Introduction
Summary of the book The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols. Before moving forward, let’s briefly explore the core idea of the book. Think of standing at a busy crossroads, where signs point in every direction, and every stranger claims to have the perfect map. This is our modern world of knowledge. The once-clear path toward understanding has become crowded and tangled with half-truths, confident lies, and loudly repeated guesses. Traditional experts, who carefully study and refine what we know, now face challengers who don’t hesitate to offer quick fixes and easy answers. As you turn each page, you’ll journey through the unexpected twists that led us here: the power of the internet to amplify confusion, the subtle tricks our own minds play, the shifting role of universities, the scramble of modern journalism, the lure of celebrity claims, and the undeniable reality that even true experts can stumble. Within these pages, you will gain insight into why trust in expertise matters – and why reclaiming it is so crucial.
Chapter 1: Exploring Why the Meaning of ‘Expertise’ Has Grown Confusing and Why We Struggle to Trust Those Who Know More Than Us.
Imagine standing in a massive, crowded marketplace filled with voices shouting different versions of the truth. Each vendor claims to have a special insight, a groundbreaking discovery, or a flawless piece of knowledge. In the past, communities often looked to a handful of respected individuals – such as doctors, teachers, scientists, and historians – who had dedicated their lives to understanding a subject deeply. These trusted individuals earned their reputations through long years of study, proven achievements, and a track record of reliable guidance. However, in today’s world, it feels as if anyone with a loud voice or a flashy platform can present themselves as an authority. This confusion did not appear overnight. Many years of shifting social values, rapid technological innovations, and a pushback against traditional institutions have combined to erode the once-sturdy walls that separated true experts from casual guessers.
Over time, we have seen how debates about what experts know versus what the average person believes have intensified. Before the digital age, disagreements often involved limited sources – maybe a few books, newspapers, or local advisors. People generally understood that if you needed medical advice, you consulted a trained doctor; if you wanted information about the stars, you listened to an astronomer. But as communication technologies grew more powerful and widespread, the lines got blurry. Suddenly, everyone had access to countless bits of information online. People started to question why they should trust a handful of voices over the many voices on the internet. This once-healthy skepticism sometimes turned into complete doubt. As a result, people began to challenge long-accepted knowledge, and experts found themselves constantly defending their hard-earned credentials and proven expertise.
This growing distrust did not come from nowhere. In some cases, experts made mistakes or were slow to admit when new evidence disproved their past claims. Other times, powerful industries tried to shape public opinion by spreading misleading information. Over the years, big companies selling harmful products, like tobacco or sugary treats, worked hard to plant seeds of confusion. They did so by financing studies that downplayed risks, hiring spokespersons to reassure the public, and painting critics as alarmists. This behavior bred an environment where people found it increasingly difficult to know who to trust. Mix in the frustration and anger that arise when ordinary citizens feel ignored by governments, institutions, or academic elites, and you get a society more willing to believe that experts are not always looking out for everyone’s best interests.
When the internet arrived, these tense disagreements exploded in scale. Suddenly, anyone could present themselves as an authority on any topic, from health remedies to political policies. Social media allowed people to join forces and push back against the teachings of skilled professionals who had spent decades refining their knowledge. Websites and videos spread rumors and wild claims at record speed, and many viewers found it more compelling or comforting to follow charismatic, untrained voices rather than methodical, careful researchers. In this chaotic digital marketplace of ideas, some people no longer saw established experts as reliable guides. Instead, they believed experts were either out of touch, too biased, or unwilling to admit failures. This mindset, combined with infinite online content, set the stage for what we now face: the complicated death of unquestioned, widely respected expertise.
Chapter 2: Understanding the Internet’s Power to Turn Simple Doubt into Fierce Battles over Who Is Right and Who Is Wrong.
The arrival of high-speed internet and endless online forums changed how we communicate and shape our views. Before this revolution, if you had a question about world history, you might check an encyclopedia or ask a teacher. Now, you might scroll through countless blogs, watch videos of people debating each other, or stumble onto webpages that claim secret histories hidden from the public. The internet lets anyone find sources that confirm their beliefs, no matter how unusual or extreme. This leads to an environment where debates are no longer focused on carefully weighing evidence, but instead on winning arguments, scoring likes, or capturing attention with sensational claims. Once-respected sources now stand shoulder to shoulder with conspiracies, rumors, and poorly researched content. This creates a never-ending background noise where it’s harder than ever to identify who truly knows what they are talking about.
