Experts agree you need to listen to the experts
Having face-planted brutally in the 2024 American election with condescending lectures to the rubes about how the experts are always right, the chattering classes are seeking to undo the damage with condescending lectures to the rubes about how the experts are always right
For instance Science editorializes that “Science is neither red nor blue”.
Funny, since Nature and Scientific American both endorsed Biden, and the latter endorsed Kamala Harris, though it had nothing to do with politics you see, despite neither having ever endorsed a Republican.
Science itself didn’t go that far, but its sympathies for Harris over Trump were not well-hidden.
They did note that “Whereas a majority (53 percent) of those who identify as Democrats reported having ‘a great deal’ of confidence in scientists in 2022, less than one-quarter (22 percent) of their Republican counterparts held that opinion, according to the long-running General Social Survey (GSS).
That polarization has increased sharply since 2000, when an equal number – “48 percent – of Democrats and Republicans held scientists in high regard.” Which could simply mean that Republicans have been paying attention.
So here’s the New York Times’ David Wallace-Wells, post-election, sniffing that “As it turns out, the liberal establishment was right on Covid”. OK, that was his headline writer. But it’s a fair summary of a piece.
Sadly here’s what liberal self-examination looks like in America in 2024:
“On the pandemic, inarguably, the liberal establishment was both patronizing and imperfect, which is one reason some prominent public health figures have expressed cautious optimism about coming changes to the country’s scientific bureaucracy.
On issues unrelated to Covid, the contrarians have some useful instincts — to investigate chronic disease, for instance. But on the most basic and essential questions about the pandemic, the public health establishment was also, actually, right”.
And if not, for instance on the lab-leak hypothesis, the value of masking, the need to close schools and so on, well, they still feel good about themselves. And in the Times experts still reliably say what journalists think:
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims Americans are being ‘unknowingly poisoned’ by seed oils, and online influencers say they’re toxic.
But are they? Here’s what nutrition scientists say.”
And they say, or the handful whom journalists ask say, and you knew they would, don’t eat meat or dairy, eat canola:
“The claim that seed oils are ruining our health is especially rankling to nutrition scientists, who see them as a big step forward from butter and lard.
Decades of research have shown that consuming seed oils is associated with better health, said Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University.
To suggest otherwise, he added, ‘just undermines the science.’”
Because nothing undermines science like suggesting alternative theories. Further to the subject of Covid, in that same Science piece that says science is neither red nor blue, science is definitely blue and red is blockheaded, even deplorable:
“Whether conservative or liberal, citizens ignore the nature of reality at their peril.
A recent example is the increased death rate from COVID-19 (as much as 26 percent higher) in US regions where political leaders dismissed the science on the effectiveness of vaccines.”
And where would we be without ‘the science’.
On the plus side, Science did warn that:
“In addition, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine need to examine how scientists may have contributed to the polarization of the use of science.
Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy.”
And that:
“The scientific community must also better recognize that it may not be helpful to emphasize consensus in policy reports’ recommendations when the underlying values are not universally shared.”
Only to torpedo itself smugly by continuing immediately:
“For example, although science can affirm that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, science can only predict the outcome of the various policies that might be enacted to address the problem.
It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.”
Besides, it’s not about “values”. It’s whether there really is a scientific consensus which, of course, on climate (or in any field of science – Ed) there is not.
Alas, they just can’t help themselves. And until they do, they can’t help us.
See more here climatediscussionnexus.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Agreed.
However, make sure experts are genuine, not like medical (science) experts, who claim to be science experts (or scientists) but do not study or have knowledge of the science of medicines (chemicals) or conducting scientific research. Sorry!
Reply
Howdy
| #
Expert, as a label is completely misleading. It simply means one who (apparently) knows more than the majority about a subject. It does not imply absolute understanding, and one person’s expert, is another person’s idiot, based on perception, or simply likeability, thus, how useful is it as a description?
