liberals on another winner

Originally posted by laira ↑

You should read this excerpt Simple. Might help you understand your own attitudes.
'Model' academics tend to be driven to abstraction

by: Greg Melleuish From: The Australian May 18, 2013 12:00AM

The zeal with which academics pursue their defence of climate change is a reminder that many of them are more interested in imposing their views on the wider population than they are in allowing for freedom of speech and expression.
Academics, like many other intellectuals, have a very high opinion of themselves and their rightness. Humility is not a virtue in their world. If you are right and you have good intentions, then surely you should not only be heard but should also prevail. In fact, you probably believe that you have a duty to prevail and to drown out the views of those who lack your qualifications and capacity to employ models. They are just inferiors who need to be brought into line.
Such an attitude has long defined how climate change alarmists see their critics and the wider society. Such people should be like their students who are there simply to listen and absorb, not to answer back. Unfortunately, this attitude seems now to have spread to government circles in Australia, which, under the direction of Julia Gillard and the Greens, are not interested in listening to criticism of their plans but instead think only of ways of preventing their critics from being heard. They have decided; it is the task of the rest of us to obey.
The government and their academic allies use a number of tactics to achieve this goal. One is to delegitimise anyone who is not considered to be an expert in the field. This was a trick that was used in the history wars by the black armband brigade to attack those who were not "professional historians". It has been used to attack climate sceptics by claiming that they do not publish in the peer-reviewed journals that are controlled by the climate alarmists.
This view that only the experts have a right to speak is anti-democratic. It assumes that the wider population is a bunch of ignorant bogans. Yet our schools supposedly educate students in science and history so that they can become responsible citizens. One must wonder about the value of such education. And who should decide who is an expert and "permitted" to speak? Would that require a government licensing board? It would be a board run by academics.
Another tactic is to complain about the "extremism" of those with whom one does not agree and to condemn their supposed verbal violence. The conversation must be kept "civil" and the fact that those outside the magic circle of expertise cannot seem to control themselves is a justification for not allowing them to be heard. Of course, governments and academics are never intemperate by definition.
The final tactic is to complain about lack of balance. If a publication decides to argue strongly for a position that is not officially approved, then that is being unbalanced. The publisher must be forced to publish alternative views, which is to say views that support the government and its academic allies. It doesn't matter that the government and the academics will not give any time of day to views critical of them. After all, they are right.
Free discussion is a major check on excesses of government power. It must be permitted to follow what arguments it wishes even if, from time to time, it does become a little excessive. The best way to correct excess is to allow for other critics to admonish those who have stepped over the line or for critics to poke fun and ridicule such foolishness. There is inherent in human beings a sense of decency and a desire for moderation. Public opinion has its own corrective mechanisms based on that sense of decency.
Unfortunately, academics often fail to have respect for the common sense of everyman and everywoman. They are addicted to their abstract models and this prevents them from having a sensible and practical approach to dealing with people.

Expand

load of rubbish.
total waffle.

this style of criticism may apply to area in the social sciences.....but not to the hard sciences.

I dont think the author understands science.This is the style of criticism that is sometimes directed at sociology,psychology,anthropology and other areas in the social sciences.