Right Wing Nation

Originally posted Dec 4 2006, but sadly, even more relevant today than when it was written.

(Forgive me if I seem to ramble on my way to the point. This isn’t quite as disjoint as it may appear at first, so bear with me. I will even eventually get to education.)

If I had it to do all over again, I would either go into forensic anthropology or physics. As it happens, I had already decided in high school to do an anthropology degree. I knew nothing at the time about forensic anthropology — few did — until I was in college. When I was at the end of my junior year and seriously considering graduate school, forensic anthropology was at the top of my list. However, nobody offered programs at the time in forensic anthropology; you had to do medical anthropology, and at the time, that meant doing both an anthropology Ph.D. and an M.D. Then there was my disillusionment with the utter intellectual and professional bankruptcy of anthropologists. That certainly didn’t help.

That seemed excessive, so I ditched that idea.

My fascination with physics postdates my undergraduate career. I did not take physics in high school because the teacher was an idiot who didn’t believe seniors should have to study and whose physics class was famous for being a daily party. I know this sounds dated, if not quaint and traditional, but when I was a high school student, I didn’t see the point of taking a class in which I wasn’t going to learn anything.

The reason I say I’d go into forensic anthropology or physics is that I’m both a forensic science and physics junkie. I rabidly consume everything I can on both topics. So while I am not a physicist, I am also by no means ignorant of physics (I am, technically, an anthropologist, at least by training).

I ended up going into a linguistics graduate program, at first to do an ESL MA (I was sick of working in restaurant kitchens). I had to take a syntax class, and there discovered the fantasy world of Noam Chomsky — and went into the PhD program precisely because Chomsky was such nonsense.

As I look back on my educational life, I see a pattern. I rejected taking physics in high school because the class was worthless. I rejected going further in anthropology (partially) because the field lacked academic rigor and intellectual honesty. I ended up in a PhD program because the current dominant theoretical model of the field was intellectually and scientifically absurd. And my coursework in that program was largely one frustrating example after frustrating example of pointless bellybutton contemplation — because of the intellectual bankruptcy of the field resulting from academic groupthink.

Even academics who don’t partake of the groupthink kool-aid are far too inclined to shake their heads and tolerate it. The academy is, after all, full of basket cases and always has been; it’s a grand academic tradition. In this case, however, groupthink is well on its way to destroying research and knowledge at the university.

Mentalism: Chomskyan groupthink

Chomsky started off on the right foot when he began his response to B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Chomsky was correct: Skinner’s explanations of language learning did not explain the actual data. According to Skinner’s behaviorist model which viewed language learning more or less as the formation of habits, we would never be able to utter (or parse) a sentence we had never heard previously — yet we do that very thing, hundreds of times a day.

Chomsky jumped the shark when he posited an alternative theory to explain the data. Chomsky said we were all born with Universal Grammar, or a Language-Acquisition Device.

The problem with this is that there is no evidence for such a thing, unless by Universal Grammar you mean some sort of foggy metaphor for the ability to learn language with which we are all born. If so, the next step of research is to pin down exactly what this Universal Grammar might be: Does it exist, where does it exist, what form does it take, how does it map onto the brain, etc.

That is, after you make a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis.

Yet not only did nobody ever test the hypothesis, but Chomskyans steadfastly refuse to do so. You can’t even get a Chomskyan to discuss any of these issues in gross generalities. I know. I’ve tried, many, many times. Instead, Chomskyan linguists spent decades building a theory upon an untested and unfalsifiable hypothesis — and Chomskyan linguists will not address either the testability or falsifiability of the foundation hypothesis because they know that it is neither. Chomskyan linguistics is a fakery, an academic fraud. (John Williamson has several refutations of Chomskyan linguistics here, but he never addresses the core issue, the Achilles’ Heel of the theory. His refutations are interesting, but ultimately as trivial as the trivial issues he addresses — and when discussing Chomsky’s theory, deep structure, descriptivism, the ideal speaker-hearer, these are trivial issues that fall out from the central problem: Mentalism.)

