Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmfdmf | Hacker News Reader

I think you are over-generalizing the Dunning-Kruger effect in your strawman argument. Moreover, you might want to consider that its not intellectualism -v- anti-intellectualism but psuedo-intellectualism -v- anti-psuedo-intellectualism behind the Trump win. There is a difference.

View on HN

Can you clarify what you mean by "pseudo-intellectualism -v- anti-pseudo-intellectualism"?

If the hallmark of an intellectual is respect for reason, honesty, integrity and the facts then clearly BOTH sides of the political aisle are lacking in these character traits. The "Right" and Reps make no pretense to be advocates of reason since they are the religious party based on faith. The "Left" postures as the reasonable, respectable and intellectual alternative to the Right and yet they feel compelled to shut down any opposition with ad hom, smears, political correctness and, since the govt controls virtually all the scientific research, cutting off your funding if you don't toe the line. The trick is then to say "see, even science supports our positions" and to use that to advance political goals with a rigged system. This is what Ayn Rand called "The Establishing of an Establishment" in her book "Philosophy: Who Needs It" which you should read if your question is honest.

That said, I think there is certainly some anti-intellectualism on the Right and behind Trump's success (no surprise). However, I don't think the nation is awash in irrationality, racism, misogyny, etc (though that is the Left's scary, dishonest spin) and the election was, at least partly, a repudiation of the Left's posturing as the intellectual, reasonable alternative.

I have to say I pretty much agree with most of what you said here.

I am a person who tries very hard to be centrist with the hope of getting closer to some "universal truths" (my Facebook page is practically a monument to political moderation) and this is the most difficult time I've had in years of trying to do this.

Could you give some more background for the scientific research chilling effect you describe? I have heard this idea of climate research science refusing to accept alternate positions, but I haven't seen it substantiated.

I would characterize the political alignment of government employees to be as diverse as the nation's. "The government" as a liberal-partisan force seems a bit inaccurate given that the House and Senate have had Republican majorities since 2012. That said, my exposure with U.S. government employees is limited to Defense/IC; I won't discount a bias --liberal or otherwise-- in NSF or other grants programs.

Two that come to mind are nicotine and marijuana research. To be clear both sides of the political spectrum try to rig or block scientific research for political goals, so neither one has a monopoly on that, which is why I am opposed to ANY govt funding of science. Its not a proper function of govt.

The LEOs blocked research into marijuana use for pain, nauseousness, etc. for decades because they don't want to admit that they dedicated their lives to a pointless "war" on drugs and they still heavily influence what gets studied today.

The anti-tobacco scare-mongering is beyond belief. Researchers admit that nicotine is not the "most addictive drug in the world" per the propaganda, they can't even get rats addicted to it in isolation. It turns out it is nicotine plus chemicals in tobacco smoke that make smoking addictive and the cognitive and physiological benefits of nicotine are just starting to be known. The big problem here is that if research legitimizes nicotine use (even as a pill or whatever) it can threaten the cigarette taxes that many states depend on so it is opposed which is a pretty cynical way to fund your govt in my book. The "second hand smoke" hysteria is statistical non-sense pushed by the anti-tobacco zealots.

I think the climate research is politically tainted as well but I won't go into that.

> why I am opposed to ANY govt funding of science. Its not a proper function of govt.

So who should fund science? Industry? They won't fund any science. They will fund research into engineering and technology. But they won't fund basic science. Furthermore expecting industry funded research to be unbiased is like expecting turkeys to vote for a second Christmas.

How did this property of MAOIs being the addictive component of cigarette smoking become known?

(probably government-funded research)

I see your point about bias being present in grants distribution, but there is no better way that is apparent. Too liberal, and you waste money on useless research. Too conservative, and you stifle important research that has no immediately marketable use. Scientific grant administration is difficult. As to government employees being in charge of grant distribution, who else should perform this function? Where else would the funding come from? The U.S. is a world leader in scientific research due to its generous (in comparison) funding.

I don't expect you to agree-with or understand this, now or in the near future but perhaps he/she was thinking along these valid lines:

"The Intellectual Yet Idiot" from "Skin in the Game" by Nassim Taleb

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211...

I think this is a good think piece about humbly accepting criticism about widely-held beliefs and not blindly believing in academic authority. Although Taleb's characterization of the IYI seems to be as broad as a horoscope, this is his tongue-in-cheek writing style.

I think the point you're making is that credentialed individuals shouldn't be blindly trusted; on the other hand, those that say that all experts are clueless are falling for the very same fallacy decried by Taleb.

That said, I appreciate your posting of this link; it was a good read (I'm not being snarky).

Perhaps you can compare it to intellectualism by considering the difference between offering up your humble opinion, and offering up your humble opinion as an objective truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com