Expert disagreement deserves attention, not automatic surrender

An informed person disagreeing with you is evidence. It does not follow that, after examining their reasons, you must continue to defer to their conclusion.

That is the distinction at the center of Zvi Mowshowitz’s argument against compulsory intellectual modesty. Before hearing an expert’s reasoning, their judgment can appropriately shift your belief. Afterward, the reasoning itself is available for inspection—including whether apparently independent opinions trace back to the same source or social pressure.

Expertise remains useful. The objection is to making status settle an argument that can be examined on its merits, or requiring anyone who disagrees to claim exceptional personal superiority. Independent judgment can be wrong; deference can be wrong too.