Hey guys, anybody and everybody,
I need some help finding an article or essay that will not offend the majority of people who are more or less scientifically illiterate, an explanation that they will accept, concerning thinking for themselves, that allows them to see and understand and accept the FACT that they must defer to people who actually KNOW science in respect to questions about changing climate, resource depletion and similar matters.
Most likely this essay has already been composed and published, and is freely available in one form or another in the public domain. The problem is that I haven’t run across it. Hopefully somebody here has read it, in one form or another , and will kindly provide me a link to it, and thanks in advance. I intend to link to it, or incorporate it whole into my book, or quote from it and use it as a launching point to go further into the subject.
If I don’t find it, it means many more hours laboring at composing it myself.
Consider my trying to pass as a real soldier for instance. I know ten times as much military history and theory as the average boot camp kid, and LOTS of stuff about military gear, but hardly anything at all about the actual day to day minute details of a soldiers life, such as EXACTLY what is expected of him in a given situation. Put me in uniform, even if I LOOKED like a soldier, and a real one with an iq over a hundred would spot me for a fake within thirty seconds to five minutes, and it wouldn’t take five minutes unless I kept my mouth shut, lol.
BUT I could most likely spot a fake soldier, because I know some stuff every real soldier knows, but a fake would not LIKELY know, especially if the fake soldier’s supposed specialty happens to overlap with some specialty of my own.
I know a lot about trucks for instance and somebody faking it as a trucker would give himself away to me within five or ten minutes conversation about old times on the road.
Now at some point we all must trust to the knowledge of professionals, be they lawyers, physicians, engineers, or others, when we need them either directly, for instance we need surgeons to perform operations for us. I need not go into the several criteria we use when we select a personal physician,other than to say if one is out of the mainstream, to any great extent, we generally evaluate him as incompetent. None of us HERE in this forum would argue that a physician who believes in spirits rather than microbes is well qualified to look after us. Well, Caelan might, I ‘m not altogether sure he believes in microscopes and such.
At a second level we must rely on professionals to tell us what to believe, and what policies we should follow or at least advocate. At this level for instance we depend on nutritionists to tell us what we should feed our kids, and what we should eat or not eat, ourselves, and what sort of laws and regulations should be in effect in regard to our food supply, etc. We don’t need appointments to get this info, it’s freely available in books and on websites, etc.
Now at this level of interaction, a problem arises in that some people who are professionally qualified to give advice give BAD advice deliberately, because they have sold out for the proverbial few pieces of silver, and of course there are some more who are have professional training who make honest mistakes. I ‘m not talking about this latter small minority. ( And of course the profession as a whole might be wrong , but let’s not go there for the moment. )
This problem is compounded by the fact that most of us, at some level, lack a deep enough understanding of the abc’s of the relevant subject matter to decide for ourselves who to trust, and who not to. What we usually do, in such circumstances, is decide to trust the ones who are trusted, OR SUPPORTED, by our friends, relatives, and coworkers, our peers, and or the ones who are trusted, or supported, by the leaders we look up to. The grease monkey is apt to trust his lead mechanic when it comes to choosing motor oil, and the typical layman usually or at least very often tries to decide what he will do when he has to make a decision by observing what people he looks up to do in similar circumstances.
There are obviously MANY people who are willing to prostitute themselves professionally, and who do so, for instance nutritionists who work for fast food companies. And there are obviously millions of people who are perfectly willing to give bad advice because at one level or another, they have skin in the game. There are MORE millions of people who are giving bad advice, but in good faith, because they have been had themselves.
It can be and usually IS VERY HARD for people who lack a basic education in the physical and life sciences to tell who is who, when it comes to deciding who to trust. It’s a sad but indisputable fact that the very large majority of us Yankees do lack such an educational background, and thus are subject to being lead around by the nose like dogs on a leash.
Some people will argue otherwise, but I am PERSONALLY convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the average big D Democrat you are apt to meet who works in a factory or as a clerk or any job that doesn’t require some higher level TECHNICAL education believes in forced climate change NOT because he understands the science, but rather because his TRIBE, the Democratic Party/ liberalish leaning establishment professes belief in the same.
(FORTUNATELY the big D Democrats are right on this particular issue, lol, meaning we have at least one party without its head up its ass in this particular respect. )
Likewise the average big R Republican who lacks a technically sound education is apt to disbelieve in climate change not because of what he does or does not know about the science himself, but rather BECAUSE his TRIBE disbelieves, or PROFESSES disbelief. There are many many Republican types, a fair assortment of them known to me personally, who know better but profess disbelief in the need for strong environmental laws. I could name a dozen easily that I talk to personally at least once in a while.
SO- HOW do we explain to such a person, who is honestly confused about who is telling the truth, who he or she should trust, without condescension, without insult, without turning this person away ?
I’m thinking that one way to do it is to ask him to consider which professions he considers trustworthy, and which has mostly trustworthy members. If he believes that physicians are as a group trustworthy, then it is reasonable for him to believe or at least consider, anytime physicians as a group disagree or outright contradict the message presented by some other group or profession, that the second group is either lying outright or at least seriously and grievously cherry picking the truth.
I have never yet met either a physician or a nurse who says sugary soft drinks are good for you, or that typical fast food is good for you, although some will say that these things are not harmful in SMALL quantities once in a while.Ninety nine point nine nine percent of all physicians are opposed to the consumption of sugar filled cola drinks, etc. But the entire soft drink and fast food industries do everything within their power to convince us these things are harmless and even good for us.
So- If we trust engineers as a group, we should trust people that engineers trust, for instance physics professors, lol. If we trust professional soldiers, of the kind that graduate from the service academies and eventually wear stars , and they believe in peak oil, and in forced climate change, then we should believe in peak oil and forced climate change as well. If the engineers and generals trust physics professors, and they do climate science, and work with climate scientists, then we should trust physicists and climate scientists.
I need examples of any work along this line, and any criticism of the approach is welcome.