Chomskyan linguistics — still the predominant theory — is based on an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis. Stanford arose in the 80s as a counterpart to Chomsky’s MIT, and the linguistics department there has been doing research on various alternative theories. Yet, all are based on the same mentalist hypothesis as Chomsky’s theory, so all are equally fraudulent. Recently, a group of connectionists — whose theories are based on tested, falsifiable hypotheses — have managed to elbow their way into linguistics research and offer a spark of hope for a failed academic field, but they are far from being influential, at least now. But the others, Postal, Pullum, Sag, all are mentalists, and though they don’t belong to the Cult of Chomsky, they are just as irrelevant to the scientific study of language. And though Pullum and Sag may be somewhat more rigorous than Chomsky, Postal is the architect of Arc Pair Grammar, which if anything, is even more ridiculous than Chomsky’s theory. Because of groupthink, nearly all of the alternatives are just as bad as the predominant theory.

Groupthink is responsible for Chomsky’s dominance of the field. But groupthink has done far more than that. Groupthink is the reason Chomskyan linguists will not even discuss the testability or falsifiability of the central hypothesis: It is a point of faith among them. Groupthink is the reason you will get deer in the headlights from Chomskyan linguists if you call into question the existence of or need for Universal Grammar: It is a point of faith among them.

Groupthink transforms science into religion, and researchers into the Faithful. Linguistics is a cult, and Chomsky is the cult guru. There is nothing even vaguely academic about Chomskyan linguistics (and yes, there’s an analogy to the Faithful of the Church of Global Warming here).

The Standard Model: Groupthink in physics

As I understand it, there are two major problems or issues that the Standard Model is constructed to address. The Theory of General Relativity cannot explain the expansion of the universe, and neither it nor Newtonian physics cannot explain the fact that stars at the rims of galaxies move at nearly the same speed as those toward the center.

The presence of more matter would explain both these phenomena. Thus, we have the Standard Model, where most of the universe is composed first of dark matter, and then when that wasn’t enough, dark energy.

The problem here is that neither dark matter nor dark energy can be tested or falsified. Indeed, Einstein proposed the equivalent of dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe, but he did so very unhappily, because his hypothesis was ad hoc, unmotivated by anything but the expansion of the universe.

This says a great deal about Einstein. He had intellectual and academic integrity. Yet today, with dark matter and dark energy still untestable and unfalsifiable, physicists accept both. And that says as much about their lack of intellectual and academic integrity.

Note that we have a parallel between linguistics and physics. In both fields, we have “theories” (and yes, those are sneer quotes) based on untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses. In both cases, we have not science, but a cult of the Faithful. Belief in dark matter and dark energy is a point of faith. It is a religion. Orson Scott Card makes a similar argument in his take-down of String Theory.

Physicists are a bit more touchy about this than linguists, no doubt because physicists are natural scientists, so unlike linguists who will just look at you like cows if you bring up the weakness of the central hypothesis, physicists have done quite a bit of dirty dancing to “test” or “prove” dark matter and dark energy. None of these “proofs” are any such thing, but physicists have fallen into the same trap as global warming cultists, and have lost the ability to distinguish reality from non-reality.

I speak of the use of simulations. Simulations are just that, and no more. Simulations cannot be evidence for any theory, nor can they be used as data. Simulations are simulations. They are not real. Why that is so very difficult for so very many otherwise intelligent people to understand is a mystery. Simulations output simulated (i.e., unreal) data; simulated (i.e., unreal) data cannot be used as evidence. Give me a desired result, and I promise you I can build a simulation to produce it, and I can do so with any data you give me. It makes no difference whether it’s a global warming or birth of the universe simulation. It’s only a simulation. It can never prove anything. It isn’t real — that’s why it’s called a simulation. This is true of all simulations, be they physics simulations or business simulations. All simulations are only simulations. They have uses, certainly, but they are not data, they are not evidence, and they are not proof.

Professor Disney is wholly correct when he says (sorry, I’m paraphrasing) that building a simulation neither proves nor supports anything. The only thing building a simulation proves is that you can build a simulation.

The point is that again, no matter how well the Standard Model explains the data — because that is beside the point — doing research based on the Standard Model, that is, assuming the existence of dark matter and dark energy, isn’t science. It’s religion. The hypothesis is a point of faith. And that research isn’t research; it’s a religious tract.

