We are living in an era in which, for better or for worse, governments feel the need to legitimate their public policies in reference to the opinions of experts. And the more those opinions resemble a broad expert “consensus,” the more a government can feel entitled to say it has “the science” on its side, and the more easily it can dismiss dissenters as “fringe elements” whose views are marginal to the expert “consensus.” It should come as no surprise, then, that public officials, activists, academics, and citizens use terms like “expert consensus,” “scientific consensus,” and “the science,” on a regular basis to justify their preferred policies.
I follow many Substacks (as many of us do) & cant possibly read everything that comes in. I read mostly headlines and titles and go into depth including comments on very few. I read this particular essay of yours today and wanted you to know that you produce thoughtful, well written content. The fact that you have surprisingly few comments and likes (compared to other higher profile Substacks), shouldn’t deter you. You have your own voice and way of communicating that is really solid and from an angle that is relevant to a wide audience if only they weren’t so distracted by some of the more sensational content. I hope more people will find you and interact with your content. Keep up the good work.
Hi David,
I follow many Substacks (as many of us do) & cant possibly read everything that comes in. I read mostly headlines and titles and go into depth including comments on very few. I read this particular essay of yours today and wanted you to know that you produce thoughtful, well written content. The fact that you have surprisingly few comments and likes (compared to other higher profile Substacks), shouldn’t deter you. You have your own voice and way of communicating that is really solid and from an angle that is relevant to a wide audience if only they weren’t so distracted by some of the more sensational content. I hope more people will find you and interact with your content. Keep up the good work.
1(b) could be to engineer/foster an atmosphere in which would-be dissenters are disinclined to speak out. For example,
- bring in laws that penalise any scientific experts who contradict official policies.
- Exploit scientists' dependence on corporate funding for research purposes: make an example of certain dissenters by withdrawing their funding.
- etc
Expert now filed in the same box as msm, dod, government & any others you feel would be usefully added to the garbage pile.
As never before in human history have the politicotards so lost sight of who elects them & more importantly who pays their wages.
Time to replace the current mockeries of democracy world wide.