What do you think?
Rate this book
Are We All Scientific Experts Now?
To ordinary people, science used to seem infallible. Scientists were heroes, selflessly pursuing knowledge for the common good. More recently, a series of scientific scandals, frauds and failures have led us to question science’s pre-eminence. Revelations such as Climategate, or debates about the safety of the MMR vaccine, have dented our confidence in science. In this provocative new book Harry Collins seeks to redeem scientific expertise, and reasserts science’s special status. Despite the messy realities of day-to-day scientific endeavor, he emphasizes the superior moral qualities of science, dismissing the dubious “default” expertise displayed by many of those outside the scientific community. Science, he argues, should serve as an example to ordinary citizens of how to think and act, and not the other way round.
140 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
13 people are currently reading
218 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
May 11, 2014
A while back, some e-mails from climate change researchers were circulated widely. One takeaway by many people? Climate change is phony and the advocates of it are trying to employ political muscle. Or vaccination science. We heard people saying that vaccinations (at least some of them) can lead to autism--and that parents should have the right to refuse having their children immunized. In the process, herd immunity is compromised and key studies undergirding this concern are deeply flawed.
This brief volume explores such concerns. One issue explored is outlined by the author thus (Page 14): ". . .since the middle of the twentieth century, science has been slipping from the high peak it once occupied and the citizens' relationship to science has changed." The author explores how science has been perceived--from heroism to "paradigms" (after Thomas Kuhn) to a more realistic assessment of science.
The author himself is not a natural scientist--but is a social scientist studying science. He explores how science is perceived--and how it expresses itself. He explores how science can be corrupted for political--or personal--purposes.
The book is brief and the key table (on page 62) is not as transparent as it might be. Still, the volume explores an important issue and concludes that science as an enterprise is quite valuable as we search for explanations of natural and social phenomena.
This brief volume explores such concerns. One issue explored is outlined by the author thus (Page 14): ". . .since the middle of the twentieth century, science has been slipping from the high peak it once occupied and the citizens' relationship to science has changed." The author explores how science has been perceived--from heroism to "paradigms" (after Thomas Kuhn) to a more realistic assessment of science.
The author himself is not a natural scientist--but is a social scientist studying science. He explores how science is perceived--and how it expresses itself. He explores how science can be corrupted for political--or personal--purposes.
The book is brief and the key table (on page 62) is not as transparent as it might be. Still, the volume explores an important issue and concludes that science as an enterprise is quite valuable as we search for explanations of natural and social phenomena.
March 13, 2020
(Za) krótka, ale ekstremalnie ważna książka. Czy w dobie demokratyzacji wiedzy i swobodnego dostępu do informacji, wszyscy jesteśmy ekspertami? Komu możemy ufać w zakresie przekazywanych treści eksperckich, o co chodzi w metodzie naukowej i dlaczego jest więcej warta niż nasze osobiste opinie?
Do przeczytania w jeden wieczór, do przemyślenia znacznie dłużej.
Do przeczytania w jeden wieczór, do przemyślenia znacznie dłużej.
July 30, 2016
Excellent. Accessible and timely, this concise little book is just what the doctor ordered to combat people who believe doctors' orders are nothing special. Makes a very convincing case for why specialized expertise of the scientists should maintain its preeminence in public discussions.
July 30, 2017
*slow clap*
An absolutely necessary book for anyone and everyone, wish I'd read it sooner. Collins builds a poignant case for the special authority of scientific expertise in public debates, laying bare the "default" expertise of the lay (see what I did there) public outside of what he defines as the "core set" of the scientific community.
His arguments are easy to follow as he navigates the reader through a number of notoriously familiar examples of science denial (Climategate, MMR and autism, tobacco lobby) and then accordingly contextualizes the variously misguided attempts at "criticism" by the public to support his argument.
What this book tries to achieve is no small feat, and yet; Collins makes his (very compelling) case in no more than 132 pages (omitting endnotes) of accessible, clear writing.
I'll spare you the details - go read it yourself, you'll be glad you did.
An absolutely necessary book for anyone and everyone, wish I'd read it sooner. Collins builds a poignant case for the special authority of scientific expertise in public debates, laying bare the "default" expertise of the lay (see what I did there) public outside of what he defines as the "core set" of the scientific community.
His arguments are easy to follow as he navigates the reader through a number of notoriously familiar examples of science denial (Climategate, MMR and autism, tobacco lobby) and then accordingly contextualizes the variously misguided attempts at "criticism" by the public to support his argument.
What this book tries to achieve is no small feat, and yet; Collins makes his (very compelling) case in no more than 132 pages (omitting endnotes) of accessible, clear writing.
