originally posted by Aidan
So whether you claim knowledge of a subject affects my relationship with you. I may buy into your claim (trust your knowledge) or I may distrust you because you attempt to monopolise knowledge impairs my ability to relate to you.
The question becomes one of opening up or closing down. The experts in all the cases Richard quotes tried to close down debate and to belittle the contribution that could be made by others. Knowledge can equally be used to allow others to stand on your shoulders and achieve things neither they nor you can achieve on your own. When we treat the expert as a thing the only question that seems to make sense is whether they are technically correct or not. But the more important question once the expert becomes human is what they are trying to achieve. And that is affected both by their own situation and by whether we trust them to be human. The other feature of the cases Richard cites is that in the full glare of publicness no-one can be human and knowledge is bound to be misused - John's point.
Trust is relative to human stance and to humanity before it is relative to knowledge and correctness. This is what politicians seems to miss. Because trust is based not in information but in stance it is fully dynamic.