I find positions such as “let the experts talk” or “pretending to be all-knowing” lazy

Anyone who watched PM Express last night would know that the starting point of the disagreement between Bright and Wing Commander Sogbojor was the commander’s stance against policy analysis, which requires triangulation of multiple lines of evidence or information. He believed his experience as a pilot was paramount and should dominate the conversation. He essentially dismissed Bright’s position as “theory” and even questioned the need for a forensic expert on the show.

But this is clearly a multidisciplinary issue. If you are trying to conduct a proper root cause analysis, you must first establish what the ideal situation should be, then compare it to the reality to understand why the ideal was not achieved. Bright was attempting to set that ideal framework, but Wing Commander felt it was unnecessary.

It appears the Wing Commander was unhappy that Bright had earlier made a post correcting his claim that the Z-9 planes were donated to Ghana by China. That seemed to influence the tone and direction of the discussion. Otherwise, Bright’s broader policy perspective and the Wing Commander’s piloting experience could have complemented each other to enrich the public discourse. Shoutouts to Col. Aboagye for the great work!

P.S. I find positions such as “let the experts talk” or “pretending to be all-knowing” lazy. Offer more comprehensive arguments than that.

ADVERTISEMENT