One of the strangest effects of this online knowledge storm is that people who once felt shy about sharing opinions now feel emboldened. There’s a powerful sense of equality on the internet, where a high school student’s blog post can sit right next to a research paper written by a world-class scientist. This equalizing effect can be wonderful, giving everyone a voice and letting fresh ideas surface. But it can also be deeply confusing, because not all voices carry the same informed perspective. Expertise involves deep learning, repeated tests, and a reputation built on trust. Online, all of that can vanish under fancy graphics, a viral meme, or a cleverly worded social media post. We are left guessing which voices deserve our confidence and which are simply loud echoes in a crowded digital hall.
This digital confusion is especially dangerous when it comes to topics that directly impact public health and safety. Take, for instance, the controversy over vaccines. For decades, scientists and doctors have agreed that vaccines protect communities from deadly diseases. Yet, on the internet, rumors that vaccines cause terrible side effects spread easily. Celebrities with no medical training might passionately endorse these false claims, adding star power to dangerous ideas. Before we know it, parents who are trying to protect their children end up making risky decisions by avoiding proven medical treatments. In this way, the internet turns small seeds of doubt into giant, twisted trees of misinformation that overshadow solid, evidence-based advice. The more people link arms to reject expert counsel, the more we undermine the stability of our knowledge and put ourselves at unnecessary risk.
The internet’s power lies in its speed and breadth. Without much effort, you can find any viewpoint you desire, whether it’s correct or utterly misguided. Because many people prefer to have their existing beliefs confirmed rather than challenged, it becomes all too easy to build echo chambers. In these digital bubbles, everyone agrees with everyone else, and the group often lashes out at those who offer sound but unpopular truths. Over time, these groups become certain they are right, and experts become villains who are supposedly hiding something. This problem is made worse when users share misleading stories thousands of times. Suddenly, what began as one random post on a fringe website mutates into a widely accepted fact among a devoted group of believers. The internet’s design makes it both a magnificent library and a chaotic carnival of unreliable storytellers.
Chapter 3: Discovering How Human Minds Trick Themselves, Leading Us to Overconfident Opinions and Ignoring Warnings from Those Who Study Deeply.
Deep inside every person’s mind, there are hidden shortcuts and blind spots that make it hard to judge ourselves accurately. Many of us enjoy believing we are good at something, even when we know very little about it. Psychologists call this the Dunning-Kruger effect: people with limited knowledge often overestimate their abilities. Without fully realizing it, they think, I’ve read a few articles, so I understand this topic as well as anyone. Meanwhile, a true expert, who has spent years mastering a subject, knows how complicated it is. This expert acknowledges what they don’t know, while the inexperienced person remains confident for no good reason. As a result, meaningful conversations become tangled, since those who know the least may shout the loudest, convinced they are just as capable as those who have devoted entire careers to studying the subject.
Human minds also fall victim to confirmation bias, a tricky mental habit where we only pay attention to information that supports what we already believe. Imagine you think a certain group of people is always untrustworthy. Each time you find a story where one member of that group does something bad, you nod and say, Aha! See, I was right! Meanwhile, if ten stories show them doing kind, generous things, you ignore or dismiss them. Instead of testing our beliefs against reality, we bend reality to fit what we expect. Confirmation bias makes it extremely difficult to change our minds, even when confronted with solid evidence. This mental trap affects everyone, from ordinary people to brilliant experts. Doctors can miss the correct diagnosis because they focus on the symptoms that fit their initial guess, rather than considering other possibilities.
When we combine these psychological pitfalls – overconfidence from knowing too little and the comforting cycle of confirmation bias – we build mental shields against change. These shields keep us feeling safe and correct, but they also prevent growth and learning. Instead of listening to genuine experts who can guide us through complex issues, we may choose to follow voices that flatter our intelligence and reassure us that we already know the answers. Over time, this leads to stubbornness and frustration. Complex topics that demand careful thought and collaboration become battlegrounds of ego and emotion. This makes it even harder to recognize true expertise, which might be buried under layers of personal pride and emotional investment. Eventually, the conversation stops being about understanding the world and becomes a competition to prove who is right, regardless of the facts.
