20 November 2015

Indirectly Related to the Teaching of History

In that it's more evidence that "experts" and "professionals", whether in academia, science, medicine or history should not be trusted simply because they are "credentialed" or part of academia. As a matter of fact, those facts immediately cause my radar to go on full alert and become more skeptical.

The following link and article isn't directly related to the topics I post about on this blog, but it is indirectly related because of what we're seeing exposed in academia day by day. And, as an aside, I've seen comments on other left-leaning "Civil War History" related blogs go down a road where questioning "climate change" or man-made global warming gets hitched to one's views and perspectives on American History: this for example.

So with that in mind, this headline on Drudge grabbed my attention this morning:
MIT Climate Scientist: 'Warmest temperature on record? It's just nonsense'...
And no, it is not a contradiction to put stock in these experts' findings and opinion. They are,  in my mind, immediately afforded more credibility due to the fact they are both credentialed AND bucking the leftist groupthink, religion-like pseudo-science of man-made global warming. They are courageous and taking risk in suffering the wrath of an inquisition like persecution from colleagues.

Groupthink or, what Professor Gordon S. Wood would characterize as "incestuous conversations" among academic historians, is what ties this news piece together with the teaching of history when one considers the current state of historiography in the United States and some of the childish nonsense being taught.

And here's a great quote from the Drudge linked piece:
“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.
“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science.
“John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added.
Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.
And I loved this quote as well:
“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.
Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.
“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Indeed. One could make a similar argument about historians as well. Groupthink is always problematic, particularly when it's based on emotion and an agenda, rather than the facts.

 All this reminds me of two Scriptures, both which describe many modern academic historians and scientists:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . ~ Romans 1:22
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ~ 2 Timothy 3:7 
George Orwell's observation is also quite fitting: "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


ropelight said...

Here's a reminder of an historical event:

52 years ago today President John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas. Lyndon Johnson became President and reversed Kennedy's policy of withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam. Overwhelming public opposition to Johnson's war nearly tore the country apart and caused Johnson to announce he would not seek a second term. Riots in Chicago at the Democrat National Convention sickened the nation and resulted in the election of Richard Nixon.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

I was 6 years old at the time.

ropelight said...

The date is significant because it marks a paradigm shift in the relationship between American citizens and their Federal government.

John Kennedy was able to insist that Americans should ask not what their country could do for them, but should ask what they could do for their country.

After Kennedy's murder Lyndon Johnson initiated the War on Poverty which inflicted all the evils of government entitlement programs - Welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, on a once great nation.

Both were Democrats but Kennedy expected not only self-sufficiency from ordinary Americans, but also sacrifice and service to the nation. Johnson escalated the Vietnam conflict into a long, expensive, and morally devastating war while at the same time he vastly expanded the role of government entitlement payments.

Kennedy wanted to end the conflict in Vietnam and he expected Americans to volunteer to serve the nation. Johnson expanded the conflict into a bloody war and turned the federal government into a craven monster demanding higher and higher taxes to feed it's growing dependent client class.

Before November 22, 1963 America was strong, solvent, and independent, after the assassination Americans couldn't trust their government to level with them.

And, that's a little taste of real history for ya.

jessie sanford said...

Good points ropelight I always compare Johnson to Lincoln. Both tore the country apart and stomped on the Constitution.

ropelight said...

Ironic then that Lincoln was a sitting president who was murdered while in office, and Johnson murdered a sitting president to gain the office for himself.