According to experts, texts that are not authorised by experts, may be dangerous! Read this at your own risk!

O_o

The referencing to expert and the bowing to their supposed authority is mostly dumb. It is often blended with scientism. The invoking of the "expert" often results in grovelling for supposed "science" fetish. It may be an integral part of modernity.

I was born in the early 1960s, but this has been around for longer, of course. Let me remind you of some expert advice from my life time.

1. When I was a baby, advice to mothers was to nurse their babies every four hour, not less, not more often. This advice was from some doctors (experts) and then channeled through the govt run health system. I bet very few of these experts had nursed a baby. Maybe they were envious of the capability for lactation. Or they were just so full of, not milk, but themselves.

Later, when my children were small, the advice was not this rigid schema. Oh my, experts were wrong, but now we have new experts! Maybe because there were doctors who had babies of their own, or the midwife profession got some voice?

2. Speaking of babies, when I was a kid, babies usually were sleeping on their back. That was the practice. I do not know if it was an official norm, too. When my kids were born (late 80s), the strong recommendation was to let them sleep on tummy. The reason given was that they drool and may puke, and that can choke them.

In the 90s, back to the old advice! Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was partly blamed on having babies sleep on their tummy. Maybe actually some science involved here?

3. Vitamin AD supplement. A and D is needed. I heard decades ago, by "alternative" channels that in early days of the synthetic AD, some children were injured, because the dose of A was too high. Thank the (commercial) experts of the time for that overdose! A is poisonous in larger doses, and should be used with caution. Now they removed the A from the supplements. Not sure if it was experts or scientists who recommended that.

D can also be overdosed, but nowhere near as risky as A. The recommended daily intake for adults might even be a bit low. Regularly an expert ("doctor") comes in media and says people are overdosing certain vitamins and minerals, among those recently is D. The whole medical field is very corrupted, so why trust these experts who criticise something freely available, un-patented?

Experts are known to produce FUD. Microshaft were famous for FUD, so maybe health advice from anyone connected to that corporation should be avoided, forgive the pun, like the plague?

Some recurring doctors and other experts in MSM are presented with their first name only. As if they are an old family doctor. Maybe that is a warning sign. Dr Personable. I wouldn't take health advice from Dr John, either 😛

4. Eating diagrams produced by government.

5. "Expert witnesses" in court... I see no reason to believe that e.g. the psychology experts are getting better. They might be, but "experts" are often products of their time, so hope might be found elsewhere?

6. Recently we had the mighty Dr Faulty change his mind on masks several times. And he was presented as being always right, and one of the genuises of the last forty years. But somehow , if you criticise the idea or use of masks, you are a bad citizen. And even worse consumer. Experts protect you against your own bad thoughts. We are ever so grateful.

Politicians, especially life time career ones, are often lazy good-for-nothings that joined the corps as they know they wouldn't get that far in business nor academia. So they believe in experts. Or at least refer to them. It is lazy and also makes them think they do not have to take responsibility for bad consequences of their politics. Basically the same method they use to either (in Europe) say "we must follow what the EU decides", and (globally) "follow the UN". Both of which are technocratically minded bureaucracies, made up of "experts". Lazy, incompetent and corrupt politicians.

In normal language, "expert" might be used for someone who is very good at building stuff. It's been almost thirty years since I saw the inside of academia, but I cannot recall anyone, not even very famous researchers, being called "expert". They might be called "world leading authority" on something, but that did not force anyone to agree with them. Funny how "expert" is in some ways more authoritarian than "authority". The genuflection to experts might be laughable, but it is also scary so many engage in it.

From my experience and point of view, if something is called an "expert" in connection with "science", it is a political/ideological or commercial interest involved, or at least in the intention by those calling for "the experts".

And that is my expert opinion. I do not have an official badge, nor stipend, but I identify as an expert, so you better believe me.