Rrhain writes:
When did being one of the "educated elite" become a bad thing? If you needed heart surgery, would you want the "elite" heart surgeon or someone who has read some books, knows a lot of heart surgeons, but has never stepped foot inside an operating theater?
Good point, but it depends which field we are talking about. Take theology, for example. If I am interested in experiencing some "warm fuzzies" I may prefer a small prayer group led by the old lady who has a worn Bible, can quote mine with the best of them, and who flashes a warm and sincere smile and always has a word of comfort for every occasion rather than having the group led by a University Professor of comparative theology who dissects the quotes, questions the sources, and coolly and rationally concludes that "nobody really knows who wrote the book, anyway."
My point is that sometimes we don't want experts. Sometimes we would rather try the folk medicine at the local vitamin cottage and hear "expert" advice from the nutritionist who reads all of the anecdotal reports on the effectiveness of the herbs rather than going to a real Doctor who uses his hand held computer to order the prescriptions necessary and who has never read anything about Coenzyme Q-10 for heart troubles.
Amateurs have a role to play in society, I think. Sometimes I like reading blogs about the presidential debates and read unverifiable opinions and rumors rather than reading the New York Times. Sometimes I like hearing gossip at work rather than taking the time to ask people how they really feel about an issue. Sometimes folklore just makes me feel better than cold hard facts.
I think, (without having read more than a third of the book) that the authors point was that amateur sources and written content now threatens to overshadow legitimate sources and informational content and that it takes an astute and critical reader to be able to accurately discern real information.