Elitism and Science.

One may get the impression from our prior article, that we are unalterably opposed to the idea of elite leadership.  Far from it.  Rather, we are opposed to leadership that claims to be elite based not upon deeds but upon hereditary position.  We will explore this idea in this next piece.

It should seem obvious that one should not choose a doctor simply because they are socially popular.  When one chooses a doctor they seek someone who by virtue of their effort have become experts in their particular field of medicine.  How does one become an expert?  By educating oneself extensively in the literature of the field and by training in medicine under experienced people.  In short, one would always want an elite doctor if the playing field was level.  

Now that seems fine to most people where medicine is concerned but what about other areas of science?  For most of our history, American's respected science as a positive force that could improve life for people and make the country stronger.  Science is perhaps the easiest example of a field where the elite run the show and that makes sense.  One needs an advanced education in order to become a scientist in the first place!   Science is not uniform however, it is based upon competing ideas.  The scientific method is one in which theories are developed and then tested in the real world.  Often times there are many possible ways of explaining a particular phenomenon.  The rigorous nature of testing and the number of peers that review the material are all important in determining what becomes scientific "fact" at any given time.  One can describe science as a kind of jury system based upon the preponderance of the evidence for a particular assertion.  In this sense it is like a civil trial in the U.S. Judicial System.  Expert witnesses are called, evidence is tested, and conclusions are reached in an open forum.   Now it may well be that the consensus leads to the wrong verdict but the best part of the system is that the verdict is temporary.  The trial never ends and the conclusion is not written in stone.  So when we speak about scientific facts we can have confidence in the elite foundation of the system because it is has a sense of humility built into it.  Scientific facts are provisional.

The system is not a free for all, however, all opinions are not equally valid and all ideas do not and should not have equal weight.  Evidence and consensus among experts determines which ideas are established science for the time.  This system has allowed us to probe the far reaches of the universe and the basic building blocks of matter and yet there are some who would claim that they have no need to follow the consensus of elite scientists but rather that they can pick and choose among various options whether they themselves are trained scientists or not.  For them the system is not based upon the preponderance of the evidence.  Rather, their view is that the standard for validating science should be more akin to a criminal trial.  If there is any reasonable doubt as to the opinion of science, then personal preference should rule the day.  If one scientist can be found (or hired) to espouse an outlying opinion that is in concert with ones personal preference then one should simply go along with that scientist and throw mud on the others.  Such is the idiocy of our day.  Just as we would not choose a doctor who tells us we are healthy when we are not, we cannot choose science just because it suits our own desires for the way things should be.