I'll spare you the details - go read it yourself, you'll be glad you did.
February 27, 2023
Picked up, unloved and unread, in a second hand bookstore this short, thoughtful argument about skepticism about scientific expertise was very readable. It provides a good primer on the nature and taxonomy of expertise and a couple of examples around climate change and and vaccine hesitancy that have only grown in importance since it was published.
February 21, 2023
"The trick that has to be learned it to treat science as special without telling fairy tale stories about it" (p. 81)
"Are We All Scientific Experts Now?" is a short, accessible encapsulation of Collins' theories of expertise. It comes quite clearly from his 2002 "Third Wave" paper and 2007 "Rethinking Expertise" books (both co-authored with Robert Evans, who I'm surprised not to see as a co-author here), as well as some of the more technical academic papers since, but presents the arguments in a very accessible way.
For those familiar with the Collins & Evans theories around expertise, AWASEN doesn't really break much in the way of new ground; rather, it's a smoother presentation with short case study vignettes of those ideas. There are, though, a few things that are (in my view) better articulated in this book than in others:
- A central contribution of this book is developing the idea of "default expertise" as a rejoinder to any form of specialist expertise, a theory that Collins roundly refutes. The most convincing critique of this comes in the conclusion, which, honestly, is probably the tightest and best written chapter (at least in terms of one that I'd assign to students or those looking for an introduction).
- Collins also does a really tidy job of critiquing the position that cases like the Wynne sheep farmers or Epstein AIDS activists represent so-called "lay" expertise. Collins takes issue with this characterization, arguing, in essence, that this devalues the true and robust nature of their expertise. There's nothing lay, in Collins' view, about the expertise of the sheep farmers: they are contributory experts in their own rights, just ones that have been all-too-long ignored by traditional elite institutions. But, it's not that they're any less expert or elite; they're just not often granted their due.
- There's also a pretty good articulation here, compared with elsewhere, of Collins' view about how inappropriate it is to ask experts to 'show their work' (see p. 97). In Collins' view, this is simply an impossibility... to assess a showing of the work requires at least interactional expertise skills, which is useless if the approach is to somehow garner public support or understanding or credibility by 'showing ones work.'
Overall, a solid book. It's a refinement of the 2002 and 2007 contributions, with the benefit of added perspective and reflection, though perhaps with a little less detail. I'd likely still take my students back to the original work over this for the depth, though the arguments above - and the summary in the conclusion - are worth it.
"Are We All Scientific Experts Now?" is a short, accessible encapsulation of Collins' theories of expertise. It comes quite clearly from his 2002 "Third Wave" paper and 2007 "Rethinking Expertise" books (both co-authored with Robert Evans, who I'm surprised not to see as a co-author here), as well as some of the more technical academic papers since, but presents the arguments in a very accessible way.
For those familiar with the Collins & Evans theories around expertise, AWASEN doesn't really break much in the way of new ground; rather, it's a smoother presentation with short case study vignettes of those ideas. There are, though, a few things that are (in my view) better articulated in this book than in others:
- A central contribution of this book is developing the idea of "default expertise" as a rejoinder to any form of specialist expertise, a theory that Collins roundly refutes. The most convincing critique of this comes in the conclusion, which, honestly, is probably the tightest and best written chapter (at least in terms of one that I'd assign to students or those looking for an introduction).
- Collins also does a really tidy job of critiquing the position that cases like the Wynne sheep farmers or Epstein AIDS activists represent so-called "lay" expertise. Collins takes issue with this characterization, arguing, in essence, that this devalues the true and robust nature of their expertise. There's nothing lay, in Collins' view, about the expertise of the sheep farmers: they are contributory experts in their own rights, just ones that have been all-too-long ignored by traditional elite institutions. But, it's not that they're any less expert or elite; they're just not often granted their due.
- There's also a pretty good articulation here, compared with elsewhere, of Collins' view about how inappropriate it is to ask experts to 'show their work' (see p. 97). In Collins' view, this is simply an impossibility... to assess a showing of the work requires at least interactional expertise skills, which is useless if the approach is to somehow garner public support or understanding or credibility by 'showing ones work.'
Overall, a solid book. It's a refinement of the 2002 and 2007 contributions, with the benefit of added perspective and reflection, though perhaps with a little less detail. I'd likely still take my students back to the original work over this for the depth, though the arguments above - and the summary in the conclusion - are worth it.
September 20, 2025
I loved this book. Very well argued and balanced. We don't have to uncritically buy into every scientific idea but we also don't have to be intensely sceptical of every scientific claim. We are not all experts and it ok to trust those that are.
This books helps to lay out a path to how and when to be sceptical of yourself and how to think about and evaluate the expertise in things that you don't have expertise in.
