0
   

Intellectual Morons: A Book About Junk Science

 
 
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:45 am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Flynn20040921.shtml


Intellectual Morons
Daniel J. Flynn (archive)

"There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought," Stephen Hawking told a group of shocked scientists this summer in Dublin. Hawking's theory of parallel universes and energy-destroying black holes, the wheelchair-bound scientist concluded, was wrong.

When Stephen Hawking's theories came under attack, he rethought rather than retrenched. Hawking's goal, after all, is not the promotion of Stephen Hawking or the idea of parallel universes, but the pursuit of truth.

The act of abandoning an idea when contrary evidence disproves it is hardly unusual in the hard sciences. Contrary evidence in the social sciences and the humanities often has the opposite effect: devotees tighten their embrace of the theory. As a result, their grip on reality loosens. When you tether yourself to ideology, you necessarily liberate yourself from facts. You become an intellectual moron.

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted environmental apocalypse in The Population Bomb. He maintained that "hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death" in the 1970s. When it didn't happen, he merely delayed the day of reckoning-numerous times. So long as Ehrlich's prognostications furthered the right agenda, wealthy and influential admirers celebrated him. Foundations awarded him millions of dollars in prizes and grants (including a quarter-million dollar prize from the Heinz ketchup fortune). The Today show invited him to conduct a twelve-part series on the environment. And college professors have pushed the number of his books sold well into seven figures.

Noam Chomsky is Michael Moore with his brain on steroids. In the late '70s, he deemed stories of Pol Pot's killing fields capitalist propaganda. Later, he fantasized a conspiracy between ex-Nazis and U.S. government officials to shape the post-World War II world. Prior to the war on terrorism, Chomsky maintained that the U.S. was "in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people" in Afghanistan, predicting mass starvation and death. Despite Chomsky's disastrous track record as historian and prophet, at least one study found him to be cited in scholarly journals in the social sciences and the humanities more than any living person.

Famous sex researcher Alfred Kinsey stacked the sample groups of his surveys with pimps, prostitutes, imprisoned sex offenders, and homosexuals. The late Indiana University professor took pedophiles at their word that their "partners" enjoyed sex. Rather than getting shunned by his peers, Kinsey remains the most cited sex researcher in scholarly journals. His work may have been bad science, but it remains good propaganda.

Dishonesty, at least when it serves the "right" cause, doesn't relegate intellectuals to the fringe. It often elevates the status of men of letters among their like-minded peers. As evidenced by the popularity within such circles of attackumentary filmmaker Michael Moore, Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu, and Soviet spy Alger Hiss, the intelligentsia rewards ideological conformity instead of intellectual honesty.

Chomsky, Kinsey, and Ehrlich may be factually incorrect, but because they are politically correct they are superstars within academia. Their inaccuracies, falsehoods, and frauds serve the right causes, so other scholars excuse, overlook, or deny them. If the intellectual morons were few in number or scant in influence, the rest of us could ignore them. Since they frequently find their names on course reading lists, within the endnotes in scholarly articles, and next to "pay to the order" on foundation bequests, our culture ignores them at its own peril.

Reflexive adherence to ideology negates critical thinking. It is the conceit of the intellectual, who believes himself so smart that he doesn't need to think. Ideology provides for him a catchall response to ideas, individuals, and events. Ideology thus makes smart people stupid, creating the intellectual moron.

As illustrated by the mottoes of Harvard (veritas) and Yale (lex et veritas), the search for truth is the essential element of scholarly life. Stephen Hawking's abandonment of his own theory in favor of truth exemplifies the scholar's commitment to his professional creed. Chomsky, Ehrlich, and other intellectual morons' commitment to bad ideas at the expense of truth demonstrates their abandonment of it.


The Book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053552//102-1943373-4381717
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,646 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:01 am
Quote:
Reflexive adherence to ideology negates critical thinking. It is the conceit of the intellectual, who believes himself so smart that he doesn't need to think. Ideology provides for him a catchall response to ideas, individuals, and events. Ideology thus makes smart people stupid, creating the intellectual moron.



I couldn't agree more.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:07 am
Laughing I'm with FreeDuck.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:52 am
Quote:
Reflexive adherence to ideology negates critical thinking. It is the conceit of the intellectual, who believes himself so smart that he doesn't need to think. Ideology provides for him a catchall response to ideas, individuals, and events. Ideology thus makes smart people stupid, creating the intellectual moron.


