A central observation in life is that the majority is often wrong, with the conclusion that what the majority considers the truth, the best solution/approach, whatnot, must be taken with quite a few grains of salt.
So far, there is likely nothing controversial in this text. In a next step, however, even the majority of experts, “the elite”, “the educated”, scientists, whatnot, are often wrong.
The claims from within the “hard” and/or natural sciences are usually the ones the least likely to be wrong (and, maybe, those most likely to be wrong-for-a-good-reason, when wrong-at-all). Still, even comparatively modern incarnations of these sciences have often been wrong or contained theories/hypothesis/models/whatnot that contradict each other. (I will stick with just “theor[y/ies]” in the continuation.) And this even when ignoring the continual refinement that takes place, when one believed-to-be-an-approximation-of-the-truth theory is succeeded by a better approximation. Physics is usually considered the “hardest” of the sciences, yet has seen repeated upheavals and controversies, including around phlogiston, the ether, the wave vs. particle nature of light, quantum mechanics, relativity, and the promising-but-not-delivering string theory.
In the “softer” natural sciences things are worse. For instance, “continental drift” (or refinements thereof) might have become the dominant theory as late as the 1950s. For instance, the cause of the extinction of dinosaurs and the status of birds as surprisingly surviving dinosaurs were still unsettled when I first encountered the debates in the 1980s. For instance, I first (again, in the 1980s) encountered the idea of climate change in the form of global cooling and the risk of renewed glaciation—while we, leading up to 2024, have seen the increasing replacement of “global warming” with “climate change” in, at least, media and politics. (Presumably, because the recently dominant theory of a warming earth shows signs of being, at best, an oversimplification. A confounding factor, however, is that the great abuse of this-and-that for political purposes makes it very hard for a layman to keep track of what science says at any given time.)
Much of what goes on in the non-natural sciences is utter poppycocks, ranging from poor science by poor thinkers to deliberate distortions by ideological fanatics. Some areas, notably gender studies, are rotten to their core.
Medicine provides a great many examples of recommendations that have proved faulty or outright negative and/or where the truth is still up in the air. Consider issues like whether eggs are good or bad, whether fats or carbs are worse, in what position an infant should be sleep to avoid SIDS, whether this-or-that medication is safe to use (thalidomide, VIOXX, and dozens or hundreds of lesser known cases), etc. In early 2025, some fast-food restaurants appear to move back from seed-based cooking oils to those based on animal fats—because the former are suddenly viewed as unhealthy, and despite the original switch (early 1990s?), from “animal” to “seed”, once being hailed as a great health improvement.
Here and elsewhere, I do not necessarily take sides on the underlying issues. The point is how such developments and such changes in what is considered “good” and “bad” demonstrate a larger problem of unreliable advice—even should this advice come from (real or self-proclaimed) experts, the government, international organizations, whatnot.
For that matter, look at how much of historical medicine has been quackery or based on (from a modern perspective) absurdly wrong ideas, and how long it has often taken for sound ideas to catch on—even attempts to introduce hand washing among physicians fought an uphill battle.
A particular problem was repeatedly demonstrated during the COVID-countermeasure era, namely, that even those who knew better made incorrect statements to the public to ensure compliance in the now and hoping that the frog would boil in passivity if the truth was revealed slowly enough. (Cf. parts of the U.S. House report.) Herein lies a greater crux for those who try to live by the opinions of experts, the opinions propagated in media, the opinions expressed by favored politicians, whatnot—these might distort the truth for their own benefit or, e.g., because they carry ideological blinders.
A potentially more interesting area (and the original motivation behind this text) is that the majority of “the educated” is very often wrong. (And the same applies to other groups of a similar pseudo-elite character—especially, when self-appointed.) Indeed, in at least some settings, these might be more vulnerable than their less educated counterparts, because they are exposed to a certain type of indoctrination to a higher degree, are more likely to be caught in an “echo chamber”, or similar.
The “why” is otherwise largely off topic; however, I note that being educated and being able and willing to think are not the same—and that strong thinkers are rare even among the educated. For most, then, the main difference between the educated and the uneducated is more a matter of exposure to certain ideas, claimed truths, whatnot, than an ability to think and to think critically about those ideas.
A further point of note is that confounding the formally educated with the educated is a mistake that distorts impressions of who is educated and what group has what beliefs. I, e.g., have around twenty years of formal education, but I have still done most of my learning and thinking, gained the most insight, whatnot, through my informal self-education. Still, there are plenty of formally educated nits who look down on those with fewer years of exactly formal education, while failing to distinguish between the un- and the self-educated, two radically different groups.