As technology allows everyone’s opinions to mingle without filters, these mental flaws play out on a grand scale. Imagine a giant puzzle scattered across a large table. Experts meticulously sort the pieces based on shape and color, slowly revealing a coherent picture. Meanwhile, the rest of us grab random pieces, forcing them together even if they don’t fit. We ignore expert advice about which pieces belong where, insisting our hurried guesses are just as good. Human minds dislike admitting mistakes. This is why, when experts say something we don’t like, we might jump to find evidence on the internet that agrees with us. The result is a noisy, messy discussion where meaningful truth is harder to find. To move forward, we must first understand these mental habits, acknowledge their presence, and be willing to challenge our own comfortable assumptions.
Chapter 4: Exploring How Modern Universities May Give Degrees but Often Fail to Produce Truly Knowledgeable Graduates Ready to Engage with Complex Ideas.
For much of the twentieth century, a college degree was proof of dedicated study and a certain level of expertise. Universities were places where young people wrestled with challenging material, learned from seasoned professors, and gradually built the skills needed to understand complex problems. Today, however, higher education sometimes functions more like a service for paying customers rather than a tough training ground for independent thinkers. As tuition costs soared, schools became more focused on keeping students happy and comfortable. The idea was that treating students like customers would boost enrollment and revenues. But in many cases, this approach has watered down academic standards. Instead of pushing students to think deeply and accept criticism, universities often cushion them with easy grades, light workloads, and constant praise. As a result, graduates may leave campus feeling very confident yet not truly knowledgeable.
This shift in attitude has led to grade inflation, where receiving top marks no longer necessarily means exceptional work. Professors, under pressure to keep students satisfied, might hesitate to challenge their pupils too harshly. Over time, the average grades have crept higher and higher, until A grades are no longer rare but painfully common. Instead of celebrating real achievement and mastery, universities risk turning their degrees into expensive participation trophies. Students then enter the world believing they have deep understanding because they excelled on paper. But if they never encountered tough intellectual battles or learned to handle constructive criticism, they may overestimate their abilities. This gap between a degree’s symbolic value and the graduate’s actual skill feeds into the broader climate of mistrust, as people sense that even supposedly educated individuals might lack the depth that true experts possess.
Another change is the way universities compete for students. Instead of boasting about how challenging their coursework is or how brilliantly their professors can illuminate complicated topics, schools advertise their luxury dorms, gourmet cafeterias, and exciting extracurricular activities. While enjoying campus life is not a bad thing, this emphasis sends the message that the experience is more about comfort than rigorous learning. Students might feel entitled, viewing professors not as guides who demand intellectual growth, but as service providers who must meet the customer’s expectations. In such an environment, deep expertise and genuine intellectual struggle can get lost amid the quest for pleasant experiences and high ratings. Over time, this weakens the meaning of expertise. It becomes too easy to think, I graduated from a prestigious university, so I must be an expert, without having truly earned that title.
This problem in higher education helps explain why some people with college degrees confidently argue against actual experts. They assume their certificate proves they are on equal footing with individuals who spent decades researching a single niche field. The reality is more complicated. Expertise is built from layers of learning, careful testing of ideas, and the willingness to recognize mistakes. Without that foundation, a degree can become merely a symbol, not a guarantee of deep understanding. Instead of producing reliable knowledge, some modern educational systems risk creating overconfident graduates who help fuel the conflict between experts and the public. If universities cannot maintain high academic standards, then they risk contributing to the erosion of trust in expertise. The next time you hear someone say, I’m a college graduate, I know best, it may be worth asking what genuine challenges they overcame.
Chapter 5: Investigating How Modern Journalism, Driven by Speed and Clicks, Struggles to Maintain Accuracy and Earn the Respect of a Skeptical Audience.
In the past, journalists spent years developing their craft. They learned how to check facts thoroughly, interview witnesses carefully, and present information fairly. Becoming a respected reporter meant building a reputation for accuracy, impartiality, and depth. But today’s media landscape has changed dramatically. With the internet’s constant demand for new stories, many outlets struggle just to keep up. They focus on quick, attention-grabbing headlines, worrying less about careful fact-checking and balanced reporting. As a result, news consumers often find themselves drowning in half-true stories, sensational claims, and shallow commentary. Instead of deep investigative work, we get a flood of clickbait – headlines that promise shocking revelations but deliver little real understanding. Over time, this constant diet of low-quality news trains people to distrust journalists. They start to believe that reporters are no better informed than anyone else and sometimes even worse.
