it would be safe to say he can be qualified to be considered an expert.    

However, he has drifted into the arena of combating the pandemic. This is outside his core education and professional experience. To many, this disqualifies him as an expert. So here we stop and put his opinion back to the level of a layman. Which we have already said should be limited only to direct knowledge of the issue.

On the other hand, an argument can be made that the pandemic does brush up against his experience and knowledge. It is probably beyond the ability of someone judging from public information to decide if it brushes close enough to include or exclude him as an expert. Therefore, I think it is reasonable for the average person to consider his opinion to be that of an expert. Certainly, Dr. Atlas must purport his words knowing that he will be regarded as an expert.

So, on to the next issue, the testimony itself. Does what he says meet the burden of general acceptance within the scientific community to which it belongs? Here the layman has perhaps the best opportunity to evaluate his opinion.

Although he denies it, everything Atlas has pushed for is in accordance with an attempt to build herd immunity. The best estimates are that this would leave 213 million people in the U.S. infected of which 1,385,800 will die. Now remember that Atlas is not an epidemiologist, by training he is a neuroradiologist who promotes public freedom. His credibility comes from his connection to the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

Stanford is well regarded in the areas of medicine and epidemiology. So, general acceptance by his peers at this institution would go a long way to validating his testimony. His peers however do not accept his opinion. In fact, 98 Stanford physicians and researchers with the relevant expertise in infectious disease, epidemiology, health policy signed and published a letter claiming Dr. Atlas misrepresented the sciences. The letter said his statements “run counter to established science and, by doing so undermine public heath authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy.”

In addition, Stanford University has released the following statements:

 

"Stanford's position on managing the pandemic in our community is clear. We support using masks, social distancing, and conducting surveillance and diagnostic testing. We also believe in the importance of strictly following the guidance of local and state health authorities."

 

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university's approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas's statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university."

 

In response to the first letter, Dr. Atlas threatened to sue for defamation. As of this writing, there has been no response to the Stanford’s statements. Clearly however, his opinion does not meet the burden of general acceptance.

I warn my forensic students that when they become experts, they need to be wary of drifting outside their actual expertise. They will learn a lot about a lot and may have the knowledge to understand things outside of their core. But because they are credible, the expert needs to stay in their lane and not speculate on things they think they know.

So, to be clear on my lane. I am writing here as someone who teaches testifying and courtroom demeanor. I am not an infectious disease expert. And just to be clear about my personal bias, I am not in favor of an approach to fighting covid-19 that accepts more than one million dead. But I did not choose Dr. Atlas as my example because I disagree with him. I use Dr. Atlas as an example because he is low hanging fruit.

Dr. Atlas is a perfect example of the difficulty facing the people trying to figure out the truth in a dangerous and confusing time. I could easily find potential and self-professed experts on any side of almost any major issue. This is the blessing and the curse of the internet. But because Dr. Atlas has spent most of his career in the public eye and because his peers publicly stated their position on his opinion, we can easily evaluate him as an expert.

In other cases, it is not as easy. Qualifying an expert is something we are just not used to doing… or are we? Your friend is a nurse who tells you your doctor is wrong, and you should really take drug X instead of drug Y. Your friend has no ulterior motive to do you harm. But do you simply accept that they are right, or do you choose to stay with the doctor who has your full medical history and a different training in diagnostics. You evaluate based on the individual credibility knowledge and bias of each source. Admittedly this is harder when you don’t personally know the sources. But it is just as critical.

It may be easier just give up saying the experts disagree and facts keep changing and just pick the most palatable answer. But know that the facts don’t change, our understanding of them does. On many issues the real experts are working on theories that evolve as that understanding grows.

We are in a changing and dangerous time. Most of us don’t personally have the knowledge we need for survival. What we have are talking heads telling use contradictory information. So, choose your experts carefully based on qualifications and bias, not just based on if you like what they are saying.