|
December 27, 2003
Is dumb ignorance less harmful than intelligent ignorance?
A few posts ago, I complained about a Park Service employee whose goal in life seems to be convincing the world that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old. I dislike seeing ignorance being promoted as science. This morning I was treated to another example of ignorance -- this time emanating from a "leading scholar" with a Ph. D. in Biometrics, and five additional honorary doctorates. (At least, that's what all the web pages say, in similar language; I can't track down the names of the places which bestowed them.) Reflecting on these two, I see no moral equivalency. The park service guy -- not a scholar -- at least bases his ignorance on something: a particular interpretation of the Bible. This is wrong, but it is at least honestly wrong. Dr. Bertell, on the other hand, accuses the military of triggering earthquakes without a shred of evidence. She is a scholar, teacher, college administrator, and no doubt she delivers lectures to the literati. By far, Dr. Bertell is the worse of the two. At least Mr. Vail is sincere in his religious belief, which doesn't particularly threaten anyone (as long as it isn't taken too seriously). Besides, he is mostly preaching to other fundamentalists who already share his views. And how many people are really harmed by the rather silly contention that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old? (I don't think it qualifies -- even remotely -- as a "dangerous idea.") Dr. Bertell, on the other hand, claims to be a scientist, but her nun's habit is wielded as an argument to authority. Her followers fancy themselves to be intellectuals who would look down on and belittle people like Mr. Vail. To the extent they are atheists (which I am sure many of them are) their religious masquerade is therefore infinitely more hypocritical. Both are corrupters of science. Both improperly mix religion, politics, and science -- torturing all three in the process. Yet I think Bertell is the more malevolent, because she strikes me as a true hypocrite. I think she uses her status both as a scholar and a nun to hide genuine demagoguery, and I think many of her followers are in on the same game. The image of an elderly nun plays well on TV, and they know it. posted by Eric on 12.27.03 at 06:01 PM
Comments
"Saints should be presumed guilty until proven innocent." -George Orwell on Gandhi Steven Malcolm Anderson · December 28, 2003 04:39 PM Hence the Devil's Advocate! Eric Scheie · December 28, 2003 05:21 PM I think the misguided fool you mentioned in this post saw this summer's stupid action movie, "The Core." OF Jay · December 29, 2003 10:27 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Sounda like the media are pumping up another Mother Theresa. I'm glad Christopher Hitchens is here to expose her as the fake, phony fraud she is. But the media will continue to promote Mother Teresa even so, and other such plastic saints. Whenever I see the media pushing someone at us an exemplar of virtue, or, conversely, whenever they are hurling another of their Two Minutes Hates at someone, I look more closely. We are told who to love and who to hate, on cue. Usually, the person we are expected to admire is anti-sexual while the person we are wzpected to vilify is pro-sexual. E.g., we are all expected to hate Howard Stern.