== Again: How to defeat the War on All expertise ==
The Enlightenment Experiment absolutely depends upon training citizens - especially the young - to provide the one thing that almost all past nations desperately lacked, criticism of society's elites, lest they smugly assume they are right, an endemic failure mode, since humans are (all of us) inherently delusional. But we don't share the same delusions and so point out each other's errors.
Alas, there's a flaw - arguably the worst in human nature. We inherently hate criticism!
And hence, so many past and present ruling castes - wielding tyrannical power - crushed it! Then went on and implemented any damn policy that made them feel good... resulting in the litany of catastrophes called 'history."
Occasionally, across that dismal darkness, a glimmering concept arose. That of reciprocal accountability - people catching each other's mistakes (since we seldom can see our own). Pericles, for example, spoke of how this method was working so very well in the Athens democracy... till he died and Athenians dived into cycles of overwrought 'criticism' that proved lethal, the failure mode that enemies of our current enlightenment are trying (with much success) to trick us into, right now.
So how does an enlightenment nation and society strike that balance?
Today, our massive propaganda system - Hollywood - relentlessly repeats lessons of criticism, suspicion of authority (SoA) and individualism... along with notions of tolerance and diversity and "otherness." Historically, NO other society taught its children to reflexively assume fault in their own tribal elders, while assuming other tribes are wise. And admit it, that's your trained reflex, as we speak.
Alas, we fail to teach our young to notice how they got these values -- via the most intensely pervasive indoctrination-by-media in human experience. That perspective is badly needed.
(See the powerful effects (good and bad) of sci fi movies and lit dissected in my new nonfiction book about the power of fiction: VIVID TOMORROWS: Science Fiction and Hollywood.)
Especially since -- as I alluded above and have pointed out many times -- Suspicion-of-Authority (SoA) can be turned cancerous and used against us! Consider the aphorism given in italics below. One that is blatantly true, believed by almost all members of this civilization... and denounced by almost all rivals and previous cultures.
"Just because a person is smart and knows a lot or has a position of authority, that doesn't automatically make them wise."
== THE CORE UNDERPINNING OF ACCOUNTABILITY... METASTASIZES ==
All of you reading this likely agree that the assertion (in italics above) is true.
Simply and obviously true.
And because we know it to be true, each of us feels empowered to point out what we deem to be possible errors by elites.
Even if citizens or amateurs are wrong in 99% of their crits aimed at elites, catching that 1% has real value!
This is absolutely essential if we're to navigate the rush into the future while minimizing lethal errors.
It is also a basic reason to always err on the side of transparency.
So far so good. Experts may know a lot, but they aren't gods.
Only here's what's happened. Our enemies saw a flaw - one that could be exploited against us. The same flaw that blew out post-Periclean Athens and Medici Florence and threatens us today -- self-righteous sanctimony.
Let's look at that core underpinning again:
"Just because a person is smart and knows a lot or has a position of authority, that doesn't automatically make them wise."
True! It's one of our fundamental tenets. But there is only a small step from that truth to a toxic lie!
"Because a person is smart and knows a lot or has a position of authority, that automatically makes them unwise."
Now of course, when you put it explicitly and baldly like that, the mutated version is obviously insane!
And so, Fox/Sinclair/KGB savanarolas never make it explicit! Yet, that's the message implicit in their daily jeremiads against every expert caste, from doctors and scientists to civil servants and law professionals and most of their fellow journalists. They croon at their hypnotized ditto heads
"Your opinions (supplied by us) are automatically more valid than the informed judgments of smartypants, who are all both conniving conspirators and cowardly, paradigm-obeying conformists!"
See also: The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters, by Tom Nichols.
= Is There A Way Around This? Burden of Proof. =
Yes, there is a way out. But it depends on first admitting what the enemies of enlightenment are doing, and then adjusting, adapting new, 'judo' tactics.
The key concept is "burden of proof."
No, elites and experts should NOT get to "rule" ex-cathedra on what's True! Freedom of speech is not enough... critics of established paradigms should have access to venues to challenge orthodoxy... as is the case in science...
...though the credibility of the critic can justifiably be used to scale those venues, maximizing crit that has value over that fizzing from sources who have none.
(Note that our species has never generated more competitive humans than scientists, who at each other with relentless determination, eager to expose the flaws in their experiments or theories.)
One chant-incantation by the mad right meme-media is "there's no such thing as "scientific consensus" or "there's no VOTING over facts." While that incantation is strictly true, it is also bullshit!
When 99% of those who know a lot and are expert in a field say something is true... despite rivalries among them... then yes! it is still possible for that consensus to be wrong! There have been a few such cases across the annals of science and the dissenters who bravely took down the false paradigm are well-known, even revered.
