CruisingRam created a topic on anti-rationalism, but it was closed by Jaime on the grounds that the topic was too divisive and vaguely worded. I agree with Jaime's assessment, but I think that CruisingRam has hit upon an important idea, so I'm going to attempt to re-package it in a more objectively debatable framing. And the primary means I will use is to focus on issues rather than people. I propose that there are a number of issues that seem to have attracted a considerable amount of anti-rational reaction:

1. Anti-nuclear power. (Left) Anti-nukes tend to give short shrift to the various scientific studies showing that nuclear power plants are reasonably safe.
2. Anti-global warming. (Right) This group roundly rejects the considerable amount of scientific evidence supporting claims of anthropogenic global warming.
3. Anti GM crops. (Left) These people simply refuse to accept the scientific analyses that demonstrate the safety of this technology.
4. Creationism/Intelligent Design. (Right) These two groups are different, but both rely on fundamentally anti-rationalist arguments. The ID try to dress up their arguments in scientific terminology, but their arguments just don't work as science.
5. Anti globalization (Left). These people make a case that appears to be rationalist in nature, but they consistently refuse to consider the many economic analyses showing the benefits of globalization to poor countries.
6. Anti Stem cell research (Right) This group is flatly anti-rationalist. They spurn all scientific arguments and base their case on slippery slope arguments about human fetuses.
7. anti electoral fraud investigation. (Right) This is certainly the most vehemently anti-rationalist group. A survey of the reactions to this thesis here on AD quickly shows how irrationally adamant these people are. Over and over again, they have refused to address the evidence itself and instead relied on arguments that boil down to: "I don't trust them intellectuals".

Looking at this list, I see three left-wing anti-rational groupings and four anti-rational right-wing groupings. No real difference here. I think it illuminating to remind ourselves of some of the issues over which there is little anti-rationalism:

I. abortion. Despite the intensity of this dispute, and the outrages of extremists, the basic positions taken on the two sides boil down to a subjective assessment of when life begins. That assessment is beyond the reach of rationalism, and so we cannot condemn either side for anti-rational behavior.
II. Iraq war. A case can be argued that proponents of the war handled the WMD intelligence in a sub-rational fashion, which led to a policy error. Aside from that, however, I see little basis for accusing either side of fundamentally anti-rationalist behavior.

With these examples in mind (and I'm certain that partisans on both sides will loudly protest the rationalism of their own positions, and the anti-rationalism of their opponents' positions), I think that I can draw an overall conclusion:

Anti-rationalism intrudes into the political debate when the issue hinges on scientific, technological, or mathematical factors beyond the grasp of the average participant. In such a case, advocates feel justified in denying the applicability of these rational methods; they subordinate such factors to their own personal opinions. This is particularly the case when the debate requires advanced knowledge of some arcane field, forcing most citizens to trust some group of experts. Even when the experts' deliberations are open to public inspection, few people will trust that openness to generate results reliable enough to overcome their political prejudices.

So my questions for debate, which I hope are well-worded to insure an illuminating discussion, are:

1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?

Thanks for re-doing this topic so much better E!!

First off- whether they are on the left or right in your description- I reject the anti-rationalism of each side.

1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?

It is not that they have to be an EXPERT IMO- it is that they take the effort at all to see both sides of a divisive issue and come to an informed decision. Turnea pointed this out very well in his thread on foriegn aid- most folks in the US would not be able to find the places talked about on the map, much less make in informed political idea regarding aid to those countries!

One does not have to be an EXPERT on the matter, just be educated by several sources other than thier favorite political pundit.

So many of the debates in our society today, as the examples you pointed out- don't even TRY to be informed, just blindly follow whatever they were led to believe from thier peers or pundits.

My favorite example is the opening of ANWR- something most Alaskans are very familiar with- and, as I posted on threads dealing with those issues- both pro and con sides engage in massive hyperbole and half truths, and those folks in the "lower 48" don't even bother to question thier own side on the issue- they just say "Amen" to whatever thier side says and move on!

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?

I don't think it is an issue of "trust" but the unwillingness to even EXAMINE the evidence to see if it could actually be counter to what they believe.

I believe it is very dangerous- for instance, smoking is linked to cancer- but there are great many poeple, that subscribe that "the goverment says that everything causes cancer, and cigs don't cause cancer".

I actually went to testify before our own, very conservative, very republican joint house/senate committee on teenage smoking and how to curb it. One item that was heavily studied was (so we don't have to debate the study, just the reaction to it) was variable "Y"- having been studied over 20 years, been peer reviewed, and there was no credible evidence of any kind in that even questioned the results, including studies by the tobacco industry itself. Despte ALL THIS EVIDENCE - the senator said, and I am quoting "I don't know about all this science, and I don't care what the findings are, I believe they are not right"- no evidence to the contrary, just his belief, based on nothing, threw out any rational debate in the issue whatsoever.