This degradation of journalism leads to a vicious cycle. Because many readers want stories that confirm their beliefs or entertain them, news sites compete by publishing what people like to share, rather than what they need to understand. Instead of delivering in-depth coverage of complicated events, they produce pieces that provoke emotional reactions. The logic is simple: more clicks equal more advertising revenue. Quality and accuracy often take a backseat, causing factual slip-ups that further damage trust. Even serious outlets make embarrassing mistakes, sometimes misidentifying important figures or repeating claims without proper verification. When readers notice such errors, they become even more skeptical. Over time, an environment emerges where it’s nearly impossible to be sure if what you’re reading is well-researched analysis or thrown-together speculation. Thus, journalism struggles to maintain the authority it once had as a reliable source of truth.
This shaky foundation makes it easier for misinformation to spread. If even major news organizations occasionally slip up, why shouldn’t people trust obscure blogs or social media posts? Some readers might think that all journalists are equally flawed, so they may as well believe whomever best matches their worldview. As a result, audiences fragment into groups, each trusting their own set of questionable sources. This fragmentation encourages a climate in which expertise is drowned out by a sea of competing voices. Journalists, who once acted as gatekeepers of verified facts, find themselves competing against countless impostors who have no interest in truth. Experts, too, find it harder to share their insights because the platforms that once showcased careful analysis now prefer flashy claims that draw quick attention. In this environment, everyone’s understanding becomes hazy and unstable.
To make matters worse, modern journalism often invites public commentary through online comment sections and social media shares. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea: it can encourage healthy debate and a free exchange of ideas. But in practice, it often gives a megaphone to people without any expertise, who can confidently spread wrong information. The presence of these voices next to actual reporting creates an illusion that all opinions are equally valid. Over time, readers may forget the difference between a carefully researched article by an experienced reporter and a quick, emotional rant by someone who skimmed two headlines. This blending of professional and amateur voices makes it even harder to distinguish solid knowledge from hollow noise. Instead of feeling well-informed, readers may end up confused, frustrated, and uncertain whom to trust.
Chapter 6: Examining How Celebrity Endorsements and High-Profile Voices Can Hijack Important Debates, Undermining Real Experts and Putting Public Well-Being at Risk.
We live in a world fascinated by celebrities. Movie stars, famous musicians, and popular athletes command massive followings and can shape public opinion with a single social media post. While this can be harmless when talking about fashion or movies, it becomes dangerous when these influential figures speak on matters requiring true expertise. Celebrities often know very little about the health, science, or policy topics they comment on. Yet, because of their fame, their words carry weight, and many fans trust them. This leads to unfortunate situations where a celebrity endorses a harmful myth – such as the idea that vaccines are dangerous. Millions of people might suddenly doubt established medical science, preferring the words of someone whose main talent has nothing to do with medicine. Real experts, who present careful evidence, find themselves overshadowed by star power and misinformation.
This dynamic has serious real-world consequences. When people distrust vaccines due to celebrity-fueled rumors, they may refuse to immunize their children. This increases the risk of outbreaks of dangerous diseases that could have been easily prevented. Experts, who spent years studying medicine, publishing research, and treating patients, face disbelief and hostility. Their calm, fact-based explanations lose ground to emotional appeals and famous faces. Over time, such situations chip away at the public’s faith in established knowledge. If a well-known figure can claim that doctors are wrong, and gain support for that claim, then why trust doctors at all? The more this pattern repeats – celebrities distorting truths, ordinary people embracing those distortions, and experts being drowned out – the more society as a whole suffers from poor decisions rooted in flimsy evidence and unearned confidence.
This is not to say that celebrities are always ill-intentioned. Some genuinely care about issues and believe they are helping their fans by sharing information. The problem is that fame does not equal understanding. Without being able to sift through scientific studies, weigh complex evidence, and understand nuances, they often promote simplistic or downright false notions. Their platforms are so large that, even if later corrected by real experts, the damage is done. Many people will hold onto the first thing they heard, especially if it came from a beloved figure. This makes it much more challenging for experts to restore trust. Each misinformation campaign must be fought with patience and clarity, but as new rumors and myths surface, the battle feels never-ending. The stage remains crowded, and expert voices struggle to break through the cheers of celebrity admirers.
