We are in an era of know-nothingness. There are stupid-heads out there that astonish us with their petulant refusal to face reality. Rejecting scientific fact, making shit up, and lying through their teeth about global warming, public policy, news events and whatever they just don’t like. We can group them together into the Republican party and dismiss them, and that feels right to those of us who are liberals, believe in science and are suspect of faith.
Well, I’m not anti-science, and certainly not religious, but there’s more going on here than just a political movement of high-school dropouts funded by rich guys.
I actually sympathize with those ignoramuses. I am overwhelmed by information and don’t really want to deal with any of it. Some days I don’t know what to think about any given subject, there are so many competing claims on tv, npr and the internet. It is actually an act of faith to choose one side of an argument and stick to it.
Remember college philosophy classes and Existentialism, so popular back in the 60s & 70s? (does anyone claim to be a philosopher these days? I think economists are the new philosophers.) Existentialism seems so appropriate in this technological age, where the internet supplies 10,000 answers to any question you might ask. Knowledge is Chaos, and you have to take that leap of faith to continue to believe in the value of life versus the value of commerce, goodness versus the bottom line, caring for people versus the deficit. Either side can mount “experts” with facts and figures and both sides massage those figures to get our votes.
Medical research is already dominated by Big Pharma and has been for some time. Any scientific study can be bought these days, so that muddies the standards of Science as a body of proven fact. People who dare to question the safety of childhood inoculations are lambasted in the media, but really, we don’t know the truth of what goes into those shots and what the medical corporations are willing to do to protect their profits. Big energy, insurance and chemical companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on tv ads convincing us of the purity of their intentions and the truth of their findings, and lots of people are convinced. And why not? They saw it on tv. They are choosing the well-produced and well-financed explanation, rather than the well-researched one.
Why would these corporations prefer to spend all that money on image ads and lobbyists rather than just being good citizens (since apparently they ARE citizens) and accept scientific fact and change their business model accordingly. Because they have made their choice of facts, that the benefits of the stockholders outweighs science. And there is a whole political party, (not to mention a large number on the other side,) that agree with them that Money trumps Science. I have read plenty of Facebook posts, swearing that corporations aren’t evil, that business should get plenty of leeway, and that we would rather have jobs than some obscure endangered species.
Of course, it’s becoming more clear that humans are the next endangered species, but oddly enough, since those are just a set of facts among many, and open to interpretation, that can be ignored til the flood waters are up to our necks and the protesters are breaking in our windows. And well beyond.
When the medical malpractice insurance started to rise in cost, and the doctors began to cover their asses to save on those premiums, there was a push to have the patients make decisions on care directions. Which chemo to take, which operation to have, to cut or not to cut. That way, doctors wouldn’t be liable for unfortunate outcomes. My mother was one of those patients, and even though we had the internet to search for information, it was overwhelming, obtuse and contradictory. We had to shut our eyes, point to the screen and hope for the best. I remember thinking that was as good as using astrology or asking your dog or cat for advice. A thousand monkeys with typewriters, churning out medical advice. The lowest common denominator of healthcare.
In a way, that’s where we are today with government and the economy. We are given no real facts with no real background information or the means to understand it, but we still have the job of figuring out the right person with the right policy. Anyone who seems to give out real information (Paul Krugman, for example) is marginalized and has no influence. We are stuck with slogans and soundbytes and have to guess at what our options are. It’s highly ironic that the media talking heads (and a lot of my liberal friends) are critical of the Occupy Wall Street movement because they aren’t making demands. As if the act of protesting implied that they had special knowledge the rest of the us don’t have.
So we are all making a leap of faith. We did that when we voted for Obama, and he hasn’t been any more forthcoming than any of the GOP with truth or solutions. He has made his choice of facts, and has thrown his lot in with the corporations. So why are we trusting that very well-produced White House message? We are just as clueless as the Tea Partiers, and our ignorance of the facts is just as profound.


Salon.com
Comments
This reminds me of when I first started eating health food. At first I was very happy and confident.But then over the years, every book I read totally contradicted other books. I don't think anyone has all the answers. I came away thinking, just don't go to any unusual extreme.
Also, how can one party have all the answers? Independents are growing in number. Right now I would vote Obama, lesser of evils. But I see many liberals as just as bigoted, hateful and narrow-minded as the Repubicans they hate.
I'd be more critical of the Global Warming sceptics but I guess they're much the same people, in the end. Denialists all.