So, in our society in particular (for a developed nation, discounting third world or openly theocratic goverments) , anti-rationalism is the norm rather than the exception, and very dangerous.

Picky point it may be but that is not entirely true.

Any competent biologist could tell you that the life (in the scientific sense) of a sexually-reproducing organism (usually, biology can be pretty strange at times) begins at conception.

In fact the way some on the left continue to refer to fetus as "potential life" is anti-rational at it's heart.


So if you want a point to even the list, that's a good one.

Not to say that this settles the abortion argument, it is a judgement call as to whether a developing human being deserves legal protection before the possibility of sentiency.


Actually I believe your list is pretty solid, Nitpicking is alway possible but beside that which I have already done, largely unnecessary.


1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?
Never can the American public fully understand.. but then some would say that economics could never be fully understood by the layman (you bring up an excellent point about globalization on that).

Yet, I don't believe such a problem is fatal. It is the unavoidable side effect of the specialization that allows this nation to thrive. the effect can be dampened by better education. I was a lot more sceptical about evolution until I took AP Biology. Until then I had not been offered information to answer my misgivings.

There will always be those who flatly refuse to consider evidence but offering it goes a long way.

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?
A little of both. In this country people or agencies with an agenda often don the mask of expertise to peddle there wares. It is great to check credentials, but if they are in order they should be listened to and weighed against the competition.

Outright refuse to consider evidence that goes counter to your beliefs is always a bad thing. Learning is often uncomfortable, we should simply get used to the discomfort.

1. What is an expert? Someone who proclaims this status?
2. What is "intellectual expertise"? And where do you propose to find such institutions? Universities? Industry? Government? Arguably, in our country, the best experts go where the pay is best and that's industry, not government or a university. Yet, those who claim to be "rational" routinely dismiss industry studies while glamorizing the work of some grad student writing a thesis.

Your questions are so loaded that they aren't really answerable in a "rational" way unless you "define your terms". Especially when the examples offered in many cases such as abortion, stem-cells, and "election fraud debate" are strawman arguments offered with maximum political spin.

Furthermore, the topic of this thread "rationalism", is dismissable on its face.

What sort of political philosophy is "rationalism"? Or, "objectivism", or "progressivism"??

These sort of labels are nothing more than arrogant, self-serving, and inherently elitist labels that don't mean much.

In contrast, we understand pretty much what a "conservative" is. They are those who tend to be biased toward "conserving" institutions, traditions, mores, etc.

Liberals tend to favor change and take an attitude that traditional values, institutions, etc., are not always worth "conserving".

Libertarians? Same thing, it MEANS something. It means a body of thought that puts the freedom and importance of an individual over the "state" without many restrictions.

Communists? Marxists? Socialists? They favor more state control and promote the dogma of people like Karl Marx.

But progressive? What in the heck is that supposed to mean? I stand for progress and YOU don't??

Same with objectivism. I'm objective and you're not.

And "rationalism".... I'm rational and you, you lowly excuse for a human being, are not.

Why not carry this sort of elitism a bit further. I propose some new political labels for people to award to themselves.

Superiorism: I'm all for ideas that are superior to yours.

Virtuism: I'm for things that are virtuous... if you disagree with me, you obviously aren't.

Ironicism: I obviously recognize the irony in many things that are over your flat head.

Chicism: I favor ideas, fashion, and trends that are "in" while you look like your color-blind mother dressed you with Wal-mart closeout items.

and on and on and on.....

1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?

I think that the questions miss an important ingredient about "competently addressing political issues". That is that science and "expertise" are not the only factors that are relevant when resolving public policy issues.

True, there are quite a few areas where the input of experts is helpful or even required. But in many (if not most) issues, the question is not a GO/NO-GO answer (which can be resolved using more rational means). Often it is a matter of degree.

For example: Turnea's foreign aid thread. Should the US give aid to other countries to help them develop? I think we can come up with logical, rational reasons to do this. However, when it comes to how much, the answer becomes automatically subjective. Where does foreign aid rank in the importance of things? Should it trump educational assistance to the States, or should it be more along the lines of the budget of NASA? These types of value decisions are not aided very much by rationalistic discussions.

Comparing apples with oranges and ranking priorities are not functions that are the strong suit of rationalism. Of course, rationalists might disagree. I'm sure that some will argue that all problems, however unrelated, can be solved with the properly applied logic and rationale.

To answer the questions, does it take an expert to appreciate the factors that go into solving political questions? Of course not. Since most political issues involve people and their interactions with one another, rationalism cannot be the only means used to solve all of these problems.

