The anti-intellectual right

One of the things that the neocons have done that frustrates us so much is demonize knowledge. Experts, especially educated ones, are "ivory tower liberals" or elitists, and their goal is to prevent you from having the freedom to think what you want, regardless of the validity of their arguments. The upshot of this is that in a debate between a total moron and a true expert in a field, all the moron has to do to win is call the expert some names, deride them for being out of touch with "normal citizens", and make them appear different to other total morons. Suddenly, the person who could have been the teacher becomes an outcast, and nothing else they say has any merit. The right has worked very hard on this, because they know they lose many arguments on fact, and they're more interested in winning than in truth. And the person with knowledge is left standing there saying "But, I have evidence..." and hearing "Elitist! Trying to tell me what I believe isn't right. How dare you insult me and my family that way!"

Case in point, one vulgar, offensive, obnoxious, blowhard. Rush Limbaugh, from Media Matters (Warning - reading this may cause your head to explode. If that happens, go lie down quietly somewhere and dream of better things.):

This -- the -- I think we need to re-examine this whole term "scientist." You know, there are certain things in our culture that are never questioned. They have instant credibility. If a scientist says anything, [gasp] it's gotta be true. Scientists have this aura. Another one is law enforcement: "Sources close to the investigation say." They're never doubted. Law enforcement is always believed. It's never questioned, particularly by the media, and by most of us. And this is not a political bias; it's just the way it is.

It is why global warming has become a scientific thing, because nobody can question science. Why, scientists, smarter than everybody else. And science is science. Science is not politics -- well, it's absolutely BS. Science is all about politics, and science has been so wrong about so many things. They're not infallible, and this is the context of Fumento's piece, because there is so much demagoguery about embryonic stem cells and how they're the only ones that will provide miraculous cures for all of these dreaded diseases that wipe us out.

It's obvious, of course, that Rush either knows nothing about science or is pretending not to know for effect. There is a reason that science and scientists hold the place they do in our society, and it's not that they're perfect beings, incapable of error. It's that the process that science goes through (you know, the scientific method...) is one that minimizes partiality to a significant degree, rewards evidence, and allows ideas that are found to be wrong to be replaced by better ideas. We live in a world where science has changed everything we do - the places we live, the things we use, the food we eat, the way we heal when sick - everything. Cars. Computers. Plastic. Vaccines. It's not just technology, it's the process by which we understand the natural world.

(I'm not going to comment on the law enforcement thing. Apparently, he's just having drug-induced flashbacks.)

So, the word of a scientist, or more importantly, the scientific community, should carry more weight than the opinion of, say, a radio talk-show host. These are people who have investigated some phenomena, tested hypotheses, thrown out bad ones, developed better theories, and challenged each other on weaknesses in their research. I wonder what would happen to Rush if everything he said had to be peer-reviewed before it could be aired. Are scientists wrong sometimes? Of course. At any point in time, does every scientist agree 100% on complex issues? Of course not. (To the right, remember, any disagreement in their "opposition" means that the entire opposing argument is invalid.) But does the work of scientists overall tend towards producing ideas of merit and utility? Unequivocally, yes. Given enough time, the politics in science (as in all human endeavors) will fall away, and often with alacrity, once the right ideas come to light.

Now, Rush, global warming hasn't "become" a scientific thing. That's how one studies processes in our atmosphere. We could just go to Hudson Bay, say "Damn, it's cold," and declare that global warming isn't a reality. We could kneel down before an altar and say "Oh mighty lords, give us a sign if we should concern ourselves with anything bad." However, we learned a very long time ago that sacrificing a goat didn't make it rain, and this thing called science was developed to help us understand the world around us. I'll say this simply, so hopefully you can understand it - Global Warming is a scientific thing because (here's the tricky part) scientists are the ones studying it.

Unfortunately, people will continue listening to and believing this idiocy, and Incurious George and his followers will continue marching down the road to oblivion.