Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Leftists View Independent Thought as Intellectual Laziness
I saw a very nice 72-year-old gentleman yesterday who had questions about COVID vaccines, like everybody and their cousin. He’s a brilliant guy. A semi-retired business consultant who makes a lot more money on part-time consulting than I do in my full-time job. He said something like, “Anybody who hasn’t gotten a COVID vaccine is an idiot” or something like that.
I responded that I agreed that vaccines were probably a good idea, but that the studies on them would be completed in about three years, and I really had very little data to go on. If they are causing harm, we may not know right away. Just because we don’t know exactly what the risks are yet, does not mean that there are no risks. But I tended to agree with him, that the risks of the vaccines were likely to be outweighed by their benefits. Most likely. I’ve gotten my vaccines. They’re probably good. We’ll see. But I also told him that I understood the concerns of those who were reluctant to try them out for one reason or another. I disagreed with them, but I respected their opinion.
He just looked at me. After a pregnant pause, he said, “I didn’t know you were a Republican.”
I wasn’t sure what to say. I finally said, “So, Republicans are hesitant to make decisions without data?”
He said, “No, Republicans don’t believe in science.” Whoa. This, from a guy who joined my practice because his neighbor (who is a doctor) told him that I was the smartest doctor he’d ever met. So now I don’t believe in science. Ok. I’m pissed, but I really try to play nice. Take the high road, right?
I reminded him, “There is no science. The studies will be completed in three years. Then there’s the peer review process. Then post-marketing data. Get some data from somebody who doesn’t work for Pfizer or the CDC. More debate, more studies, more arguing, more data mining. I think you’re probably right. I think the vaccines are probably good. But call me in six or seven years, and I may have a better idea. In my line of work, I guess a lot. But I try to be open about when I’m guessing. I’m not just some guy you met at the bar, telling you what he thinks. I’m wearing a white coat, and you’re paying good money for my perspective, so you should expect a higher standard of data analysis from me. And I’m telling you that there is no data. I’m guessing that the data is likely to be good, overall. Eventually. But I really don’t know. And neither do you. Not yet. And if that level of humility can accurately predict somebody’s politics, then we have problems a lot worse than COVID.”
He changed the subject and had no further questions about COVID vaccines, apparently because he no longer viewed me as a reputable source. Because I don’t believe in science. Or because I’d like to have some data before I answer a question. Which, to him, are the same thing.
As a Christian, I am sympathetic to his perspective. I don’t need proof that Jesus is my savior. I know. But religion is a matter of faith. Science, in my opinion, is not.
This famous graphic is a pretty good summary of the study of philosophy. It may be more complicated than that. Or, perhaps, it’s not. St. Augustine does this for a living. Perhaps he can point out some subtleties that the meme overlooks.
But this is a real blind spot for those who “believe in science.” Because that graphic applies even better to science than it does to philosophy. I’ve been speaking to doctors’ groups all over the country on heart disease for nearly 20 years, and my presentations now are completely different than they were 20 years ago. Even 5 years ago. Not because I was stupid in the past. And not because my faith in “science” wavered from time to time.
No, it’s just because most science is wrong, and we do our best to figure out what is right. Over time. We should remain perpetually cognizant of the fact that much of what we ‘know’ now is wrong. We try to keep learning, even if it challenges our assumptions and biases. That’s just how science works.
I find it fascinating that leftists view any evidence of independent thought as proof that someone is conservative, and thus, evil. Imagine being a member of a movement that vilifies independent thought, and that vilifies efforts to search for truth. They don’t just vilify the truth – they vilify the search for truth. Such truth-seekers are non-scientific heretics who are not to be trusted, and who should not be welcome in polite society.
I’ve already had a few patients who joined my practice because they thought I was particularly good at science, and then left my practice when they found out that I was searching for scientific proof before recommending treatment for them. At least, in the realm of COVID. This seems very odd.
Unless you “believe in science.”
I wrote about this a few years ago, in a post “Those who ‘Believe in Science’ don’t understand science.” I was amazed by Harrison Ford’s performance at a climate change conference. But it’s really not that amazing if you understand the leftist view of science as a religion, and religion as superstition. Unless it’s science. Or something. I think. It’s still amazing to me. Because I don’t understand.
And remember, Christians are irrational superstitious emotional fools, while those who ‘believe in science’ are rational thinkers. Or something. I don’t understand.