Should we place all of our trust in so-called "experts". I don't think so. Experts give us one piece of the puzzle, but who is to say they do not suffer from their own biases and presuppositions? Scientists are not as robotic as that. In the end, they are human, just as fallible as any of us.

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?

I think Americans are skeptics by nature. We don't trust authority as much as others do, which partially explains the system of government we have. Americans also have strongly held values which may impede our ability to give proper weight to certain points of view.

Is it healthy? Is it dangerous? I think it's just the way it is. It is no more healthy or dangerous than placing too much credence upon the views of so-called experts. Moderation is the key here, as it is in so many other areas.

1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?

I don't think that the body politic (which, in this context, I take to mean the politicians and civil service branches collectively, and not the electorate as well) is necessarily incapable of addressing very complex factors that require expertise.

But I certainly think it tries very hard to avoid them, only addressing them where absolutely necessary, and even then explaining them in massively oversimplified terms (good vs evil, for example), because:

1. it (the body politic) believes that the general public is either incapable of understanding, or hostile to, arguments that hinge on placing their trust in experts, and
2. knowing that voters, and therefore power, depends on attracting mass support from such a public, the body politic believes that its own best interests are served by playing to this aspect of the public's character.

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?

I think the most important word to focus on in this debate is not "expert", or even "rational" (I agree with most of lordhelmet's last post, and it isn't off topic, but I don't really feel it goes to the heart of the issue).

I think the key to public (and therefore government) hostility and mistrust here is the word "intellectual".

Why don't I think "expert" is the key? Well, in American public life, there are whole categories of "experts" who are, more or less by default, accepted and (largely) agreed with. Individuals within those categories may command wide or narrow support, but the categories as a whole are generally not frowned upon as a whole (except by small minorities, who I have to say are over-represented on this site).

Examples of such trusted types of experts (and here, I'm trying to distil my take on public perceptions, not on "truth", or the lack of it)?

1. Doctors
   Generally, people want to trust their doctor. Only natural, I suppose, since we place our lives in their hands. The shift towards "alternative" therapies in the last 30 years or so doesn't undermine this, I think, because people are still placing their trust in someone who tells them "I can make you feel better". And I'd say that the scale of medical malpractice suits has little to do with a lessening in this trust, and more to do with the let down when someone who says "I can make you feel better" fails to do so.
2. Soldiers
   Again, to an extent we place our lives in their hands. So we want to trust them. When something goes wrong, we often assume it's the fault of the political masters, not the men on the ground, or (usually) their commanders - "lions led by donkeys" syndrome. Or, if it is the fault of men - or women - on the ground, then it must be because there are "a few bad apples", and not because there is something wrong with the way soldiers are trained, or because of a gap in their training.
3. Religious leaders
   Even here, people place their life in the hands of these people, albeit their spiritual life. I'd say that the reasons for wanting to believe what these people say are somewhat different, because it's less that we fear for our spiritual lives if they turn out to be wrong, and more that we closely identify ourselves with such leader or leaders, and if they turn out to be wrong, we ourselves become wrong by default. (On a lesser scale, fans identify with celebrities - witness the Michael Jackons trial. Political supporters even think this way about their chosen ideology, too. As we often see here! )

But I'd say that Anglo-Saxon cultures, and especially America, is generally anti-intellectual. (France is noticeably different in this regard - maybe another reason why we don't always like them? ) .

The default setting with intellectuals seems to be "I don't believe you - prove it, smart guy", where our default setting with the types we do trust is "I believe in you - anyone who disagrees with or criticises you bears the burden of proof in my mind".

The body politic recognises both this, and the side on which their bread is buttered. Which is why I think they avoid using intellectuals wherever possible. They will happily wheel out a "trusted" expert - in a uniform, a dog collar or a white coat - at the drop of a hat if it helps their position.

I don't believe a given soldier is necessarily any more, or less, of an expert in their field than a given writer or academic. It's just that the public at large just doesn't like or trust professors as much as they like and trust soldiers.

I'm not sure this is a fair example. The fact is, expert economists can be found on both sides of the globalization debate (maybe I should say "all sides," as "both sides" inaccurately implies that there are only two views). You would with exactly the same amount of truthfulness have written about globalization proponents, "(Right) These people make a case that appears to be rationalist in nature, but they consistently refuse to consider the many economic analyzes showing the drawbacks of globalization to poor countries."

If refusing to credit contrary studies is proof of anti-rationalism, then pretty much every side of every policy debate is guilty of anti-rationalism; it's not justifiable to imply that this tendency is limited to the one side of the globalization debate.

A lot depends on how the word "globalization" is defined. People on the right often use the term to refer to the general process of increasing integration among economies internationally, while people on the left often use the term to refer to current trade regime set up by international organizations and free trade treaties. With these different definitions, it's possible for both sides to be rationalist, yet not communicate with each other even slightly.

