Ultracrepidarianism is a word little used to express something very practiced, especially since the beginning of the health crisis. This word means adopting a behavior consisting in giving one’s opinion on subjects for which one has no legitimate or proven competence.

This somewhat barbaric word comes from a Latin expression: “sutor, ne supra crepidam”, meaning “shoemaker, no higher than the shoe”. This curious expression actually means that a person cannot afford to devote himself to a task other than that corresponding to his skills (in this case, for the shoemaker, to stick to the shoe, and not higher) .

This Latin quote is said to come from a true story, reported by a painter of the 380s BC in Greece. This painter had exhibited paintings at the sight of passers-by in the street, and listened to the criticisms of the people who passed in front of him. A shoemaker allegedly addressed him by pointing out an error on one of the paintings, about a shoe handle. The artist accepted the criticism, noting the craft of the man who had issued it. The next day the same man returned, and noticing the error corrected, also criticized the leg drawn on the same board. The artist, this time, would have replied to the shoemaker to limit himself to what he knew, namely the shoe, and nothing above it.

Ultracrepidarianism is thus derived from these Latin terms, and therefore pejoratively describes people who issue opinions on subjects they do not master, and about which they have no competence. The Latin history which resulted from it clearly shows the abuses on both sides of the shoemaker and the artist: the shoemaker, in fact, should stick to his field of competence. However, the artist used this argument of incompetence to silence the shoemaker, on a common object of observation, which was general and accessible to all. Using this accusation of ultracrepidarianism, we also sometimes fall into the silencing of everyone, on accessible subjects.

Ultracrepidarianism is a very popular trend on hotly debated subjects such as GMOs, nuclear power, or the crisis in the Middle East. This trend has been even more widespread since early 2020, where everyone was able to go from their commentary to describe the health crisis, the origin of the virus, how to cure it, etc., while admitting not to be a doctor or a scientific researcher.

This is what Etienne Klein, philosopher and physicist was able to note, in particular in his book The taste of the real (Published by Gallimard in 2020), since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic.

He says: “I saw Tweets written by political figures, sometimes of very high rank, which began with:” I am not a doctor, but I think … “etc. And, after this honest declaration of incompetence, there followed injunctions on what to do or think about this or that treatment at the very beginning of the epidemic ”.

What is amazing is having so much confidence while admitting to being incompetent, he adds. It is natural in conversations between friends or at the counter of a coffee, on subjects which can impassion us or interest us. We are all potentially called upon to express ourselves on subjects for which we feel competent, but we must remain aware of this. However, in public statements issued by political or public figures, we should be very careful about subjects which are beyond our knowledge and skills. Democracy is not called into question here, because everyone has the right to express themselves, to argue and to ask questions, but knowing the limits of their knowledge, without imposing or opposing anything.

The tendencies to ultracrepidarianism showed during the health crisis that many controversies could arise from statements too rapid and erroneous, made by politicians or personalities who did not have the required knowledge on these specialized scientific subjects.

“Fake news”, false rumors and false truths have thus flooded the web, creating successive waves of concern and even panic, in this complicated and dangerous period for everyone’s health. In these times of uncertainty, the popular mass is much more sensitive to the speeches of arrogant and self-confident people, even if they know nothing about it. Conversely, we listen much less to people who are more moderate and modest, but who nevertheless have proven knowledge.

Let us not prevent ourselves from giving our opinion, nor from debating, reflecting, moving towards reason. However, we must remain humble and know the limits of our knowledge, by asking questions and comparing points of view.