This books helps to lay out a path to how and when to be sceptical of yourself and how to think about and evaluate the expertise in things that you don't have expertise in.
April 4, 2020
Looks like a primer for a public audience on his work on expertise, and therefore has all its strengths and (fewer) weaknesses.
October 28, 2021
Clearly written and one important part of the puzzle of understanding science denial in modern society.
February 24, 2022
Collins doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that people have a natural mistrust of elite institutions--science included. This issue is not about who is expert but rather about who we trust.
Want to read
November 9, 2023Teaching this book next semester in my seminar on Public Trust in Science.
February 20, 2023
This book draws attention to the extreme devaluation of expertise and the fact that just because information is at our fingertips, people feel that when they google something and form an opinion, which they are entitled to, it means that they are also entitled to have their views treated as serious candidates for the truth. That is incorrect. We should all make efforts to bring back the respect for expertise and scientific facts. Some even go as far as they are proud to be ignorant. As Collins says, ”Respect for education, knowledge and creativity [and] integrity" are essential in our knowledge economy.
August 3, 2025
It's only 132 pages but my god was it hard to get through. On page 5, I wrote a note that reads "Maybe Collins has CJD, that would explain these brain-dead takes".
There's a lot wrong with the book, but at it's core, Collins' argument is that while we all have many types of expertise, but it is not a substitute for scientific expertise. However, these arguments and explanations are incredibly convoluted and often written in incomplete and disingenuous ways. A quick example is with "Science and technology both gave rise to the spread of the cattle disease..." Choosing to blame the tools and methods and not the economic systems in power shows that he has an agenda and an argument he wants to push, or that he is a massive dumbass. I honestly think it's a bit of both.
Collins is a sociologist, and he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and what makes science a special and unique method of thought. He tries to assess it from a lenses of sociology, how it has evolved and why people are distrusting of it, but he has too many gaps in his logic, and leaves too many things out to take him seriously. His theories on the types of expertise and "waves" of science are mostly garbage. This framework of analyzing science is what he seems to be pushing in this book, but it's mostly irrelevant and messy. There is also VERY LITTLE written on how people have changed over the decades, how education quality and critical thinking has dropped, how people have become more polarized, or the very real issues of confirmation bias and so on.
Anything good here (his writing on how even people with access to primary research are not capable of understanding it, and will cherry pick data, OR how scientists are held to higher standards and are more harshly judged), is deeply buried in a mountain of BS. Not worth the time.
There's a lot wrong with the book, but at it's core, Collins' argument is that while we all have many types of expertise, but it is not a substitute for scientific expertise. However, these arguments and explanations are incredibly convoluted and often written in incomplete and disingenuous ways. A quick example is with "Science and technology both gave rise to the spread of the cattle disease..." Choosing to blame the tools and methods and not the economic systems in power shows that he has an agenda and an argument he wants to push, or that he is a massive dumbass. I honestly think it's a bit of both.
Collins is a sociologist, and he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and what makes science a special and unique method of thought. He tries to assess it from a lenses of sociology, how it has evolved and why people are distrusting of it, but he has too many gaps in his logic, and leaves too many things out to take him seriously. His theories on the types of expertise and "waves" of science are mostly garbage. This framework of analyzing science is what he seems to be pushing in this book, but it's mostly irrelevant and messy. There is also VERY LITTLE written on how people have changed over the decades, how education quality and critical thinking has dropped, how people have become more polarized, or the very real issues of confirmation bias and so on.
Anything good here (his writing on how even people with access to primary research are not capable of understanding it, and will cherry pick data, OR how scientists are held to higher standards and are more harshly judged), is deeply buried in a mountain of BS. Not worth the time.
July 18, 2015
This was a pretty good book overall. I certainly think that his idea that science generally knows what it is doing is one that needs to be reiterated today. And that most people don't know even to argue about it. However it felt like he really wanted to write a book in response to the anti-vaccine people but didn't have the gumption to do so directly.
It was a fairly easy and quick read, though there was some things I disliked. First, in the first chapter he says that sciences studies has come in three waves and then describes two of them with out mentioning the third or even saying that it will be describes later in chapter three. Before you get to it you have to wade through the unnecessary long chapter two describing the various types and subtypes of expertise. While the book is about expertise I felt that there was too much of this classifying and it did little to add to his mine ideas. For an academic setting this would be important but for a book of this type it probably hurt more than helped. During this chapter he does really define the default expert which is the thing he is arguing against. Once you wade through all of this suddenly the get a quick description of the third wave. Very brief for something he is trying to support.
Overall I would have liked to see more science and less sociology in the book.