Wow. That quote pretty much sums up the Bush administration in a nutshell.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:55 am
I'm with Cav and Freeduck.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:57 am
Yeah, but don't be so smug there Dookie, it sums up just about every administration of the last 220 years.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:58 am
I'm with Dookie and kicky, but not with anyone else.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 12:34 pm
I've changed my mind. Now I'm with ebrown and Cav.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 01:09 pm
Well this is one for the puzzle books.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 01:12 pm
Can't we all just get along? I just found it curious that an article (from townhall.com, big surprise) starts off with a theory that 'ideology' makes one an intellectual moron, and then proceeds to bash liberal thinkers, just for having theories. Call me crazy, but that reads as couched Conservative ideology to me.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 01:27 pm
Two people with left-icon status who the average American really needs to know a bit more about are Margaet Saenger and Rachel Carson; the book does a good job of remedying that situation.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 01:53 pm
Granted I'm not a 'lefty' but I've never heard of either of those two women. Unless that's Margaret Sanger the birth control woman, in which case I've heard of one.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 03:43 pm
I thought conservatives - especially these days - had theories too?

Isn't this an own goal?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 04:55 pm
To turn from polemic to reason for a moment.

The falsifiability, and acceptance of such, of "hard" science theories is oft touted - but my sense is that "hard" scientists often fight just as hard to cling to theories as "soft" ones do.

THat is, I think the article is simplistic denying the emotional maelstrom of hard science, which can take a toll on its reasoning, too.

What do others think?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 04:58 pm
Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring", a book that drew attention to environmental damage. I can imagine how the Right would love to knock her iconic status.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 05:04 pm
I think the article is using a lot of name dropping to support a political agenda, and has no substance whatsoever, scientifically.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 05:18 pm
dlowan wrote:
To turn from polemic to reason for a moment.

The falsifiability, and acceptance of such, of "hard" science theories is oft touted - but my sense is that "hard" scientists often fight just as hard to cling to theories as "soft" ones do.



That's correct in areas of the hard sciences which tend to resemble philosophy, i.e. regarding things like the "big bang" which are not easily amenable to proof or disproof.

In most areas of the hard sciences proofs tend to be coercive and checkable. Typical case, one of the better mathematicians of the early 1900s, Simon Newcomb, developed what he saw as a proof that there could never be a heavier than air flying machine about a year or two before Kitty Hawk. Naturally, the public had no difficulty accepting the Wright Brothers' version of the thing...
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 01:11 pm
This thread recalls to mind what happened to Galileo and Copernicus.
Since their observations/findings contradicted Biblical accounts, many religious ideologues of that era would have eagerly subjected the two to prosecution under charges of "Heresy".

People, in general, prefer to be told that their prejudices are justified... challenge those prejudices and they feel threatened.

The problem arises when the ideologues act "Pre-emptively" to eliminate any challenge or perceived threat to their positions/opinions.

The Third Reich was rather aggressive in its campaign against "Intellectuals"... that's how A. Einstein ended up emigrating and becoming an American citizen.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 01:14 pm
Magus wrote:
This thread recalls to mind what happened to Galileo and Copernicus.
Since their observations/findings contradicted Biblical accounts, many religious ideologues of that era would have eagerly subjected the two to prosecution under charges of "Heresy".

People, in general, prefer to be told that their prejudices are justified... challenge those prejudices and they feel threatened.

The problem arises when the ideologues act "Pre-emptively" to eliminate any challenge or perceived threat to their positions/opinions.

The Third Reich was rather aggressive in its campaign against "Intellectuals"... that's how A. Einstein ended up emigrating and becoming an American citizen.


And Wherner von Braun, a controversial choice.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 01:27 pm
Magus wrote:


The Third Reich was rather aggressive in its campaign against "Intellectuals"... that's how A. Einstein ended up emigrating and becoming an American citizen.


The third reich and the commie regime in Russia were the products of misguided "intellectuals". I mean, the common man left to his own devices does not come up with things like that.

The commies killed a lot more people than the nazis did and one of the funny things about the nazis is that their first really serious efforts in the direction of killing people involved killing commies and it's not teribly easy to fault them for that. Communism seems to do more harm to countries than losing wars does.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intellectual Morons: A Book About Junk Science
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/30/2024 at 11:20:33