And remember, Joe Biden won over 50 million votes in the last election. Perhaps 80 million votes. Whatever. That’s amazing. I don’t understand.
Conservatives tend to be skeptical of those who are experts at basketball or science opining on matters of philosophy or politics. It’s not their field, so what do they know, right?
But I’m arguing that a true conservative should be skeptical of those who are experts in science opining in matters of science. We really don’t know. We’re just doing the best we can, with the information available to us at the time. And that information changes, as we learn more. So humility is not a nice feature, but an absolute requirement.
And when I hear a ‘scientist’ who lacks humility, then I automatically know that I should turn up my ‘skeptical-meter’ from its usual nine or ten to something around twenty thousand or so. If that ‘scientist’ will not filter his perspective through a healthy dose of humility, then I should filter his perspective through a healthy dose of skepticism.
And that does not mean I’m a conservative. That just means I’m not a fool.
And remember, this very intelligent, very successful business consultant doesn’t just want me to treat other people with no consideration of scientific research or facts. No, he wants me to treat him that way, too. He views independent thought as intellectual laziness. Or something. I don’t understand.
You don’t have to control the political institutions to control the people. You just need to control the educational establishment and the media. Which the left does. So here we are.
I don’t understand. I really don’t.
But I’m skeptical…
Published in General
Israel also has such laws.
I disagree on the second point. You know about bacteria from observation, not science.
The superintendent of our school system was a good friend. I was his favorite volunteer because I supported the school budget increases he wanted. :-) In fact, I helped him get a few, although I failed miserably one year, for which he eventually forgave me. :-) I had my own mailbox in the administration offices, as if I were an employee. That was definitely a “first” in our school district. :-)
I actually developed a nonprofit for the school committee’s PR purposes called Every Kid Counts. When our local newspaper interviewed us when we launched this project, the reporter asked Mike, “Why are you doing this?” He pointed at the papers on the table and said, “Because of this. Every kid counts.” He really loved the idea, and when I went to the schools’ open houses in the fall, I saw posters in every classroom with those words emblazoned on them.
At least once a month he would say, “I can’t believe you’re a Republican and you care about education!” I am not making that up.
Republicans have a PR problem.
They Feynman quote I’ve always liked:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
More like Democrats have every major institution and news outlet as their PR shops.
Richard Feynman got mentioned in a couple of comments. To me, he was the epitome of a true scientist.
This gives me the chance to post a link to his famous speech on “Cargo Cult Science”, which is a fine speech and tells you just about all you need to know about how to pursue science. In the event you haven’t seen it before, I think you’ll find it to be a treat. It starts off a bit strange, but soon gets down to business.
I always liked this segment of the speech:
Contrast this approach to the way global warming and Covid “scientists” have acted.
Coincidentally, I was just reading that before I returned to this thread.
I have been told that I must never question the COVID science — which changes weekly but paradoxically is also carved in stone unchanging for all eternity.
Seems like a good time to mention why I’m more of a government skeptic than a global warming skeptic, although it’s fair to say that I’m both.
The government gives scientists money to do research, the scientists come up with some modest conclusions about global warming, the journalists dramatically oversimplify their findings, and the government says “Give us more power to fix this!” while channeling some more money to the scientists so the whole process can continue.
None of that means global warming ain’t happening.
But it does mean it’s ok to be suspicious.
Yeah, that’s how it starts. Then it becomes clear that if you want funding your research has to have the “right” result, and you structure your research to produce the results that will let you continue to work.
Eisenhower understood this perfectly, and he told us what was going to happen.
Then it’s not independent. Or thought.
Barry did that because SSM didn’t poll well in certain demographics.
It has nothing to do about believing in anything, other than a desire to get elected.
I remember an early video of, I think, the BLM founders talking to a citizen or reporter on the street. And at one point she was asked a question, and you could see her quickly trying to formulate an answer. And it ultimately was a cut-and-pasting together of other statements she had been taught by rote, and which showed no real underlying thinking or synthesis of a new thought appropriate to the context. Many on the left do this and that’s why, when intellectual push comes to shove, the default thinking is Racist! or Evil!
Or on a real operating system, hold the compose key (I re-purposed the “windows key” for that), type a double quote, then the letter “o”. Gödel. Similarly for other letters with accents. No codes to memorize.
Or, do what the Germans really do and just use oe, ae and ue, like in the early days of moveable type.
