The phrase “the death of expertise” encapsulates a growing societal trend where the authority of trained professionals and established knowledge is increasingly dismissed in favor of personal opinions, anecdotal evidence, and unverified information from the internet. Coined and popularized by Tom Nichols in his 2017 book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters, this concept highlights how factors like the democratization of information via the web, shifts in higher education, and media sensationalism have eroded public trust in experts. Nichols argues that this rejection stems from a misguided extension of democratic ideals, where equality in rights morphs into an insistence on equal validity of all opinions, regardless of evidence or training. But should we be concerned about this phenomenon? Absolutely. The death of expertise poses profound risks to democratic governance, public health, scientific progress, and societal stability, as it fosters misinformation, polarizes communities, and undermines informed decision-making. While some benefits exist in challenging authority, the overall implications demand vigilance and action.

At its core, the death of expertise arises from several interconnected causes. The internet has played a pivotal role by providing unprecedented access to information, yet this abundance often leads to superficial understanding rather than deep knowledge. As Nichols notes, “Never have so many people had access to so much knowledge, and yet been so resistant to learning anything.” Platforms like Google and Wikipedia allow anyone to feel like an instant expert after a quick search, fostering overconfidence and narcissism. This is compounded by higher education’s transformation into a customer-service model, where students are treated as clients demanding satisfaction, leading to grade inflation and a devaluation of rigorous learning. Media literacy efforts, intended to empower consumers, have backfired by promoting relativism—treating all sources as equally valid—and encouraging distrust of traditional gatekeepers. Additionally, the 24-hour news cycle and social media amplify fringe views, creating echo chambers where emotional gratification trumps factual accuracy. These factors converge to create a culture where expertise is seen as elitist or authoritarian, rather than a product of dedicated study and peer review.

One major reason for concern is the tangible harm this trend inflicts on public health and safety. Consider vaccine hesitancy, a stark example where non-experts dismiss decades of scientific consensus. During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation spread rapidly online, leading to lower vaccination rates and preventable deaths. Nichols points out that while experts can err, the system of expertise—through peer review and consensus-building—self-corrects, unlike unchecked personal opinions. Recent discussions on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) echo this, with figures like RFK Jr. publicly advocating against “trusting the experts,” framing it as a feature of totalitarianism rather than science. This rhetoric not only erodes trust but also endangers lives, as seen in outbreaks of diseases like measles in communities influenced by anti-vax narratives. Similarly, climate change denial persists despite overwhelming expert agreement, delaying policy action and exacerbating environmental crises. When laypeople equate their Google-fueled insights with climatologists’ data-driven conclusions, societies fail to address existential threats effectively.

Beyond health, the death of expertise threatens democratic institutions. Nichols warns that equating unfounded opinions with expert knowledge risks collapsing republics into populism or technocracy. Events like Brexit and the 2016 U.S. election illustrate this, where voters rejected economic and policy experts’ warnings, leading to unforeseen consequences like economic instability. In politics, this manifests as anti-intellectualism, where leaders appoint unqualified individuals to key roles—such as a Secretary of Education with no public education experience—prioritizing loyalty over competence. The rise of populist figures who deride “elites” further polarizes society, as seen in recent X posts linking the trend to broader cultural shifts since smartphones and social media became ubiquitous around 2014. This decline in trust extends to journalism and science, where “fake news” accusations undermine factual reporting, fostering cynicism and tribalism.

Critics might argue that concern is overblown, pointing to benefits in democratizing knowledge. The internet has empowered marginalized voices, exposed expert biases, and accelerated innovation through crowdsourcing. Historical examples abound where experts were wrong—think of early medical consensus on bloodletting or economic predictions failing during crises. Challenging authority can prevent groupthink and encourage accountability. Moreover, Nichols himself acknowledges expert fallibility, suggesting that public skepticism isn’t inherently bad if rooted in evidence. In fields like technology, citizen scientists have contributed meaningfully, blurring lines between amateurs and professionals.

However, these positives are outweighed by the risks. The issue isn’t skepticism but uninformed dismissal. As one review notes, media amplification of fringe experts creates false equivalencies, making consensus seem debatable when it’s not. For instance, vaccine debates pit 99% of scientists against a vocal minority, yet media “balance” gives undue weight to the latter. This “decline of trust” stems from reduced social interactions in an individualistic society, where online anonymity allows contradiction without consequence. Nichols frames it as an overextension of egalitarianism: democracy ensures equal rights, not equal expertise. In higher education, treating students as customers validates entitlement, eroding the humility needed for learning. Recent analyses tie this to broader societal harms, like the Trump era’s normalization of distrust, leading to unqualified opinions dominating discourse.

Addressing this requires multifaceted solutions. Experts must communicate more accessibly, showing humanity and emotion to rebuild trust—Nichols cites a Jimmy Kimmel PSA where frustrated doctors humanize their expertise. Education should emphasize critical thinking over self-esteem boosting, teaching how to evaluate sources. Media must prioritize accuracy over sensationalism, and platforms like X could algorithmically promote verified information. Individuals bear responsibility too: as Nichols urges, cultivate humility and recognize when to defer to specialists.

So, yes, we should be deeply concerned about the death of expertise. It represents not just a decline in respect for knowledge but a erosion of the social trust essential for functional societies. From health crises to political instability, the consequences are evident and escalating, as recent events and discussions underscore. While empowering individuals has merits, unchecked anti-expert sentiment risks a return to ignorance-driven decisions. By promoting informed skepticism, better communication, and educational reform, we can revive expertise and safeguard our collective future. As Nichols poignantly warns, ignoring this trend invites populism and dysfunction—threats too grave to dismiss.