"The rise of Idiot America ... is essentially a war on expertise ... In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert."
-- Charles P. Pierce, from "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free"
I couldn't agree more. I have had conversations with people who dismiss as "loons" Nobel Prize winners like Al Gore and Paul Krugman. And they do so despite the fact that they personally have no formal training in climate science or economics.
That takes some chutzpa, along with a serious dose of delusion. But truth be told, that's where many Americans are - including most Christians - when it comes to matters of public policy. Militant certainty about what is best, premised on complete and utter ignorance.
This means you Sarah Palin!
How could this state of affairs come to be?
In any field other than Philosophy and Law - and in most areas of Philosophy and law for that matter - I know little to nothing. I am personally qualified to opine on a very limited scope of things. And I have two doctoral level degrees.
How could so many of us, particularly my fellow Christians, fail to recognize how little we know? What does that say about us?
On the other hand . . . it might be pointed out that, while I have little formal training in climate science or economics, I still have opinions. Someone could say, "Joe, what entitles you to form opinions about issues like global warming and deficit spending?" "What entitles you to believe that climate change is real (Al Gore), or that deficit spending in a severe recession is absolutely essential to cover the gap between what we can produce and what market forces will demand (Krugman)?"
Good question. Opinions based on ignorance are opinions based on ignorance. How can I criticize my "know it all friends," if I'm really doing something similar?
The answer is . . . I'm not doing something similar. I'm relying on what I call "the concensus of the experts." My friends, to the contrary, are rejecting the counsel of experts, based on . . . oh, I don't know . . their own unearned sense of infallibility?
I'll say more about why we should trust the "real" experts tomorrow. And by "real" I don't mean the "real housewives" who would be more aptly named "the sur-real housewives."
Joe H
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
12 comments:
I hold a qualified value of the consensus of the experts, and I certainly want to be wary of becoming a militant ignoramus, but how do you personally prevent yourself from falling victim to appeals to authority, especially when the consensus has a wildly differing set starting premises from what is perhaps underrepresented wisdom? Examples like "progress" and "property" come to mind. ;)
(And who are these "friends" you keep speaking of?)
by the way, dude, you gotta get a facebook account and link your blog to it. (i can help you get the link working.) everyone and their dog is on facebook. you can share your gadflyish ways to a much broader audience.
sorry. i forgot you're probably going to answer all my questions and more tomorrow. can't wait, doc!
Your perspective on this seems pretty arrogant and smells of self-importance. You rely on expert opinion; your Christian friends just have uninformed and useless (or dangerous) opinions. Are we to assume that even though they may be able unable to articulate their position as well as you (most ordinary people don't enjoy formal training in philosophy or law) that there are no credible expert opinions contrary to yours and that of the experts that support your position? I guess any scientists or economists that disagree with you must be defective or a rabid republican (and they probably voted for Bush!). I suppose it is easy with your own blog to preach to the choir and attract people who agree with you (of course, almost every blog I have ever read does the same thing); but, that does not mean you are correct about your position and your poor, uneducated and deluded Christian friends are wrong. It must be lonely for you to constantly relate to ordinary people, leading ordinary lives and holding ordinary opinions - while you with your sharp and rigorous intellect are in possession of expert opinion (And where did you ever find the time to complete an exhaustive study of Palin and all of her work in government to call her an idiot?). It must be lonely at the top; but wait; you do have all your fans on your blog! Rock on, doc!
Global Warmists Just Can't Lose
For years we've been hearing that computer models prove beyond doubt that the Earth is imperiled by "global warming." But as USA Today reports, a new study calls this into doubt:
The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
Some 55 million years ago, during a period called the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, the average temperature increased by 13 degrees over 10,000 years. At the same time, "the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly," presumably because there were no hybrid cars or fluorescent light bulbs--but not rapidly enough, given the models, to account for more than a small proportion of the warming. Conclusion: "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models"--not carbon--were responsible for much of the warming.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a left-wing advocacy group, put out a press release claiming that the study shows "the potential consequences of global warming are likely worse than what scientists are predicting"--as if carbon is the only thing that can cause warming.
So first the global warmists insist that the question is settled beyond debate, then, when it turns out not to be, they insist that uncertainly can only mean their theory is even more true than they had thought. This just is not how real science operates.
-From a recent WSJ Op-Ed
To anonymous: joe has the integrity to put his name on something he says. Will you please do the same?
I'm a conservative Christian, and from my limited education, I seem to remember that these were some commonly held ideas by the so-called experts:
-The world is flat
-Earth is the center of the galaxy
-Diseases can be cured through "leeching"
-AIDS (GRID as it was called) is a gay-only disease
I think the AIDS fallacy parallels most closely to the Global Warming debate:
-A major problem that could have disastrous effects for the human race
-A correlative relationship (Gay sex and the spread of AIDS) mistakenly believed to be a cause and effect relationship
-Politicians looking for any scientific backing to push ideological agendas
I often question the validity of many scientific conclusions, not because I'm an ideologue, but because much of it is built upon a foundation of theories. I know a person who is getting her PhD in Physics, and has a hard time believing in God because she believes so much in the Big-Bang Theory. As it relates to your article on the hypocrisy of conservatives in regard to marital infidelity, is this not also a hypocrisy where scientists disprove the existence of God based on the lack of concrete evidence, yet build much of their conclusions on a foundation of theories and hypotheses.
I think that Matthew 7:24-27 is an appropriate word of wisdom for this case, in more ways than one.
I can't attest for first anonymous post, but I did post the two comments after that. Perhaps I can go by the cover name "The Owl 2" from now on.
Anonymous,
You should wait until I explain why we should rely on the concensus of experts before you criticize me on this issue.
Also, If you read my post again, you'll see that I acknowledge how little I know - even having two advanced degrees. I don't see why that strikes you as arrogant and self important.
I do rely on the concensus of experts for my basic factual assumptions. That is because I realize that I am not qualified to opine as to what the facts are myself. I criticized my Christian friends because they assume that their uneducated pronouncements are superior to the leading experts' opinions.
How you went from there to my arrogance is a mystery to me.
Joe
Chris,
You gotta teach me how to link these up.
Joe
will do. and we can get you on twitter so you can start live microblogging all the pithy thoughts that you probably forget to follow up on--in your old age and all...
I've posted/tweeted some of your posts on my twitter/facebook page.
Post a Comment