A similar thing happens in the abortion debate about "when life begins." When pro-choicers say "life," they're not referring to biological life, but to what might more technically be called "personhood"; the state of being a person entitled to civil rights, which is different from the state of merely being biologically alive.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, tend to use "life" to mean "biological life." This allows them to mistakenly claim, as Turnea did, that "the way some on the left continue to refer to fetus as 'potential life' is anti-rational at it's heart." It's only anti-rationalist if we falsely pretend that pro-choicers are using "life" to refer to literal biological life, which they are not.

* * *



1. No.

2. Healthy.

Most Americans who follow politics make up for their inability to follow the minutia of all debates by trusting in partisanship instead. It's a horrible way to run things.

On the other hand, what better alternative is available? None, that I know of.

Skepticism of experts is healthy, when it amounts to an unwillingness to accept "truths" handed down from high without considerable questioning. The experts can be wrong, after all, and historically have been. Furthermore, it's common for experts to disagree, so it's not like there's a unified "expert opinion" we can refer to.

I think it's unhealthy when people blanketly dismiss all experts as inherantly biased (although I don't deny that some individual experts are biased).

In the end, Americans make most of their policy decisions based on partisanship and on values, not based on facts or expert analysis. I think this system has grave flaws, but the alternative - some form of technocracy, for example - might be even worse.

1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?

First, too many of us did not want to learn during our school years, and even now in their older years hate to have to think. So our "experts" do it for us. They tell us what to think and why to think that way, and most of us are too poorly educated on the issues to know when we are being spoon fed a bunch of bad science, or bad religion, or whatever.
Second question, HEALTHY. At least we have, collectively, enough good judgement to be suspicious of the underlying motives that some of our experts have.
I once heard, in a school board meeting, someone say that we should leave the education of our children to the experts, and I almost choked holding back the laughter that comment deserved. It was a small town in Idaho, and the issue was whether or not Kindergarten would be offered. The parents wanted it, the school super did not. The superintendent was a former jock who must have played football without a helmet a few too many times. Funding for Academics played second fiddle to funding for sports the entire time he was the man in charge.

No, any competent biologist would tell you that life is an unbroken chain going back billions of years. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, yadda yadda. Now if you want to talk about something that is genetically human, then certainly that happens at the point of conception. Life, however, happened a long, long time ago.

The point of contention isn't when does (human) life begin, but whether or not that life deserves legal protection. You always hear about the 'right to life'. Yeah, tell that to the cow and the chicken. They really have a right to life, don't they? 'Right to life' seems to only apply to humans, and that's only because humans have a vested self-interest in being alive. It's also a solely emotional issue, there is no rational reason to insist that all fetuses be born, especially when we can't even care for the ones we have right now!

No. An expert is somebody who has undergone the full educational experience associated with his field of expertise, who has actively participated in the intellectual life of the community in his field of expertise, and has earned some indicators of acceptance by others who have previously met these requirements.

Our society boasts a great many institutions of intellectual expertise. The universities provide the bulk of these institutions. There are also research institutes. There are also governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health and quasi-governmental institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences.


No, "best" is not the term to use. The correct term here is "most motivated by money". The most expert individuals almost always pursue academic careers, placing intellectual achievement above monetary gain.


The fact that I offered three left-wing anti-rational cases as opposed to four right-wing anti-rational cases demonstrates political even-handedness.


The concept of rationalism has been well-established for over two thousand years. I refer you to the writings of Plato and Aristotle for some of the earliest and most powerful explanations of the concept.


True, political decisions require the application of personal values. However, rationalism offers us a means of attacking the problem in a, well, rational manner. First we establish what truth we can about the problem; then we apply our values to those truths to determine our response. For example, rational investigation told us that DDT inflicted serious injuries upon the environment; we then applied our own values about the costs and benefits of DDT to determine that we did not wish to permit the continued use of this pesticide. The use of rationalism was segregated from the application of our values. Thus, while both rationalism and values entered into the debate, each had its own proper place.

Indeed, I can offer you a quasi-mathematical representation of the process. The decision as to whether to adopt some policy can be made on the basis of truth value of this comparison:

Objective benefits * subjective value of those benefits - objective costs * subjective value of those costs

In other words, first we establish the objective costs (how many eaglets killed, how many salmon killed, etc), then we multiply by our values (how valuable is an eaglet to us? how valuable is a salmon to us?) to determine the net value of any policy decision. Yes, in the real world it gets really complicated, but this is the basic model we can use, and it does assign a proper place to both rationalism and values.


I suppose it is possible to locate such irrational rationalists. My position is that rationalism should be used to solve rational problems and values should be applied to values problems.


