Common Collectivity

If you've never read Immanuel Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?" you should. It is an excellent piece and quite easy to get through. Within he expounds an idea that we should learn and participate in the world on our own terms, not depending upon paid professionals to determine certain aspects of our life.

If I have a book to have understanding in
place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge
my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think,
so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.

One of my basic beliefs applies here. That in order to make a point, more extreme ideas must be presented, with the understanding that the pendulum will swing back towards moderation eventually, bringing the essentials of your ideas with it. Example: Freud believed that absolutely nothing aside from the subconscious affected your psychology. While the idea that only that single aspect of psychology has long since been debunked, psychologists still consider his work influential and, certain aspects, relevant.

I now, after a long time of simply not analyzing Kant's statement, realized that he is wrong just as Freud was wrong. Not in the sense, perhaps, that he is a blundering buffoon whose logic is entirely flawed and erroneous, but more that he must be toned down.
The trend in many modern fields is a move towards niche-isim. The idea that we are trying to reach a very niched audiences and that everyone must have a very specific field of understanding.
Thus it could be argued that while yes, we all should take a personal interest and put some personal thought into our diets, our learning, our legal rights and a variety of other topics, we cannot understand all of these things to the utmost efficency and thus should use profesionals as supplements to our understanding. We need not fully replace nutrionists with our own understanding.

Keep thinking your thoughts and things