Where does that idea come from? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is there a citation or a paper that will substantiate your thesis? Are experts always right? Should laymen be suspected? Is opinion different from fact? If something is a fact today, will it be true in 2 years, 5, 50? If the fact is true, is it the only truth?

I had a conversation (many actually) this week about what I derogatorily referred to as the cult of the expert. I suggested that " chasing the one true path only leads us to one true conclusion." We go down a narrowing tunnel once experts take the lead.

There are areas in my life that I trust expertise and tradition like engineering and transportation. I would be more comfortable crossing a bridge built by a team of engineers and bridge builders than a group of guys along the river. That doesn't mean that a river crossing couldn't be constructed by non-experts and that it could be effective and innovative. It is just in this situation that I trust the known outcome more than the unknown.

That trust isn't universal, for me. I have a doctor who I like and respect, but I am suspicious of 'big medicine' and the machinery of disease management. I believe that the big charities purporting to be trying to cure their illness may have ulterior agendas (tacit, implied and unknown).

When I hear advice to elect seasoned politicians because of their expertise, I wonder if that might be the very reason not to vote for them. They are experts in a flawed system where the Kool-Aid is really strong.

I am wondering about how often I hear something from a pundit that is understandable, valuable, and worth thinking about. I am pondering whether my discernment is compromised on every occasion that I naively just accept the opinion, advise and 'truth.'

I am reflecting and considering the possibility that we need to listen to experts, consider laymen, embrace wild ideas and make our own disruptive choices.

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.