While it is certainly true that scientists are human and are subject to human foibles, scientists operate under a system that provides many protections against their individual foibles. The justice system operates in similar fashion. We rely on ordinary citizens to provide us with juries, lawyers (gad -- who trusts lawyers?) to argue the cases, justices to referee the process, appellate courts to review flaws in the process, and so on. Yes, the individuals are not trustworthy, but the system as a whole yields results that we trust. We trust our justice system. The scientific system operates with similar rigor -- why should we not trust it?


But where is the balance point that establishes moderation? Should we maintain skepticism about the results of our justice system? Would moderation require us to believe that half of all convicts are in fact guilty and half are innocent? Is it moderate to believe that 95% of all convicts are guilty and 5% are innocent? Where does moderation draw the line?


I have always taken "body politic" to mean not just the government, but all the elements that go into political decision-making: the media, the electorate, the punditocracy, and so forth. I won't argue with you about it; I merely explain my original meaning.

I like your distinction between "expert" and "intellectual". As a rationalist, I tend to equate the two, but I realize that there are plenty of people who conflate "stature" with "expertise". Still, the concept of "expert" does connote special knowledge of the subject at hand. In other words, it's one thing to assert that "intellectuals believe that an earthquake will occur in Southern California" and quite another to assert that "seismologists believe that an earthquake will occur in Southern California". (And a third to assert that "religious leaders believe that an earthquake will occur in Southern California".)


And herein lies much of the problem. Why should a soldier be awarded higher credibility than a professor?


What about trusting our institutions of intellectual expertise? If the National Institute of Health announces that the the AIDS virus plays a major role in the development of the disease, why would any politician controvert that statement? In South Africa, President Mbeki has denied this and insisted that other factors are at work. Is his position a valid expression of personal values or a foolish rejection of rationalism?


Do you find it worthwhile to question the NIH findings on avian flu? What about reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences? How about the APS report on radioactive waste disposal written back in the late 70s? Is it appropriate for anti-nuclear activists to reject that study because you just can't trust the experts?

Well, you've (once again) made a general assertion with no sign of any proof. That statement is just a reflection of your own personal biases. It's not "rational" or "objective".

When one looks to the groundbreaking developments within our lifetime, nearly all were the result of research done in "industry". The profit motive is indeed very strong.

Universities have fallen by the wayside. Much of their "research" in high technology is WAY behind that of universities. If you want to find the leading "expert" in a whole host of techology related areas, the last place you'll look is at some university.




I tempted to use a famous Sen. Lloyd Benson line during his debate with VP Dan Quayle but I'll refrain....

You still haven't addressed my point that such labels as "rationalism", "objectivism" and "progressiveism" are so vague that they don't mean much in today's world.

Sorry, I'll spell the logic out for you:

1. People who want money tend to seek careers that generate money.
2. Industry provides more money than academia.
3. Therefore, people who want money tend to seek careers in industry more than academia.


Well, let's look at this year's Nobel Prizes:
Physics:
David J. Gross -- University of California, Santa Barbara
H. David Politizer -- California Institute of Technology
Frank Wilczek -- Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chemistry:
Aaron Ciechanover -- Israel Institute of Technology
Avram Hershko -- Israel Institute of Technology
Irwin Rose -- University of California, Irvine

Physiology or Medicine:
Richard Axel -- Columbia University
Linda B. Buck -- University of Washington

Economics:
Finn E. Kydland -- Carnegie Mellon University
Edward C. Prescott -- Arizona State University

The final score: Academia: 10 Industry: 0. I'd call that a shut out.

Of course, you may wish to claim that the Nobel Prizes do not represent recognition of groundbreaking research; that's a matter of opinion. Let's just leave it to the readership to decide for themselves, shall we?


I was not referring you to my writings, I was referring you to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps your point is that Aristotle is no John Kennedy?


Because your point is irrelevant to this topic. This topic is about the role of rationalism in political debate, not the role of other political philosophies.

1. Is the American body politic able to competently address political issues hinging upon factors that can only be truly appreciated by an expert?

2. Is the American reluctance to trust our institutions of intellectual expertise healthy or dangerous?

I second most everyone else's skepticism of "experts". That does not mean I believe, however, that experts are not valuable. Political issues often hinge on something that can be measured. Generation and interpretation of such measurement may require expertise in appropriate fields. It is incumbent on those experts to attempt to translate the data into something assimilable by non-experts. It is also quite important to have multiple sets of measurements interpreted by various experts to minimize bias.

How does one become an expert? This is certainly a non-trivial question. The process of university accreditation and levels of study seem to be one (but by no means only) valuable mechanism to achieve such status. Just as I would rather have an expert in the medical field treating me for medical problems than anyone else, it is logical for me to give expertise more credit than non-expertise in the non-personal realm as well.

