Tuesday, January 27, 2015

I'm No Expert, but...

Ok I don't get it. Yesterday, since the five country music stations they have here are intolerable, I was prompted to listen to Rush. Why is it that the political and ideological right hate education? Rush talked about experts are stupid and don't know what they are talking about and that the average joe can determine for himself the truth if he looks for it. I learned about that in college. It is the worst part of the Enlightenment, the denial of authority besides individual authority. It was the burning of these bridges that helped along the French Revolution. Rush poses as a sans collete to encourage what the Church has said is the worst tyranny man has devised for himself. And it all boils down to the notion that educated people don't know what they are talking about. Sure, one person's opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but when multiple people start saying there is something happening, you should at least take it into consideration. I fear that the conservatism of Chesterton with its ideals of intellectual engagement has already fallen to the rabid rage of the unwashed and uneducated masses that substitute intellect for the idealization of the working class. I do not mean to dispossess the third estate but rather put the third estate in its place. To say that I am not better than another person because I have education is irrational and inconsistent with the reality that the whole point of education is to better the human being. There are orders to education as well and I would--and could argue--that Liberal education properly understood is the highest education and the most deserving of praise but I digress. To say that Joe the Plumber has the same grasp on the good for society as I do would be a farce anywhere except democracy.

I'll grant that this came to me as a FB message; which format doesn't lend itself to elegant exposition. But I can only reply to what is written, not what might have been at more length.

1. Rush Limbaugh does not represent the views of anything that might be called a unified “political and ideological right,” if such a thing even existed. It is a typical mistake among the mouth breathers who feel like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are intellectual heavyweights and who get their opinions from the Comedy Channel. Rush's profession is to attract listeners by talking about political and related topics. His point of view obviously appeals more to conservatives than Progressives. His reasons for that point of view may or may not be entirely rigorous; and those who may agree with his position may have different reasons for their opinions. There is probably no one who agrees with everything he says. And his monologues have to be arresting enough to hold his listeners attention. Since he doesn't get government subsidies, he has to be more interesting than Diane Rheem. But I don't have any interest in defending Rush. He can do that for himself well enough. For some strange reason, the most successful talk radio hosts are conservative. It could be that the sustained whine typical of Progressive radio hosts is too tedious for anybody to listen for a sustained period. It seems to me that the moderately successful Leftist talkers are bloviating boors like Ed Schultx, who make Rush and Mark Levin and even Glenn Beck seem like easy listening disc jockeys or golf play-by-play announcers.

Why do conservatives hate education? They don't, actually. Many of them have even been educated. But it seems to me that anyone who really values education would be critical of the way that it is organized in this country today. You do realize that the education system in this country is based on questionable Progressive Pragmatist philosophies from the early 20th Century.

The current system is a. based on a questionable philosophical foundation. b. designed for an entirely different set of circumstances than exists today. c. has failed to a great degree to return an adequate investment. d. is controlled by nearly unaccountable bureaucrats, rather than by the parents of the students it purports to serve. e. was designed and is used as a tool to inculcate the “right” ideas into citizens. f. is in thrall to a union which holds the pay and protection of its members to be more important than the quality of education they provide to their students.

A system that has all that going for it deserves a modicum of criticism. Can you concieve of any other way that education of children could be accomplished in this country that would be an improvement on the current system? Of course you can. Is there any chance of the system being truly modernized, improved or replaced? Of course not.

None of this should be construed to be a disparagement of teachers. There are many outstanding teachers. They don't get paid commensurate with the importance of their profession. My daughter-in-law and future-daughter-in-law are teachers; my daughter intends to be one and my wife is one. Fair to say that I love teachers.

I don't know what Rush said, but I think it is also worth considering the difference between an education and a degree; which leads to a reasonable skepticism regarding experts. William F. Buckley once said, “I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with that. Woodrow Wilson (and John Dewey) would not have. Pragmatism and Progressivism, which was built upon its theories, proposes that problems can be fixed by experts with sufficient information. It sounds good in theory, perhaps, but it hasn't really worked out in practice. Not for want of trying over the last 100+ years. Jon Gruber is an expert who thinks American citizens are stupid. But he certainly was stupid to say it out loud while he was being recorded. And even more foolish for thinking ObamaCare could ever work. Experts are useful to a point. And there are things, truths, if you like, that experts grasp that I may never comprehend. The Fibonacci sequence or fourier transforms, for instance. However, despite Progressive beliefs to the contrary, experts cannot manage an organization as complex as a nation. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397131/davoss-destructive-elites-kevin-d-williamson/page/0/1


I think there are many, and by far the most important, truths which are accessible to the average joe. I may never be expert enough to fully grasp Aristotle's conception of the good. But then there are experts in philosophy like Jacques Derrida, who deconstructed good until it ceased to exist. So, experts, per se, ought not be given any more credit than they are due. And when they stray from their particular expertise, they should be given quite a bit of skepticism.

In the end, Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. The source of information is an important consideration, but isn't dispositive. A thinking person has every reason to evaluate the information on its face and reject it regardless of the expertise of its source if it fails evaluation.


Also, deferring to an expert's opinion seems to be a rather severe case of individual authority of the kind you condemn. I share your concern over the atomization of society. It is bad whether it is each one against every other one or each one against the government. I choose as my expert in the matter, GKC whose appeal was to that truly silent majority, the 'democracy of the dead' which votes through tradition, custom and societal norms etc. Received wisdom is no less wisdom because we received it from our ancestors who at one time may not have been literate.

No comments:

Post a Comment