OpEdge Redux: Why would a science writer go on a campaign to belittle education and celebrate ignorance?
While OpEdge is on a two-week hiatus, we are running some of the more evergreen columns from past years. This blog entry originally appeared on August 14, 2012.
Tooling around the Internet, I found twoĀ ForbesĀ articles by a science writer named David DiSalvo that denigrate education and knowledge. Both are lists, one of doās and the other of donāts. But instead of just titling the articles, āSome stuff, Iāve learned along the way,ā DiSalvo prefers to take pot shots at those with degrees and smarts.
The names of the two articles say it all:
āTen Smart Things Iāve Learned from People Who Never Went to Collegeā
ā10 Dumb Things Iāve Learned From Brilliant Peopleā Ā
The aphorisms on the two lists mostly come down to ways to get along with people: āDonāt talk down to othersā and āYou can learn something useful from everyone,ā although the specific pearls of advice do take occasional snide sideswipes at learning, such as āLearning is good; doing is betterā (which turned out not to be true in the case of the atom bomb). Basically, itās Horatio Alger-Dale Carnegie kind of advice.
So why did DiSalvo tie both lists together with insults to the educated? It is possible that he learned the positive lessons he lists from people who didnāt go to college, just as itās possible that he saw people he considers brilliant do the dumb things he lists. But thatās his anecdotal experience. Most of the stuff on DeSalvoās do-this list I learned from people who went to college. His donāt-do list seems to apply equally to people of all intelligence and educational levels in my experience. Those are my anecdotes.
As a science writer, DiSalvo should know that anecdotes donāt prove a thing. If he wants to show some trait that we usually admire, such as brilliance or the discipline to complete college, may be tied to something unadmirable or dangerous, he should cite a study. Thatās what a science writer usually does, even when sharing something personal. For example,Ā aĀ recent series of studies gave strong evidence that wealthy people behave less ethically.Ā Of course, noĀ ForbesĀ writer would ever allude to these particular studies, since theĀ ForbesĀ ideology glorifies the wealthy as deserving masters of the universe.
Thus DiSalvo uses a very unscientific approach to make assertions that undercut his profession, since both doing and writing about science require education and a certain modicum of intelligence.
In all of these attacks on intellectualism in the American mass media is a certain smugness, as if to say,Ā we donāt have to read and we donāt have to study.Ā I can understand climate change deniers or those who donāt want to teach evolution in the classroom having such an attitude. But someone who writes about science?Ā Youād think DiSalvo would find another way to unify his lists of disparate homilies. For example, he could have just as easily written, āTen Smart Things You Donāt Have to Go to College to Learn,ā which is less confrontational and not overtly anti-intellectual.
I would be hard pressed to limit to 10 or even 25 the important things that I learned at college and graduate schoolāimportant principles of my profession of writing, ways to deal with people especially in big bureaucracies, success strategies for the real world, the scientific method and other ways of thinking. Iām just listing the topic areas, not the lessons.
And donāt get me started about the things I have learned from the many brilliant people among my relatives, professors, clients, colleagues and friends.
I bet DiSalvoās list of things he learned from brilliant people and things he learned in college would be as long as mine.
Of course, no one would pay him to write an article about a list that praises science, at least not in the current mass marketplace of ideas, which prefers to celebrate ignorance.