Harry's Ghost, some truths are not self-evident. I long for a society where they are, but I don't think we have one of those.
Thanks, Kathy. I am a loyal Democrat usually, but lately I have to wonder if anyone deserves loyalty anymore.
I'm sorry about the length, Kim! This was one of my 'don't get me started' posts. My sympathy for those denialists doesn't mean I agree with them.
-R-
The sublime, the joy and delectation of life, will not be found in texting away on a iphone or submerging one's consciousness at Facebook. It seems almost too simple to put a chair out in the backyard and spend a silent hour watching the day, but we don't understand, and wonder why life feels empty.
but
agreeing with H's G as I often do
Here's just one example - our world has been changed forever by globalization and the corporate directive to exploit and profit. Those outsourced jobs aren't coming back and we don't have the infrastructure to put educated people into rewarding careers anymore. I have great affection and respect for indigenous weavers in Mexico, but the artists in my gallery compete with them now for income. Given the choice, (and I have been given that choice!) I'd take food from their mouths and put it in the hands of local weavers. (figuratively, ok, I'm not a monster!) Is that wrong of me? The answers aren't so simple anymore.
Because we have access to a world of news, we can stress over problems in every country and village, and that leads to a lot of stress. I often feel just as greenheron said - let me just sit in the peaceful back yard and focus on the here and now. That is a willful choice to ignore knowledge and focus on myself. My post was based on a recognition that many of the Tea Partiers are doing much the same thing.
I appreciate all the comments from all you folks who do and don't get my drift. I don't claim to be clear all the time, or even on the mark.
I think we all believe that we are that hero/ine. All of these monumental happenings are occurring around the world. I think we get this glut of information and think we are prepared better than the movie star and thus will survive to make the world over in our image. Totally forgetting all of the millions that are killed on the way to this utopia.
I tend to vote person rather than party and am listed as an independent, but I have to say that the only Republican I might vote for is Jon Huntsman. I haven't heard much, but I like what I've heard. Otherwise it's BO.
It's been used against those who would usurp the authority of institutions and the status quo, through deft manipulation of the press, but certainly wasn't invented by Rupert Murdoch; it's precedents are probably as old as the time when humanity first organized and someone realized they could maintain power that way. Knowledge is not only Chaos, it is Power and it is Dissonance when it conflicts with your beliefs.
It also doesn't help that aside from any specific agenda, the agenda of filling the space between the ads with things that punch your buttons, has every preliminary study headlined as “New Research” (enhanced by it's conflict with “old research”) completely ignoring the nature of how scientific inquiry is validated. If any mention is made of the need for validation via the process of peer-review, replication and sampling on a scale which can be said to be relevant to the subject, it can't begin to compete with the impact of the headline and one sentence summary designed to grab attention. Worse yet, most of the examples of this involve health or other aspects of survival, therefore tapping into that primitive brain's need to desperately believe it knows what is right.
The constant trumpeting of anything and everything this way by the press, and the inevitable retractions and contradictions which are then reported later, as the proper application of the scientific method manifests, have served to undermine the status of science itself, in the minds of those too ignorant to see the process at work here.
Being "defiantly stupid" is also adhering defiantly to what makes you think the world works, whom you can trust, what is good and what is evil. It keeps you in sync with the other "stupid" people you identify with, empowering the bonds of affiliation, something humans desperately need. Go ahead and try and enlighten any group you think embraces you, with what you have intellectually come to understand is in conflict with their beliefs. You'll find yourself outside looking in very quickly and not necessarily welcome by those you formerly disagreed with.
Not only does one have to possess the intelligence to understand and accept that new information can negate old information and therefore entire belief systems, they have to perceive some benefit from doing so, in light of the obvious potential damage to their status. And affiliations with people of exceptionally high IQ is not necessarily any protection against that sort of derision. The history of scientific discovery is filled with examples of who was believed and who was ridiculed, based not on the validity of information, but on the perception of the source.
Finally, there's the simple fact that while very few people have very high intelligence, critical thought is something I think most people can be taught to comprehend the nature of, even if they aren't capable of engaging complex subjects that way. At least someone who understands what they don't know and the methods by which they may be deceived, has a reasonable chance of assessing if the presentation of information might be subject to that. If so, education focusing on critical thinking above all other skill might increase the odds of overriding the programmed reaction of the lizard brain.
That would probably result in a whole less stupid for all of us to have to cope with.
Rated
bad news: krugman isn't always right. worse: politicians always lie. stop voting for them, or you will never be free.