H. G. Williams 

THE PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL

There seems to be a phenomenon sweeping the land that is real strange.  It is the desire to project the image of an intellectual. While it is better to be smart than dumb, there should be some basis to support either position. If one assumes the position of “smart” then there should be some foundation to support that position. A problem arises in instances where someone assumes the “intellectual” position and this position is not based upon research done by the person speaking, but by simply repeating some established intellectual source. The strangest part of this is the simple fact that the established intellectual source, most of the time, turns out to be some “off-the-wall” group with a political agenda and not a scientific group interested in finding the facts.  After a while the goofiest of ideas follow this path until they take on the validity of conventional wisdom.  Once this takes place, anyone who dares to question the conventional wisdom is labeled as uninformed, uneducated, and backward, in short, not an intellectual.  Once this label is attached, then any comments made by the discredited will be ignored and treated as simply babbling.

 Lets look at some examples to illustrate the point.

  Some un-scientific notions

1.  Cold temperature cause colds
2.  High voltage power lines cause cancer
3.  Chemicals in the environment are bad
4.  Large corporations are evil

Now let us examine these items objectively.

 Cold temperature causes colds is a belief held by many in spite of the fact that numerous studies made by numerous researchers has shown that colds are caused by viruses and have almost no relationship to temperature.  The places where colds are almost non-existent are the communities at the South Pole where the temperature is very low.  The only time a cold is experienced at the South Pole is when new personnel arrive bringing the viruses into camp. Once the viruses run their course the community is cold free until the next new group arrives.  No one catches a cold unless they are exposed to the virus.

 Fresh air is healthy is one of those notions that has some truth within the belief but misses the point.  The notion has its basis during the late 17^th century when the plague ravaged Europe killing one in four.  Not possessing scientific knowledge of the causes of disease, the people developed the notion that “bad air” was the cause of the plaque. This has lead to the belief that fresh air is good and bad air causes disease.  The real truth is simply that viruses and bacteria cause disease and if they are present in the air, fresh or otherwise you are at risk, and if they are not present even it the air is “stale” you are not at risk.  Following this line razes the endless debate that now is at hand over “clean air”.  While it is unquestionable that air born particles of all ilks need to be evaluated, it is by no means an automatic fact that all particles in the air are detrimental to human health. Also there is the need to scientifically establish levels of acceptability. It is entirely possible to have a harmful particle in the air but in such a small quantity that it is benign.

 Chemicals in the environment are bad.  There is great hysteria of the word chemical and it is automatically assumed that chemicals mean detrimental substances. There is of course a great number of chemicals in the environment, in fact the environment is totally chemicals, that’s all there is.  Again the question is what chemicals and in what amount. This needs to be followed by establishing the good from the bad. This needs to be further defined as to the definition of bad.  The latest dooms day scenario is gaining ground under the respectable name of “ endocrine-disrupter chemicals”. 

The story goes like this  two un-credentialed nuts write a book based on beliefs and not facts, a university professor files a paper supporting the two nuts thesis, and a publisher promotes the book very heavily to boost sales. Radical environmental groups pick up the drum beat, then it's picked up by afternoon TV talk shows, followed by the evening news which then leads to congressional hearings and the next thing you know the pseudo-intellectual crowd is espousing the wisdom  "that we are being subjected to fatal endocrine-disrupter chemicals”.   Sound goofy, think again, in 1999 the vice president of the United States took the position that "mounting scientific evidence" supports this thesis. This is followed by congress enacting a law that directs the FDA to evaluate the total effects of endocrine-disruptors.  All of this is true, it is also true that the university professor has admitted that his paper “had flaws” and withdrew it. It is also true that the National Academy of Science has found no evidence to support the thesis.  It is also true that the dooms day forecasts that are predicted, such as increased cancer, and increased infertility in men, are not born out by facts, in fact the cancer rate is dropping and no evidence exists that even suggests men are becoming less fertile.  However, I can assure you that the beat will go on and anyone who stands to say “this is junk” will be label as not informed, and a non-intellectual, even possibly a Christian nut.

 Large corporations are evil.  This is an obvious absurdity.  The problem here is fostered by an onslaught from Hollywood.  When, if ever, has a movie been made where a large corporation is portrayed as benign and compassionate?  This belief is further promoted by the age old dislike by employees of there bosses, therefore it makes the masses, who are for the most part employees, feel good to see and believe that corporations are evil. This condition plays into the hands of those who, for political reasons, whish to eliminate private, for profit, companies. These people are socialists and have as their goal the elimination of all private property. The truth of the matter is that most large corporations are good community members.  The basic problem is the fact that all money is generated by profit making companies. If you remove the profit aspect than why would any one work?  There are just not enough munificent people that will work for nothing. I know of no society that removed the “for profit” aspect of their system that has prospered. There are however people in the pseudo intellectual crowd that will argue that “profit” is the source of all human ills. The ultimate curse that can be hurled at a large corporation is that “they put profit before people”.  To argue with them is the same trying to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.  One example that comes to my mind that does not seem to make sense is United Airlines.  As I remember the news the employees, and the unions that represent the employees bought the company.  Now United Airlines is faced with possible strikes because the corporate officers are putting “profit before people”. How can that be if the employees own the company?  The employees cannot be against themselves.  I think that this simply shows that pseudo intellectual position that large corporations are bad is just plain wrong. There is only a fact that on some occasions decisions need to be made that are good for the health of the company that are not good for some employees.  Such as during a slow down in the economy a company must reduce the number of employees, this is not in the best interest of the employees that are being laid off.  To listen to the pseudo intellectual folks the company should not lay off anyone, but to continue to pay them and not cause any discomfort to anyone.  If this path is followed the company will build up a large debt which possibly could never be paid off, thereby eventually being bankrupt, and going out of business and then all the employees could be out of work.