A complication on another dimension is the profession of an opinion not actually held, e.g. for purposes of “fitting in” or avoiding negative consequences. At least for now, I ignore this complication and assume that a professed opinion is actually held. (This not only simplifies the discussion considerably, but is unproblematic in the context where my motivations for this text arose, namely the often very odd and/or outright wrong opinions professed by so many of the educated in today’s Western world, as with the many college educated who have fallen for various Leftist scams that lack scientific support or are outright contradictory to science; who supported the COVID countermeasures; who voted for Biden or Harris, at the respective time among the weakest candidates and veeps that the U.S. has ever seen; etc.)
In particular, the majority of the “educated” has in the past held many opinions that its current counterparts frown upon. For instance, the current majority appears to be largely Atheist or, even, anti-Christian/-religion in many Western countries, while it might have been Christian just a few decades ago and certainly was so in the 19th century—and while its counterparts outside the West might have followed, or still do follow, other religions. For instance, in the span between Darwin and Hitler, eugenics had a very strong following, including among outright Leftist groups, while it has grown taboo to the point that even those who should know better view it as an inexcusable error. (Often, because eugenics is misconstrued as “kill those of the wrong race”, which is a distortion on the level of going from “Be healthy!” to “Kill all fatties!”.) For instance, the majority in the Soviet Union and other Communist dictatorships swore by Communism, Socialism, and/or Marxism, while their Western counterparts swore at them. (And, sadly, while the abject failure of these three, where and when ever they have actually gained power and been called to deliver on their promises, has not prevented them from growing ever more popular in the post-Reagan West.)
Such issues often go hand in hand with an assumption of ever-increasing “enlightenment”, which might hold true in e.g. physics, but is increasingly more dubious as we go to softer sciences, let alone areas of preferences and priorities. For instance, much of what is done in the soft sciences is a regression relative the past, polluted by ideological concerns and quasi-Marxist pseudo-science. For instance, chances are that the average insight into philosophy and human nature is lower today than in the past among the educated—arguably, lower than in ancient Greece.
At the same time, an assumption often seems present that today we have the truth, even when our ancestors were repeatedly wrong. This is an extreme presumption and an entirely unscientific mindset—unless backed by solid evidence and not just a blanket assumption. Worse, such a blanket assumption might well have been shared by those considered bigoted and prejudiced ignorants by the self-declared enlightened of today. (Note a similarity to an argument around the existence of God based on hierarchies of life.)
To determine who is in the right or in the wrong is, then, often tricky. Even a scientific near-consensus is no guarantee—and a merely claimed consensus need not match reality at all. (In effect, the claim that “science says X” is no better or more credible than just “X”, unless proof is given that science actually does say X.) Going by level of education, outside areas of expertise, is a dead end. Etc.
However, there is a fairly strong family of heuristics that can at least be used to gain some idea about who might be lying, who might lack confidence in his own line of argumentation, who might fear being disproved if a matter is debated on its merits, etc.:
Look at who tries to strangle the debate or censor opponents; uses arguments based on authority (especially, when in a very dismissive manner towards other opinions); pushes propaganda, rhetoric, “nudging”, whatnot; or otherwise tries to “win” the debate in an unethical manner. At least in science, even the fact that someone is set on winning the debate, as opposed to finding out the truth, is a strong warning sign, because this attitude is inherently anti-scientific.
Much of this family can be covered by simply asking whether a certain debater is willing to let others make up their own minds or whether he is hellbent on ensuring that they adopt his opinion, by whatever means necessary.
I particularly suggest that such heuristics are applied to Leftist claims, because this will give the reader a good understanding of why I dislike the Left so strongly. Likewise, the heuristics show why so many actually scientifically-minded observers reacted so negatively to various COVID-claims by the likes of Fauci—and note how poorly many of those claims have held up to later scrutiny and in light of later scientific knowledge and real-world developments.
A particular special case is the use of exaggerations (distortions, or, even, outright lies), where someone sees a fox and cries wolf—and it is very interesting to see what happens when someone is caught with his pants down after such exaggerations.
Some Leftist groups/activists/whatnot (notably, but not exclusively, on environmental issues) seem to have an attitude of “If we tell the truth, someone might reach the ‘wrong’ conclusion; ergo, we must exaggerate [distort, lie, whatnot] so that everyone reaches the ‘right’ conclusion!”. When the exaggerations are revealed, the perpetrators should acknowledge their dishonesty, try to pick apart what is truth and what is exaggeration, and play fairly in the future. What do they actually do? Double down and turn to various accusations against others (notably, in the “X denier!!!” family). Those who grow sceptical in the long term, drawing the natural conclusion from those cries of wolves, are especially likely to be victims of such accusations.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.