It was a fairly easy and quick read, though there was some things I disliked. First, in the first chapter he says that sciences studies has come in three waves and then describes two of them with out mentioning the third or even saying that it will be describes later in chapter three. Before you get to it you have to wade through the unnecessary long chapter two describing the various types and subtypes of expertise. While the book is about expertise I felt that there was too much of this classifying and it did little to add to his mine ideas. For an academic setting this would be important but for a book of this type it probably hurt more than helped. During this chapter he does really define the default expert which is the thing he is arguing against. Once you wade through all of this suddenly the get a quick description of the third wave. Very brief for something he is trying to support.
Overall I would have liked to see more science and less sociology in the book.
July 28, 2014
An exceptionally clear and bright exposition of the uses and abuses of scientific expertise. Already twelve years ago Collins introduced the concept of 'interactional expertise', which was an eye opener to many. Now he has completed the picture. Introducing several additional types of expertise, he manages to find order in a seemingly endless number of scandals by explaining the underlying mechanisms and misunderstandings of how scientific knowledge is produced and applied.
The only thing I find puzzling though, is the blurb of the book, which claims that science has "superior moral qualities" compared to other professions. I am not sure whether Collins really means that. A scientist today would seem weird when claiming a superior moral quality of his or her work compared, for instance, to a carpenter's work, or a painter making nice pictures. How should a scientist be able to justify that? A scientist can only claim to be superior at science, compared to wannabe scientists. Probably the blurb should have said that experts have superior moral qualities in their fields of expertise, which is kind of obvious.
The only thing I find puzzling though, is the blurb of the book, which claims that science has "superior moral qualities" compared to other professions. I am not sure whether Collins really means that. A scientist today would seem weird when claiming a superior moral quality of his or her work compared, for instance, to a carpenter's work, or a painter making nice pictures. How should a scientist be able to justify that? A scientist can only claim to be superior at science, compared to wannabe scientists. Probably the blurb should have said that experts have superior moral qualities in their fields of expertise, which is kind of obvious.
September 28, 2014
An accessible summary of Collins's earlier work on expertise and three waves of science studies.
Merits of the book:
- an appeal to sober appreciation of science, without exaggerating its scope, idealising its practices, or sanctifying its practitioners;
- useful classicifaction of types of expertise and their likely roles;
- stressing the prominence of interactional expertise;
- shortness of the book.
What I disliked about this book:
- passing over the personal and social complexities of everyday activities of scientists which explain much of the course of science;
- following from the preceding point, failing to make a distinction between processes in science seen from a global/historical and from a local/everyday perspective;
- ignoring the genealogy of scientific misconduct, yielding a simplistic impression of self-corrective potential of science;
- occasional dissipation of argumentation;
- the author's unadulterated admiration for his own achievements.
Merits of the book:
- an appeal to sober appreciation of science, without exaggerating its scope, idealising its practices, or sanctifying its practitioners;
- useful classicifaction of types of expertise and their likely roles;
- stressing the prominence of interactional expertise;
- shortness of the book.
What I disliked about this book:
- passing over the personal and social complexities of everyday activities of scientists which explain much of the course of science;
- following from the preceding point, failing to make a distinction between processes in science seen from a global/historical and from a local/everyday perspective;
- ignoring the genealogy of scientific misconduct, yielding a simplistic impression of self-corrective potential of science;
- occasional dissipation of argumentation;
- the author's unadulterated admiration for his own achievements.
January 20, 2015
A good review and refresher of Collins' other books that's very accessible.
The answer was a little obvious. We're all experts but we're not all scientific experts. Collins seems to put the scientist on a moral pedestal, assume that they have to be, and in most cases are, more moral than the layman; a claim I believe to not have enough evidence to support it. That being said, one could probably write several books on that topic.
Collins engages on a good discussion of both climategate and the MMR vaccine debate.
This would be a good books to read to refresh yourself on Collins other works or gain a base knowledge of expertise.
The answer was a little obvious. We're all experts but we're not all scientific experts. Collins seems to put the scientist on a moral pedestal, assume that they have to be, and in most cases are, more moral than the layman; a claim I believe to not have enough evidence to support it. That being said, one could probably write several books on that topic.
Collins engages on a good discussion of both climategate and the MMR vaccine debate.
This would be a good books to read to refresh yourself on Collins other works or gain a base knowledge of expertise.
December 17, 2015
Collins tackles public policy issues involving science, drawing from his model of expertise and deep understanding of both public policy-making and the sociology of science. The book offers a rebuttal of the anti-vaccination movement, his explanation of what we should really learn from the "Climategate scandal," and other relevant issues.
November 7, 2014
Great little book. After reading it I am an expert on expertise
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews