Replies

Surgeons succeed because they stick to surgery. But if we were to put surgeons in control of commodity speculation, criminal justice and rocket science, they would probably fail as disastrously as central planners.

So absolutely true. Just because someone is intelligent or gifted in one area does not mean that that necessarily applies to other areas. Case in point: the masses of liberal college professors who think they all know better than anyone else how the world should work solely because they're respected as an expert in their field. It's sheer arrogance, which unfortunately too many people don't realize.

Then there's Thomas Sowell, who actually does display brilliant logic and understanding of a wide variety of things in life, but would be the first person to admit he doesn't know everything. I'd be tempted to disagree with him, though, because I sometimes wonder if there's anything the man doesn't know or isn't right about.

Then there's Thomas Sowell, who actually does display brilliant logic and understanding of a wide variety of things in life, but would be the first person to admit he doesn't know everything.

I think the ability to think logically and critically, which Dr. Sowell has in spades, is far more valuable than knowledge. Within obvious limits, clear logical thinking can lead you toward an answer, or away from one, even when the textbook knowledge is lacking. The reverse is not true, though. Knowledge without the ability to think logically and critically can be completely useless, as well as completely wrong. We see that all the time, where people are attempting to apply a concept, a rule, or law to a situation where it is silly to apply it (zero tolerance policies, for example). Bureaucrats are famous for this kind of behavior.

In the case of the education bureaucracy, I don't see the problem so much as being that the education system isn't capable of teaching well. In fact, I think they are quite capable of getting information into people's heads. The main problem is that the public education establishment has ceased to consider reading, writing and arithmetic as the primary information to get into people's heads. Instead, they have promoted their political ideology above all else, and little things like math, science and literature fall away.

"Case in point: the masses of liberal college professors who think they all know better than anyone else how the world should work solely because they're respected as an expert in their field."

I think that's at least in part, a sad offshoot of a capitalist cum consumerist society, and it impacts a lot of true professionals outside of academia as well...it's all about salesmanship and marketing rather than the actual performance of the product.

We are at the point where people who would like to learn about basket weaving would rather consult a professor with a laundry list of academic credential and publications than speak to an actual basket weaver who has earned their living that way for decades. Certainly we should celebrate achievement and advanced degrees in any field represent just that; however, we have lost perspective and cede them a lot more authority than they truly merit in the big picture.

To put the matter in perspective, if you got home tonight and your toilet was leaking all over the floor, would you call a plumber who has been dealing with exactly such matters for 10+ years, or your neighbor who just finished the last 10 years in academia and has a PhD in Hydraulic Engineering?

There are people who are content to simply do things and do them well, and others who feel the need to spend most of their time telling you how well they do things, and even more of their time accumulating paperwork to prove it!

Surgeons succeed because they stick to surgery. But if we were to put surgeons in control of commodity speculation, criminal justice and rocket science, they would probably fail as disastrously as central planners.

Then there's Thomas Sowell, who actually does display brilliant logic and understanding of a wide variety of things in life, but would be the first person to admit he doesn't know everything. I'd be tempted to disagree with him, though, because I sometimes wonder if there's anything the man doesn't know or isn't right about.

There is an ironic comment to the effect that "if a man talks about his honor and a woman talks about her virtue, shun the former and cultivate the latter." I can't seem to google it up, but . . .
We consider Sowell to be sagacious. The irony is that we would not have the same attitude if in fact he went around claiming to be wise:
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.

philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
In fact I would almost go so far as to say that Americans who call themselves "conservative" are actually "philosophers" in the etymological sense given above - and that journalists and those whom journalists call "liberal" are sophists. Certainly, "liberals" are recognizable as Theodore Roosevelt's "critics":
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
Theodore Roosevelt's 1911 speech at the Sorbonne