Yet, there seems to be another debate going on this thread not specifically mentioned in these questions which I wish to address: rationalism. Expertise and rationalism do not necessarily co-exist any better than non-expertise and rationalism. Upon achieving an expertise one must be held to a higher standard for that expertise in both the positive and negative sense; this includes the moniker of "rational". Of course, to be "rationalist" is a pretty broad brush. But, I don't buy into the radically skeptical view that because rationalism is "broad", it is therefore meaningless. Should this be a criterion, then many -isms would fall under the same scythe.

Like Ronald Reagan used to say... "there you go again". No facts, just your assertions.

If you want to look to the leading experts in software today, where do you look? What about computer technology? Aviation? Communications?
It's not in "academia". It's in big bad industry.

Did you ever hear of Bell Labs? Northrop Skunk Works? Microsoft? Dell?

Government agencies? Like whom? The DOD depends heavily on industry. In fact, it depends on it completely for their technology. NASA? I shell of it's former self. The innovations that took us to the moon were from industry, not government. As one of my favorite quotes from the movie the "Right Stuff" said very well, "What makes these planes fly? Dollars do! No bucks! No Buck Rogers".



I clearly stated "groundbreaking developments". Pure research is one thing, development is another.

Development takes dollars and it takes the incentive of industry to drive. On top of it, most research done in the corporate world is done by teams and in secret and those factors don't fit well with the requirements for winning a Nobel prize.

Thats not actually true. Most pure research happens in academia. Now turning that research into a product for sale, that obviously happens predominantly in Industry, though not as overwhelmingly as you think, a lot of major patents at the moment are held by Universities and academics.

None the less, application of research cannot happen without the research itself. All the majortechnological immovations of the modern era were academic in origin. Nuclear power, the computer, pennicilin, solar power, transplants, and so on.

However as you say, a majority of application happens in industry. Academia may have created jet power, but industry built a jet aircraft.

Arguing the 'superiority' of one over the other is just silly.


Oh and by the way, you are mistaken; 'secret' research is routinely submitted to the Nobel foundation, they have a whole series of protocols set up to deal with that.

I certainly agree that there are some experts in industry; are you claiming that there are NO experts in academia? That we should weight the judgment of one expert in industry as worth the judgment of 2, 3, or 10 experts in academia? What precisely is your point here?

Where did I claim that there were "no experts in academia"??

How is such a statement rational, logical, or even a basic exercise in reading comprehension?

My point is that you gave short-shrift to experts within industry by first, failing to mention them at all and then following that up by denigrating them by your unfounded assertion that "they are only after money" and that the "real experts" are in academia.

Let me guess. You are somehow associated with academia, right?

Actually, no. But since we have concluded this silly excursion about the superiority of experts in industry, may we now return to the question of whether experts deserve credibility as a class?

Erasmussimo- you are running into the same problem I had in defining my first question- rationalism, as you pointed out, is a type of logic search that has been around for 2000 years- I am not as well versed in it as you, - but I have read some of the basics on it, without becoming an, ahem, expert in the philosophy.

Now- if you notice, you have asked LH twice to look up what rationalism means, and he has not even bothered to even attempt to actually find out the core definitions of the philosophy- the quintisential anti-rationalist-

and I think this goes to the heart of yor question-

He "believes" he is right, so he will not seek the truth or flaws in his own logic. The danger in this thought is that his NEED to be right far out ways his NEED to find the truth.

Perhaps LH IS right in his entire argument- however, he will never seek to find out the flaws or truth in his argument- he will simply believe he is right and let it go at that.

His attack on academia for instance- not one time has he mentioned any flaws in the publishing in journals- where real science is communicated, by both industry AND academia, and this, perhaps, is the area for the most debate about "what" an expert is, and the flaws in the system.

I don't know if you have studied scientific writing, but several "experts" (meaning long years of study in the field) in the field of scientific writing (BTW- did you know there is an entire field that writes about writing? Crazy eh?) have even gone so far as to label scientific writing a "fraud" because it does not represent a true flow of the science with the exception of methodology.

So, the rationalist would say "Webster in his critique of the scientific discourse community pointed out that scientific publication is a fraud because of "X"- whereas the anti-rationalist would say " all experts are frauds, because I believe it to be so"

and there, you have the crux of the responses to rationalism, correct?


So, in my original statement- I will reiterate- I don't think that you neccesarily need to be an EXPERT- taking years of personal study and research to see if global warming is true or not- BUT reading the various SCIENTIFIC journals (not listening to media pundits, either right or left) debate the findings in those scientific journals, based on the pros and cons of thier conclusions and methodology.

Scientific writing has far more checks and balances in it than even our justice system- ALL published science papers are vetted through a proccess so strenous that most can't even imagine. Let's, for LHs sake, say I work at Boeing on hydraulic engineering- and I discover something that is totally outside what is "accepted" application of this science. It is groundbreaking and I know it- now, the hard part is publishing these findings! I must follow the instructions to the writer, submit it in the format the journal demands, explain my methodology EXACTLY so it can be repeated, and then, after being published, wait for other "experts" in academia AND industry to critique and copy my work, to see if I am correct.