My take is the homosexual agenda has been “accepted” because to challenge it could cost you your job, your friends, forced “re-education,” etc. And John Roberts didn’t help . . .
It ain’t happening.
I dig.
I love it!
All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
What a great read over breakfast! I think I used up my quota of “likes” for the week. Great conversation. Nothing more to add so I won’t. :-)
Apparently, not exactly.
Advocating secession in Israel is a jailable offense, which is a key reason I did not move there. My opinions cannot be freely stated there.
This reminds me of the time a young college student came door to door, asking me to sign a petition to “save Medicare”. I told him “I don’t want to save Medicare. I want it to go away.” He looked at me like I was insane. He started to back down off the porch and said “You must be a Republican!” I asked him why he said that. “Because you want old people to die in the streets!” I replied “Well you must be a Democrat: you think the only way to solve a problem is to take money from the middle class, pretend like you are taxing the rich, and create some monstrous program that doesn’t work.” He turned and left.
These people…
On a bipartisan basis, the Senate recognized it was an actuarial disaster by a factor of dozens in 1973. Nobody did anything.
They literally invented the CBO because LBJ just made it all up.
Now they lie with the CBO.
Also: Lie when you write your grant proposals: Say that your basic research can lead to a solution to the currently popular crisis. The dilemma is that if you don’t lie, you won’t get funded. And so government slowly corrupts you, training you to tell lies and to accept lies. Comfort yourself by telling yourself that it’s not really lying because breakthroughs can indeed come from anywhere.
The issue is not respect for or understanding of science but how intrusive one’s ideological bent is. A biblical fundamentalist may react against evidence of geologic timescales in the same way a climate catastrophist might react against geologic evidence of past temperature changes unrelated to atmospheric carbon content. We all want new and better cures for diseases until we hear that they are proprietary Big Pharma inventions and then some of us disapprove. We are delighted that preemie babies can be saved and grow into healthy kids but not if it changes the presumptive age of fetal “viability.” We like scientific studies of differences between men and women–unless they show men are better at something.
The problem is not that science has expanded and intruded on our lives but that our ideological baggage is intruding on everything. And it does not matter whose side started it–if those idiots are bringing their nonsense into a debate that should be resolved by “pure” science, then by God (or by Darwin or by Moloch) we are gonna weigh in and stop them. Neutrality is almost impossible.
The sheer laziness of the (often formerly religious) elite who take comfort in their uniformly shared Weltanschauung is a problem precisely because they increasingly resent any challenge. Our allegedly best and brightest (or at the least the people we pay to be the best and brightest) are actually living like they are the end of history like the Fukuyama thesis. Their approach to climate and COVID feels comfortably sciency and conventional so that is the final word. And the thing about science is that there is never supposed to be a final word.
Vote Democrat because…
Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™
Becoming a famous expert also works this way: Journalists and politicians will come to you for quotes only if you tell them what they want to hear, and tell it in a snappy, quotable way. Do this enough and you become a famous expert. State the wrong facts and opinions, and you will be ignored. Try to make the public aware of those facts, and the aforementioned journalists and politicians will try to discredit and destroy you. As will too many of your colleagues in academia.
Doc, when I was discussing this topic with my doctor in may/June, I got the exact opposite answer. My doctor was the one telling me to believe the science; my doctor was the one not acknowledging the missing science (long term testing and analysis); my doctor was obfuscating the guesswork being done. If my doctor had given your answer, I might still not have taken the vaccine but I would have respected him immensely. As it is, I have no respect for him and now all of his judgement is suspect. I need a new doctor but I really don’t know how to find one worthy of respect and within my health plan.
I’m in the same position. My doctor — a long-time friend — is all in on the vax, posting anti-Ivermectin things to Facebook, declaring that it “most definitely does not work!” (Millions of people across the globe would disagree. Heck, the doctors at the hospital where my brother works would disagree.) I almost responded to one of his Facebook posts yesterday suggesting he show some humility in the face of rapidly shifting information. But I decided that I wouldn’t say anything. Though I am searching for a new doctor. Probably a new friend, too.
I think the most horrific response to COVID are the doctors who tell their patients who test positive, “nope . . . no treatments for you — just go home and don’t come back until you can’t breathe.”
They talk to you “tactically” to get any collectivist idea over the line. This is not about good policy or discovering the truth. If they confuse you or intimidate you that is still a win.
If you don’t adopt this mental posture when you are talking to a Democrat you are making a big mistake.