For anyone interested in a counter-point (ie; "Transparency is not inherently good and here's why"), the paper "Transparency is Surveillance" is a nice read: https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUTIS.pdf
It basically talks about how people will change their reasoning to suit public opinion when they work publically. You might imagine a scientist who gets a public grant and is required to share their findings publically.
In this hypothetical scenario, let's say their findings are required to be explainable to the public at large. The reality is that when you're building anything (whether it's a theory or a product), the reality is that causes and effects are not always clear nor will they ever be as we see with the human body for example.
As such, while we might think imposing transparency would increase trust, the reality is you'll often find ad-hoc justifications for why things are the way they are rather than just saying "We don't know why X or Y".
It basically talks about how people will change their reasoning to suit public opinion when they work publically. You might imagine a scientist who gets a public grant and is required to share their findings publically.
In this hypothetical scenario, let's say their findings are required to be explainable to the public at large. The reality is that when you're building anything (whether it's a theory or a product), the reality is that causes and effects are not always clear nor will they ever be as we see with the human body for example.
As such, while we might think imposing transparency would increase trust, the reality is you'll often find ad-hoc justifications for why things are the way they are rather than just saying "We don't know why X or Y".
The author also presented the same ideas as a talk for anyone who prefers video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcEJY61FKIc