As always it helps to distinguish between the thing itself (expertise) and the representation of the thing (a credential). Sometimes appearances are representative, but sometimes they're not, sometimes they're very deceiving. Unfortunately I think some people use credentials as a shortcut: it may be easier to get a PhD than to actually master a subject, so lazy people without passion for the subject will be content with the credential and never attain expertise.
I worked as an engineer for a long time, so I've met every kind of engineer: the brilliant PhD, the idiotic, arrogant PhD, the brilliant self-taught programmer, the hopeless self-taught programmer. I do think credentials mean *something* (I certainly benefited from my bachelor's degree) but honestly they can often just be a marker of wealth.
In my opinion, credentials can absolutely signify expertise, but the only way to actually determine if that expertise is worth a damn is by actually checking the content of the person's message, which is the exact same way you'd judge someone without those credentials. So at the end of the day, it HAS to come down to judging the take itself rather than the take-haver.
Another way, if you're a cantankerous person like me, is to argue with them. I argue with people on Substack without regard to their credentials, and the different responses I get are interesting. Some argue back calmly (Darby Saxbe for example) but others freak out (often invoking their credential) and block me. I take a screenshot of the conversation leading up to them blocking me, and hold onto it, like a scalp.
Of course it also works to read their content, but I find the quickest way to check expertise is to poke a little. True experts usually enjoy being poked. They are secure in their knowledge and they usually love to share it, even if it's with uncredentialed lay-people.
Great take. From my perspective, I have tried (and succeeded twice!) at publishing through "trusted, vetted" outlets. Recently, it feels like the media doesn't care about my topic (maternal health care). Early in the second Trump administration I literally had an editor of a healthcare news outlet tell me she liked my essay but to "try again later" when this topic was in the news again. Well, I don't get paid to do write anyway. I write because I would like my ideas out in the universe. And sometimes the people "vetting" are actually deciding for the rest of us what topics matter. Is that fair? Maybe my topic isn't "hot" right now but it matters to some people. So I'll just put it out there and hope they find it 🤷♀️
I never even considered that angle, but that's totally true. The things that get published are not necessarily the things that need to be voiced. Sometimes we're screaming into the void, but sometimes we're striking gold with some random post on Substack that really ends up resonating with people. Obviously, I appreciate your writing and I think you should keep publishing whatever you want.
You are correct when you say that the probability that say the New York Times makes a mistake is not literally zero, but that is also a massive straw man. What is simply true? Is that unless you already have detailed knowledge of how good and reliable and author is or are willing to put in an exceptional amount of time and effort into finding that information, it’s not worth your time to assume that any random blogger is equally reliable as the New York Times. The New York Times makes mistakes, but it makes them much less often than a randomly selected blogger and bloggers who don’t know anything or lie a lot are hardly going to let you know that in the post. There is nothing unreasonable in saying reliable rule of thumb regarding which sources are accurate just because it has exceptions that would be like arguing that age limits on save voting should not exist because there are immature people who are technically more than 18 years old and mature people who are less than 18 years old. Unless you have some magical way of finding out which sources are reliable and which are not which does not suffer from false positive or negatives and does not take a huge amount of time, you have to rely on simple rules of thumb like this.
This is great! I agree that we don't have 20/20 epistemic knowledge, so we often have shortcuts to make life easier, one of which is to rely on reliable sources and be wary of random ones. But...
The only way to figure out of the claims made in the NYT or in a random blog are true of not is *still* to actually test and verify both. We would not use a lower standard of inquiry for the NYT just because it's a the NYT. I think I made sure to acknowledge in the piece that it's a lot less likely that an expert or a reputable publication are wrong than a blog post. It just doesn't mean that reputable = correct.
As for the rule of thumb to use, I agree that we can't apply the same level of skepticism to blogs as the NYT. The NYT puts their stuff through a vetting process before publication that's often missing for blogs, so really, when you're reading a blog, you the reader need to be doing an additional level of vetting that's done for you by the NYT. It is still the case that you cannot simply take anything published in the NYT at its face just because its standards are higher. You still have to exercise sound judgement and seek out alternative views. The critical thinking hat that you should wear is the same for all cases and you should be wearing it at all timea, regardless of what you're reading.
Lots of agreement here, but I think your advice is good advice for someone who reads a lot of news and is willing to spend unusual amounts of time on it but for most people who just read news for say 10 to 30 minutes a day, it just is not worth the additional accuracy to go. Find multiple sources and check everything instead of just reading through one or two reliable sources that are usually correct and keep you up-to-date on what’s happening.
What I love about this reflection is how it peels apart the hidden assumptions behind “vetting.” There’s a quiet faith, especially in our culture, that truth is something bestowed by institutions, that a byline in the right place confers legitimacy. But as you’ve laid out, the process of discernment is always personal. Even with credentialed voices, we’re still exercising judgment, whether we admit it or not.
Your argument against credentialism resonates deeply with me. In my own writing, I’ve often wrestled with how much of authority is constructed; an inheritance of networks, platforms, or gatekeepers, versus how much comes from the merit of the thought itself. Like you, I find the most meaningful voices are those who risk writing without the institutional armor, where clarity and resonance have to stand on their own.
The throughline you identify, that truth surfaces in unexpected places, sometimes from the “randoms,” is one I return to often in my own reflections. It feels like the healthiest intellectual posture is not suspicion of the unvetted, but suspicion of our own temptation to outsource judgment.
As always it helps to distinguish between the thing itself (expertise) and the representation of the thing (a credential). Sometimes appearances are representative, but sometimes they're not, sometimes they're very deceiving. Unfortunately I think some people use credentials as a shortcut: it may be easier to get a PhD than to actually master a subject, so lazy people without passion for the subject will be content with the credential and never attain expertise.