And contrary to what most say about scientists and academia- this proccess is competitive in the extreme- and yes, the competition involves grants, tenure, promotions, everything that goes with the trappings of being upwordly mobile in any field- but you don't get that grant renewed, after the initial publication IF YOUR WORK IS NOT REPEATABLE, ABLE TO BE TESTED- so, LH's contention that it is all "junk science" out to get a grant, is well, so much bunk.

Sure, like with the justice system, there are flaws, and some stupid things get through- but it is rare, because the competition for publication and verification is SOOO fierce.

Why are pretending to know what my knowledge is or is not related to "rationalism", "objectivism", and self-styled "progressives"???

You have no way of knowing that.

My point is that those "philosophies" are arrogant, elitist, and self serving by their very definitions.

A "rationalist" maintains that they put their trust behind rational thought and "reason" not "religious dogma", "faith" or any other such "fuzzy" concept. I understand that.

But, as I pointed out, what one person thinks is "rational" is not cast in stone. What one thinks is rational may be seen as irrational as another. The problem with these sort of belief systems is that they don't depend on a core set of principles. They assume that there is no "right" no "wrong" no "evil" and no "good". On top of it, labeling oneself such a highfalutin title implies righteous arrogance; I'm RATIONAL and those who fail to share my outlook are "irrational".... as you pointed out like a good boy.

The same is true in objectivism which was popularized by Ayn Rand. She makes some good points once in a while but I find her books overblown and her philosophy unsustainable in the real world.

When you boil down what Rand said (in my view), it's just a rationalization for being a selfish hedonist. Moral relativism reigns and one's ego is the only thing that really counts.

With respect to "progressives", I find these an odd lot. This term was popularized by Marxists who tried to sell their unproven (and eventually debunked) social and economic theories as "progressive" for society. It's another "feel good" label that means nothing. Progressives will claim, for example, that fighting for abortion rights is progressive. But, does our society really progress when we legalize the infanticide of late 3rd term babies out of convenience to the mother? Again, the label is meaningless because the values it depends on are obscured.

I don't claim to be an "expert" in any of these areas. I can think of way better ways to spend my time, frankly.

Some people can continue to argue fine points of the theoretical. I'm more interested in what's real and achievable.

Yes, there is an irony here in that LH's arguments are completely consistent with his anti-rational opinions. He doesn't believe in rationalism, so he doesn't use it. He doesn't believe in experts, so he refuses to read Aristotle. It is certainly consistent.


I wonder what behavior the term "fraud" refers to in this case. Are these experts claiming that scientific publication fraudulently claims to capture the entirety of scientific advance? I would agree with that -- if you read through all the papers on some crucial event in the history of science, you get a really distorted view of what was going on. I doubt that these experts are claiming that the science itself is fraudulent.


Yes, I agree. For example, I have stated in another topic that I do not have the expertise to evaluate Febble's Fancy Function myself, but I have enough expertise to read the arguments back and forth and form an opinion as to who seems to have the upper hand. I'm not as sure of my opinion as I would be of a field in which I am more expert, but I can still follow it.

At this point I'd like to bring up an old classic: Connections, a BBC television series from around 1980, created by James Burke. Burke started off talking about the history of science and technology, but he came around to the question of how citizens are to respond to scientific aspects of policymaking. He reviews a number of options and eventually concludes that there is no easy solution, but that citizens simply must take upon themselves the responsibility to understand science as it pertains to political issues. This is a magnificent piece of work, highly recommended to all.


One of the fundamental principles of rationalism is the notion that rationalism does represent objective truth. In other words, there truly is a 'cast in stone' aspect to rationalism, and there is a core set of principles, first laid down by Aristotle.

Let me Clarify-

"I wonder what behavior the term "fraud" refers to in this case. Are these experts claiming that scientific publication fraudulently claims to capture the entirety of scientific advance? I would agree with that -- if you read through all the papers on some crucial event in the history of science, you get a really distorted view of what was going on. I doubt that these experts are claiming that the science itself is fraudulent. "

You are correct- that is what I meant.

One of the fundamental principles of rationalism is the notion that rationalism does represent objective truth. In other words, there truly is a 'cast in stone' aspect to rationalism, and there is a core set of principles, first laid down by Aristotle.