The consequence is a cultural climate in which truth becomes a matter of popularity rather than evidence. Instead of carefully assessing data, people sometimes rely on star endorsements to decide what is true. This leads to a dangerous mix of weakly supported claims and strong public support for poor decisions. Expertise, built on years of dedication, cannot easily compete with the emotional pull of a recognizable face flashing a charming smile. The result is not only confusion but the potential undoing of decades of scientific progress. Diseases we once controlled could roar back if enough people doubt vaccines. Environmental challenges might go unaddressed if celebrities promote misleading statements about climate science. Until we learn to differentiate between informed, evidence-backed guidance and star-powered rhetoric, we risk drifting further from a world where knowledge genuinely guides our actions.
Chapter 7: Recognizing That Experts Can Stumble Too, and How Their Mistakes, When Misunderstood, Fuel Public Doubt and Distrust.
No one is perfect, not even experts. Scientists, doctors, and researchers are human beings, and they sometimes make errors or hold beliefs that turn out to be wrong. The problem is not that experts can fail, but that when they do, it’s often used as proof that expertise itself is flawed. Imagine a brilliant chemist who has contributed groundbreaking work in his field. If he steps outside his area of knowledge and confidently claims that a certain vitamin can cure multiple diseases without proper evidence, people might later mock him when it’s proven false. Instead of understanding that even the greatest minds can be mistaken, the public may conclude that experts don’t know anything! This is dangerous because it throws out the massive benefits of expertise due to a few noticeable failures or oversteps into areas they do not fully understand.
Experts also struggle when asked to predict the future. Their training usually focuses on explaining what’s already known and tested. But reporters, governments, and the public often push them to look ahead and tell us what might happen next. For example, political scientists are asked to forecast election results, economists to predict market trends, and health experts to guess when an outbreak will end. These predictions are difficult because real life is incredibly complex, influenced by countless factors that can shift unexpectedly. When experts are wrong, especially on high-profile issues like election outcomes, people feel disappointed and may lose trust. Yet, predicting the future with perfect accuracy is almost impossible, and even top experts will get it wrong sometimes. The key is to understand that an incorrect prediction does not erase their depth of knowledge or their proven track record in other areas.
Just like a skilled athlete who occasionally misses a crucial shot, an expert’s rare failures can overshadow their many successes. People are quick to blame experts for not being all-knowing or for giving advice that does not guarantee perfect outcomes. But expertise is not the same as omniscience. It is a careful approach to understanding a portion of reality as best as we can, guided by evidence and peer review. When experts err, it should encourage us to refine our methods, seek better data, and improve our understanding. Instead, some people use these moments to strengthen their belief that experts are worthless. This response denies us the valuable perspective experts provide. We risk discarding decades of careful research simply because we discovered that even masters of their craft cannot see around every corner or foresee every twist of fate.
We must learn to respond differently to an expert’s mistake. Instead of leaping to distrust, we can treat it as an opportunity to learn more about how knowledge evolves. Scientific progress is built on correcting errors, challenging old theories, and embracing new evidence. Experts welcome constructive criticism and rely on it to improve. When the public understands that a wrong prediction or a flawed assumption does not shatter the entire structure of expertise, we can maintain faith in the importance of professional knowledge. This attitude allows us to distinguish between rare errors and overall incompetence. Rather than condemning experts when they fail, we can work together to uncover why something went wrong and how to prevent similar missteps in the future. In this way, mistakes can become stepping stones toward deeper understanding rather than roadblocks that end trust.
Chapter 8: Considering How to Move Forward by Respecting Expertise, Embracing Complexity, and Taking Responsibility for the Information We Trust.
Now that we have explored the reasons why expertise has lost some of its shine in the public eye, the question is: how do we fix this? First, we must acknowledge that true understanding often takes time, patience, and humility. We need to respect the fact that experts typically invest many years into their fields. They read countless studies, conduct careful experiments, and discuss theories with peers who challenge their views. This process produces knowledge that is more reliable than what a few hours of browsing the internet can offer. By appreciating this difference, we can begin to restore trust. Instead of assuming experts are always wrong or biased, we can recognize that their training helps them avoid many pitfalls that trap the rest of us. This attitude sets the stage for a healthier relationship with those who know more.