I worked as an engineer for a long time, so I've met every kind of engineer: the brilliant PhD, the idiotic, arrogant PhD, the brilliant self-taught programmer, the hopeless self-taught programmer. I do think credentials mean *something* (I certainly benefited from my bachelor's degree) but honestly they can often just be a marker of wealth.
In my opinion, credentials can absolutely signify expertise, but the only way to actually determine if that expertise is worth a damn is by actually checking the content of the person's message, which is the exact same way you'd judge someone without those credentials. So at the end of the day, it HAS to come down to judging the take itself rather than the take-haver.
Another way, if you're a cantankerous person like me, is to argue with them. I argue with people on Substack without regard to their credentials, and the different responses I get are interesting. Some argue back calmly (Darby Saxbe for example) but others freak out (often invoking their credential) and block me. I take a screenshot of the conversation leading up to them blocking me, and hold onto it, like a scalp.
Of course it also works to read their content, but I find the quickest way to check expertise is to poke a little. True experts usually enjoy being poked. They are secure in their knowledge and they usually love to share it, even if it's with uncredentialed lay-people.
The arrogant ones are the worst 🤣
Great take. From my perspective, I have tried (and succeeded twice!) at publishing through "trusted, vetted" outlets. Recently, it feels like the media doesn't care about my topic (maternal health care). Early in the second Trump administration I literally had an editor of a healthcare news outlet tell me she liked my essay but to "try again later" when this topic was in the news again. Well, I don't get paid to do write anyway. I write because I would like my ideas out in the universe. And sometimes the people "vetting" are actually deciding for the rest of us what topics matter. Is that fair? Maybe my topic isn't "hot" right now but it matters to some people. So I'll just put it out there and hope they find it 🤷♀️
I never even considered that angle, but that's totally true. The things that get published are not necessarily the things that need to be voiced. Sometimes we're screaming into the void, but sometimes we're striking gold with some random post on Substack that really ends up resonating with people. Obviously, I appreciate your writing and I think you should keep publishing whatever you want.
Thanks! That's a big compliment coming from you. I feel likewise about your writing.
"I feel like whenever I read a Substack article, there is at least one grammatical error."
I feel seen.
Grammatical error detected = opinion rejected
You are correct when you say that the probability that say the New York Times makes a mistake is not literally zero, but that is also a massive straw man. What is simply true? Is that unless you already have detailed knowledge of how good and reliable and author is or are willing to put in an exceptional amount of time and effort into finding that information, it’s not worth your time to assume that any random blogger is equally reliable as the New York Times. The New York Times makes mistakes, but it makes them much less often than a randomly selected blogger and bloggers who don’t know anything or lie a lot are hardly going to let you know that in the post. There is nothing unreasonable in saying reliable rule of thumb regarding which sources are accurate just because it has exceptions that would be like arguing that age limits on save voting should not exist because there are immature people who are technically more than 18 years old and mature people who are less than 18 years old. Unless you have some magical way of finding out which sources are reliable and which are not which does not suffer from false positive or negatives and does not take a huge amount of time, you have to rely on simple rules of thumb like this.
This is great! I agree that we don't have 20/20 epistemic knowledge, so we often have shortcuts to make life easier, one of which is to rely on reliable sources and be wary of random ones. But...
The only way to figure out of the claims made in the NYT or in a random blog are true of not is *still* to actually test and verify both. We would not use a lower standard of inquiry for the NYT just because it's a the NYT. I think I made sure to acknowledge in the piece that it's a lot less likely that an expert or a reputable publication are wrong than a blog post. It just doesn't mean that reputable = correct.
As for the rule of thumb to use, I agree that we can't apply the same level of skepticism to blogs as the NYT. The NYT puts their stuff through a vetting process before publication that's often missing for blogs, so really, when you're reading a blog, you the reader need to be doing an additional level of vetting that's done for you by the NYT. It is still the case that you cannot simply take anything published in the NYT at its face just because its standards are higher. You still have to exercise sound judgement and seek out alternative views. The critical thinking hat that you should wear is the same for all cases and you should be wearing it at all timea, regardless of what you're reading.
Lots of agreement here, but I think your advice is good advice for someone who reads a lot of news and is willing to spend unusual amounts of time on it but for most people who just read news for say 10 to 30 minutes a day, it just is not worth the additional accuracy to go. Find multiple sources and check everything instead of just reading through one or two reliable sources that are usually correct and keep you up-to-date on what’s happening.
Good article. Unfortunately, my forklift license actually does make me a better writer than you. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
I am willing to live with this
So good. Thanks
Thank you!
What I love about this reflection is how it peels apart the hidden assumptions behind “vetting.” There’s a quiet faith, especially in our culture, that truth is something bestowed by institutions, that a byline in the right place confers legitimacy. But as you’ve laid out, the process of discernment is always personal. Even with credentialed voices, we’re still exercising judgment, whether we admit it or not.
Your argument against credentialism resonates deeply with me. In my own writing, I’ve often wrestled with how much of authority is constructed; an inheritance of networks, platforms, or gatekeepers, versus how much comes from the merit of the thought itself. Like you, I find the most meaningful voices are those who risk writing without the institutional armor, where clarity and resonance have to stand on their own.
The throughline you identify, that truth surfaces in unexpected places, sometimes from the “randoms,” is one I return to often in my own reflections. It feels like the healthiest intellectual posture is not suspicion of the unvetted, but suspicion of our own temptation to outsource judgment.
The reason never to listen to Yglesias is because he endorsed lying for his partisan goals, as well as forced vaccinations during COVID.
Everything else is window dressing.
Thank you!