And, to make a rational and objective decision on Aristotle's "core set of principles" - it would mean you would have to actually read Aristotle- and then, if you choose, disagree with those principles with an objective counter source, not just "well, I don't feel he is right"

Newsweek
April 28, 1975
The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

Should we have trusted the "expert" climatologists in 1975? If not, should we trust them now? Should we have trusted the "experts" who found Africans as genetically mentally inferior in the 19th Century? How about George Washington? Should he have trusted his "expert" physicians who bled him profusely? On the exit polls should we not trust CNN's experts who concluded that, properly adjusted, the exit polls concluded Bush won the election?

I'm sorry, Erasmussimo, but your biases are showing. Everyone who disagrees with you on an issue is not irrational. The only one of your seven examples where true irrationality exists is the creation theory and I'm sure some will disagree with me there. I actually agree with you on five of the issues and on a sixth believe man made contribution on global warming is probable but not proven. This does not mean opponents on the issues are irrational.

Aristotle was right on some things, but some of his theories on medicine, which may have been advancements at the time, were sadly left somewhat uncontested for a couple millineum.

When reading the "expert's" opinion always ask certain questions. 1) Where does he get his funding from 2) What are his personal biases? 3) How universal is his opinion among the experts in his field? 4) How conclusive is the evidence he is presenting?

You are citing Newsweek as an expert source? That's a littlel lowbrow, don't you think? If you want to make a case, then make a case about the experts. Go over the scientific literature on climatology and dig out a representative collection of peer-reviewed papers. My guess is that you will find a few that raise the possibility of global cooling, and some that discuss the possibility of global warming, and no overall conclusions. That's how I recall the situation back then. But don't take my word for it -- go get the actual expert opinion. Not some sensationalizing newsmagazine. When you have real information, we can talk about it.


You have to reach really far back into history to come up with your examples. Doesn't that say something?


My stated concern is with the refusal to accept rational arguments. For example, I may disagree with people on abortion, but I stated that this is not a matter of irrationality, but one of values.


Indeed he was wrong on a great many things. Fortunately, my reference to him is only on the matter of rationalism, on which most people agree he was right.


Yes! These are always good questions to ask! We should never trust any individual expert. We should look over the entire field of study, look at what the whole community of experts thinks, evaluate their reasoning as best we can, and make our own judgments accordingly. My question in this topic amounts to the question, do you think that the American body politic is willing to follow your recommendations?

Hmm... Because some experts have been wrong, all experts are wrong. I'm glad the rest of the world doesn't think this way; otherwise, my job as senior software engineer would be replaced by someone with no experience, no training and no aptitude.

You should not have stopped reading my post after the first paragraph. Let me quote my final paragraph.



I think most people would conclude from my post that experts can be wrong and it takes critical thinking skills to separate the propaganda from the facts. As move into the social sciences vs. the physical sciences you almost always find diverging opinions among the experts. I consider Friedman and Hayek and Galbraith and Keynes as experts in the field of economics. There is a lot they do not agree on.

A large percentage of American voters do not have the critical thinking skills needed to decide what is sound scientific data and what is political propaganda. Representative democracy only partially corrects this flaw. Campaigns would not consist of 30 second soundbites if we had a voting body consisting only of individuals possessing the skills needed to evaluate conflicting data and information. You can't trust the experts for the simple reason both sides in a partisan fight will bring out their experts.

I trust the NIH findings on avian flu, but I say that speaking from ignorance; I haven't read any of the peer-reviewed literature, I've just read what the newspapers have said. I can't be sure that there isn't significant disagreement within the scientific community, since not all such disagreements get adequately reported on by the non-scientific media.

For example, most people believe that there is a strong scientific consensus that being fat is horribly unhealthy, and fat people should try weight-loss diets. Contrary to that impression, however, there is a great deal of disagreement within the peer-reviewed literature regarding these issues. The CDC, in its official statements, tends to take a hard-line pro-dieting, anti-obesity stance; however, that opinion doesn't reflect a consensus among experts (no such consensus exists). In my opinion the CDC's position is not well supported by evidence, and has been influenced strongly by a cultural bias against fat.

Whether or not you agree with me on that, the fact remains, anyone who assumes that the CDCs statements on obesity reflect scientific consensus would be objectively mistaken.

On the whole, I trust peer-reviewed literature more than other sources; however, we should be aware that there are systematic biases in what is likely to be funded and what is not, and in what is likely to be published and what is not. It's not a perfect system, and some skepticism is due.



You're suggesting, I believe, that the lack of recent examples shows that the system has improved over the years.

Another possible explanation is that, just as most 19th century intellectuals were unable to see the biases and false assumptions that crippled expert work in their own time, current intellectuals are unable to see the biases and false assumptions crippling our own experts' research. We aren't necessarily any smarter or any more able to see our biases than researchers a century or two ago were.

I'm not arguing against taking expert opinion seriously; I am just arguing that it should be taken seriously but skeptically. Hopefully, we can elect politicians who will do just that, rather than being led entirely by partianship and ideology. I'm not confident that's what currently happening, however.