Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner, one of the leading physicians of all times, said during an interview in 1981 how astonished he was by the downrightness of conclusions presented by pseudo-science specialists i.e specialists of social science. Those, so called pundits, even imitate the form and methodology: they gather data, analyse it, prepare formulas and charts, they draw conclusions, but in fact they never get to anything. They invent some laws and become specialists of everything. I may be wrong – said Feynman – maybe they do know something, but I’ve discovered how difficult it is to actually know something, what does it mean to know something, how cautious one must be, how meticulously must he check everything, how easy it is to make a mistake. I watch them how they get and process information and I can’t believe that, even though they know they haven’t done the necessary work, they know they haven’t verified the information, they still make things up and fool people around.
Feynman was romantically naïve – like a physician can be. He believed that there is some noble idea behind giving people bunk. Yet, the truth is much more mundane. What is hidden behind this bunk is career making and ordinary stupidity – such of the acquired kind. However it is, it is certain that the experts, pundits, specialists, analytics and all of those socio-political-knowing-everything-specialists haven’t watched Feynman’s programs. If they had, they wouldn’t be so bold in proclaiming their believes, and wouldn’t now be so profoundly defeated.
In this world of gibberish, food chain works more less this way: first, experts who have access to higher-level information digest it and excrete it in a form of their analyses and conclusions. Then, those analyses and conclusions are absorbed and ruminated by media, which later excrete them as a pulp – a mush to be fed to people. And people may go to sleep content – knowing that they are being cared for and will always be fed. Such well-fed and content society will of course look after those who feed them, and by means of democratic voting will choose Clinton, for instance, or those who object leaving the EU or whoever else is there to be chosen. In fact there is one group which is simultaneously at the beginning and at the end of this food chain – politicians and policymakers. They are the ones who apparently/maybe/certainly carefully listen to the voice of people fed on all those conclusions served by pundits. And where do the specialists get information from? Well, from the politicians.
But sometimes, all this proves not to be digestible. People reject the promoted truth. For exapmle, Trump wins the elections, or Great Britain leaves the EU. If something like this happens, a limitless stupidity of pundits, experts who claimed that someone like Trump (a clown, misogynist, racist, sexist, xenophobe, fraud, fascist etc.) could not possibly win the elections and rule the most powerful country in the world is exposed. And suddenly, it turns out that all of those specialists were wrong.
And now, let’s be serious. What if the experts are wrong in others matters as well? We already know that they’ve mistaken about the results of Polish, Austrian, British, and American elections. They were wrong about Brexit, about consequences of immigration policy, about consequences of the Arab Spring etc. All of those speculations about Putin supporting Trump were sweet in their silliness. But maybe someone is actually sketching directions of foreign policy development basing on those believes? As a matter of fact, non of the experts has even a faint idea whether Putin supported Trump or not. Notion that someone could guess secret intentions of a trained KGB agent, and not just of an ordinary SB agent using provocation and bringing girls or boys to take few photos, but the best agent in the history of this organisation, is an arrogant and blunt intellectual usurpation, or an ultimate stupidity, or prostitution in a non-noble meaning of this word. It is a simple swallowing and coping of information provided by Hilary Clinton’s environment. Ladies and gentlemen – Putin supports Trump in such a manner that the whole world knows and talks about it.
If they can be so wrong about elections etc., how can we be sure that they aren’t wrong about foreign affairs, about making alliances, about social prognoses and economic conceptions? How can we know that such and such reform of education is good or bad? That they aren’t wrong in all fundamental-for-us matters? I have worked out my own method of verification, thus “I knew this would happen” and Clinton would lose. She simply “didn’t take her sleeping bag” as Halama sang (TN:Polish cabaret actor). The method is simple. You need to use common sense, be sceptical, and believe in conspiracy theories. I’ve started to respect them since the day when Taliban landed in Klewki.
by: Dariusz Matuszak