But that happenstance is very rare. Generally, when a critic claims "99% of those who know this field are wrong!" that critic bears a Burden of Proof.
Above all, this holds when it comes to PUBLIC POLICY, which simply cannot wait for 100% agreement and utter removal of all plaints and objections! It is perfectly reasonable for a nation or state or company or world to take action on warnings and recommendations made by a majority of experts in a field, especially when the possible consequences of inaction are dire. As is the case re: climate change.
Though yes, it is also right to allocate some resources so that critics may continue to criticize.
== Wagers, again ==
In pushing WAGERS as a tactic against the jibbering-insane War-vs-Facts, I never claimed you'll actually get paid. I never have been. They always whinge, squirm and finally run. But that in itself is a victory, because the one thing they live for is macho.
They know "a real man is willing to put up stakes and let the chips fall where the facts take them." In squirming and fleeing, these mostly-male idiots prove (if you taunt them in front of others) that they aren't 'real men.' Alas you must do it right!
1- Nail down a specific provable/falsifiable assertion. (I like ocean acidification because if it's true we're screwed, and it can be proved with a Ph meter. And there are ZERO alternative theories for why it is happening.)
Or: "let's pick any random ten lies from the registered list of Trump's 30,000 false statements and see if any were worse than the ONE fib you called 'intolerable and impeachable' by Bill Clinton!
2- Definite stakes in advance. I generally demand they escrow $5000 with a reputable attorney before I'll even negotiate terms. Thus, I savagely imply they aren't trustworthy. (It does work.)
3- Adjudicators! It's their last refuge, since their cult wages war on all fact-using professions. (Bet them they can't name an exception!) From science, teaching, medicine, law, journalism -- to the "deep-state men and women who crushed Hitler, stymied Stalin, won the Cold War and the War on Terror, their cult slogan is that all nerdy fact users are evil!
So I make it explicit. "You pick a pair of senior, retired military officers who aren't known for being rabidly partisan, but who have been lifelong Republicans. I'll pick two. Together they will pick a fifth for a panel to adjudicate our bet, based on confirmed facts. Let's do this! If you have any guts or balls!"
It's a trap! If they deny the fact-centered honesty of retired senior officers, they are stabbing at the last American clade of expertise they supposedly respect and revere. But if they accept, they know they'll lose!
Do you see the logic? Of course then there is...
... #4 -- do all this in public, because they will run away! The only thing you'll win is utterly shaming a raving loony by gelding and emasculating him in front of witnesses. (And how I'd love it if a guest on Hannity or Tucker did this!) That public shaming is a good thing and if we all did it a lot, QAnon and Proud Boys will shrivel under the sun.
See my formal wager demand in comments. Copy and use it yourselves.
== Sometimes the old ways still work ==
What about using the courts to force slanderers to admit it and face deterrence and punishment? Well, in theory, that's a great idea! In fact, I have yearned for a decade for some prominent news reporter to shout "enough" after being slurred as a conspiratorial-lying promulgator of "fake news!" and suing for one of Tucker Carlson's many, many mansions, ranches and yachts. It is a form of wager!
Said an eminent DC observer I respect:
"I get it - claims often are unbacked by fact. However if someone claims something, is it not a sign that they think it's true and thus if they're wrong, then defamation?" And further that their statements were both intended and had the effect of undermining the persons and corporations so defamed?
One part of the remedy that a jury in the suit -- or a settlement -- can demand -- in addition to a financial penalty -- is that Powell herself - not her attorneys - issue a statement of retraction and apology, admitting with crystal clarity that her intent was to sway "unreasonable people" into harmful hostility toward both the plaintiffs and democratic electoral systems.
While it is delicious to see Dominion Voting Systems pursue these devastating cases, they truly are special in that the deliberate defamation and the economic harm have perfect clarity that plows past our reflex 'freedom of speech' defense, that always gets benefit of the doubt.
Alas, no member of the political caste can do that without accusations of orwellian "attempted suppression of opposition" doing more harm than good. I think some news reporters should long ago have sued over "fake news" slurs, since some cases were especially egregious... but the same worry probably deters them.
True, you'll not get the dollar rewards of a jury judgement or a court settlement... no one, certainly not a Fox yammerer, will ever actually PAY. But cornering say Hannity/Carlson with their refusal to even negotiate crisp, falsifiable/verifiable terms for fact-based manly wagers can then be used to slash the macho stance that is the foundation of their cult following.
I'll append in comments once again my standard Wager Demand that attempts to deal with all the bob-and-weave evasion tactics these macho liar-bums have tried over the years, before screaming (always) and running away.