Reply
Tom
| #
I ignore all experts as 99% of are dunderheads or beyond retarded.
Reply
James
| #
Complex solutions have high prices, so if there’s someone fool enough to buy, or is getting a kickback, splendid. But Occam’s razor rarely fails. When I didn’t want flu, in the years before vaxes, I stopped getting on trams and going to the flicks.
Reply
James
| #
The problem with energy is trying to dictate the answer, rather than leave it to the market, which would have been cheaper and quicker. Dictates are driven by any number of hidden agenda; not by the outspoken one. I want to save the World… from me?
Reply
S.C.
| #
It’s clear science split into two schools at some point. I don’t know when, exactly, but I know why.
Group 1 is traditional science. The scientific method = gold standard. Care is taken to avoid personal bias. Debate and lively discussion are welcomed because when party1 and party2 exchange ideas and observations, both usually benefit. This is the group that turns out the best and most trusted research.
Group2 is subsidized science. They either lack talent or are lazy. If it weren’t for grant money, most of them would be at intersections holding cardboard signs, which is kind of what they do anyway. They shun traditional science, are never transparent, belittle anyone with questions, and lack the will or ability to debate. It would expose them as frauds, They have the characteristics of cultists, and never ever advance science. They’re pretty much just campaign staffers lying to and fleecing the public. Bias = the essence of their being. They get zero respect, which never bothered them before. Why now?
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Sorry, but the reality is that group 1 is just a surly, pig-headed, and dull witted as group 2. The difference is that group 1 applies these negative attributes to novelty whereas group 2 applies them to tradition.
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
S.C.
| #
Yeah, group1 sounds a bit idealized. Didn’t even notice because of my bias . I did remember something I that may be the first time subsidies corrupted scientists . I was 8 in 1977, so no earlier than that, I heard the hype over research grants and amazing new discoveries to come after funding research deemed high risk / low return by most private investors.
A few years later, I read about $3,000,000 for weight loss research and the shocking revelation that the most effective weight loss strategy is eating less and exercising more.
I thought it was a complete waste of money at the time, but didn’t know it was a prototype CIA project and would become capable of fleecing $trillions from Americans right in front of their eyes.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Been thinking of, or about, you and your understandings. You still the only one here at PSI who bases his fundamental understanding upon the “theory” of “hydrogen bonding” between water molecules composed of a oxygen atom ‘covalently’ bonded individually to two hydrogen atoms.
And you are correct that one cannot understand much (ANY?) NATURAL PHENOMENA unless you understand “hydrogen bonding” between certain other qualified (small or big) molecules.
I believe that Galileo began this intellectual commonly termed SCIENCE. And I read, as translated by someone: “Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.”
You need to understand that Linus Pauling, who wrote the book +titled The Nature Of The Chemical Bond, was not a meteorologist; but only a chemist. And another fact is that the weather phenomenon termed a TORNADO, whose action is very violent, is only a small part of much larger weather systems.
I wonder if you have read page 15 of C. Donald Ahrens’ textbook Meteorology Today 3rd Ed? If you haven’t, maybe you should.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pauling’s blunderous misconsideration of hydrogen bonding of water caused us to fail to understand the role of water molecules as the basis of the structural properties of atmospheric vortices, without which it is impossible to understand the physics of storms. This opened the door to a bunch of superstitious thinking, like buoyancy convection, latent heat of evaporation/condensation, dry layer capping, CAPE and other equally ridiculous notions regarding rhe physics of storms and severe weather. It is conservatives not liberals who are most pig-headed on these notions.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
VOWG
| #
A brief prayer for Christmas. Lord, please save us from experts.
Reply
solarsmurph
| #
Hmmm, Expert–:) X is the mark of an illiterate person, and spurt is a basically a little drip, so who wants to be known as an illiterate drip?
Smile, it is the Friday before Christmas – Greetings and Hallucinations – what was in that eggnog anyhow?
Reply