We also need to take responsibility for what we consume and share. It is easy to blame experts for failing us, but we must also ask ourselves: how much effort do we invest in verifying the information we encounter? Do we read beyond flashy headlines? Do we double-check sources before spreading a story online? If we become more careful readers and listeners, we reduce the power of misinformation. We learn to spot weak arguments and notice when someone lacks proper credentials. By thinking critically and asking questions, we can separate genuine expertise from empty claims. This effort will not always be easy. It might mean accepting that we are not as knowledgeable as we thought and that we must rely on people who know better. But this humility helps build a world where facts carry weight again.
Another important step is encouraging experts to communicate more clearly. Sometimes, experts speak in complicated terms that confuse the public. While complexity can’t be fully avoided, experts can learn to explain their findings in ways that reach ordinary people. They can tell stories, use simple examples, and be honest about uncertainties. By doing so, they help the public understand why certain advice matters and what evidence supports it. In return, we must give experts the space to admit when they do not know something. Instead of punishing them for uncertainty, we can value their honesty. This approach fosters trust and respect. It shows that experts are not all-knowing wizards but thoughtful guides who help us navigate a complicated world. When experts and the public meet halfway, clarity can replace confusion, and cooperation can rise above conflict.
Finally, we should remember that expertise is not the enemy of personal freedom or independent thinking. Quite the opposite: expertise helps society make well-informed choices. It enables us to solve tough problems, from diseases to environmental challenges, by building on the research and findings of those who devoted their lives to understanding these issues. When we embrace expertise, we are not agreeing to follow blindly. We are agreeing to learn, to ask informed questions, to respect evidence, and to engage in productive dialogue. This stance allows us to reduce the noise created by misinformation. It helps us build healthier communities, where accurate knowledge forms the backbone of public policies, medical decisions, and educational practices. By rediscovering the value of expertise, we move closer to a future guided by reason, responsibility, and a shared commitment to truth.
All about the Book
Explore the rise of anti-intellectualism in society in ‘The Death of Expertise’ by Tom Nichols. This provocative book reveals the dangers of dismissing expert knowledge, urging readers to value informed opinions and critical thinking in today’s complex world.
Tom Nichols is a distinguished professor and author specializing in national security and the impact of expertise, providing insights on the challenges posed by widespread skepticism towards authority and knowledge.
Educators, Journalists, Policy-makers, Healthcare professionals, Business leaders
Reading non-fiction, Debating current affairs, Participating in forums or discussions, Engaging in critical thinking exercises, Following political news
Anti-intellectualism, The erosion of expertise, Public trust in professionals, The impact of social media on knowledge
We cannot build a society in which expertise is devalued, where the informed knowledge of many is ignored because someone feels a strong opinion is just as valid.
Malcolm Gladwell, Bill Gates, Neil deGrasse Tyson
The George Orwell Award, The Richard E. Neustadt Prize, The American Political Science Association’s Award for Best Book
1. What impact does social media have on knowledge perception? #2. How does the internet affect trust in experts? #3. Why is critical thinking essential in today’s society? #4. What role does education play in expert authority? #5. How can misinformation shape public opinion on expertise? #6. In what ways do individual biases affect knowledge acceptance? #7. What are the dangers of rejecting expert advice? #8. How do we differentiate between expertise and opinion? #9. Why is humility important when discussing expert knowledge? #10. How can we encourage respectful dialogue about expertise? #11. What effects do celebrity opinions have on expertise credibility? #12. How does specialization impact the accessibility of knowledge? #13. Why is skepticism towards experts becoming more common? #14. What responsibility do experts have in public discourse? #15. How can experts effectively communicate complex ideas? #16. In what ways do personal experiences challenge expert guidance? #17. Why is it crucial to value diverse expert perspectives? #18. How does the decline of expertise affect democracy? #19. What strategies can improve public trust in experts? #20. How do we cultivate a culture that respects knowledge?
The Death of Expertise, Tom Nichols book, expertise in modern society, impact of technology on knowledge, anti-intellectualism, information age challenges, value of expertise, trust in experts, societal decline of knowledge, critique of self-proclaimed experts, importance of educated discourse, knowledge vs. opinion
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Against-Anti-Intellectualism/dp/0190691330
https://audiofire.in/wp-content/uploads/covers/3331.png
https://www.youtube.com/@audiobooksfire
audiofireapplink