The next step, what physicists should be doing, is trying to find a way to both test and falsify the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Until that has been done, anything assuming their existence is not science.

The danger of groupthink

No matter how much the postmodernists spin about “logical-positivism” or “narratives” or “ways of knowing,” academic research — most importantly, science — is the very foundation of Western civilization, much less knowledge, or even our educational system, and it has been since Aristotle. When research descends from science to faith, a paradigm shift occurs. And our civilization will move in parallel, from knowledge to superstition.

We’ve seen this in the general public. Recall the hysteria about breast implants, the women crying on Oprah, even a woman who cut her own implant out of her breast. There was a great deal of research done, and not a shred of evidence for all these “symptoms” of breast implants. Many people said so. Yet, that had no effect. The histrionics became louder, rather than dwindling.

Superstition reigns. Because Susie’s friend Amy has a friend who suffered awful symptoms from her breast implants, then the scientific research must be wrong. Anecdotes trump fact. Rumor trumps evidence. And hysteria reigns.

We see it in the anti-vaccination hysteria. Study after study as been done, absolutely no connection between vaccination and autism has ever been found, yet the hysteria flames out of control.

More disturbingly, we are starting to see it in the scientific community, and most frequently when global warming is the topic. More and more, you see the invocation of “consensus.” Yet science does not operate on consensus, and never has. Certainly, scientists develop a consensus, or majority position, based on a long-established practice of research studies, replicated research studies, critiques and rebuttals and opposing studies which in turn are replicated and so forth, an adversarial process. And yes, when the data repeatedly show the same things, and when one theory based on a testable, falsifiable hypothesis better explains the data than others, the scientific community adopts the theory. But now, we are seeing the global warming cultists trying to intimidate the skeptics into silence, rather than encouraging them to publish alternative explanations of the data.

That’s not science. That’s a cult.

Another paradigm shift we’ve already seen in the general public and we’re starting to see among academics is the move from skepticism to gullibility. Skepticism is the fundamental basis of academic research. Yet over the years, as groupthink has taken over the academy, we see it reflected in academic journals and the way they reflect only one theoretical stance. We see it in the classroom, when graduate students, once skeptical and quick to question their professors, silently accept the theory du jour. The academy is becoming a gullible community, a community of mindless sheep. When you hear a PhD student say in a seminar, “Everybody knows that . . .” you know there’s a serious problem.

These paradigm shifts are dangerous. They threaten the very basis of our civilization. Add to them the inane cultural and moral relativism, the violently anti-Western bias of postmodernism and you have a recipe for disaster. The academy is moving from the foundation of Western civilization to the tool of its destruction, and it is doing so willingly.

But why? Other than the reasons I previously discussed, one reason is the politicization of research. Less and less is research done for its own sake, and more and more for political reasons. Researchers have an agenda, and as we’ve seen many times, most recently with global warming “research,” they will cherry pick data, leave out data, and produce inaccurate simulations in order to get the results that further their agenda.

Witness the statistically worthless Lancet studies on Iraq. That those studies were even published in peer-reviewed, academic journals is an indictment of the sad state of academia, and a witness to the power of groupthink. Had those studies not been politicized, had they been about some non-political phenomenon, they never would have been published because of the sloppy statistics. Peer-reviewed research can no longer be trusted. And that is perhaps the worst statement about the academy.

Education: The epitome of groupthink

Nowhere do groupthink and its symptomatic paradigm shifts flourish as they do in education. Groupthink is taking root in, say, physics. Education is nothing but groupthink. Consider that all the “theories” educrats so fondly embrace are based on nothing whatsoever. Multiple intelligences. Authentic learning. Fuzzy math. Whole language theory. All are based on nothing, and pulled out of somebody’s head. They are points of faith in a cult.

Consider that in any other social science, there are at least some empiricists left. But in education, empiricists have been forced out and replaced with the Postmodernist Cult of Educracy. Heavily politicized, everything is subject to furthering the political agenda. Educrats work from the assumption that everything is subject to the political agenda.

Consider the number of times educrats refer to such leftist leprechauns as “social justice,” “equity,” or “institutional racism.” Teachers who say, “We need to teach a curriculum of peace,” or “We don’t teach long division; it stifles their creativity,” or “But what sort of teaching is it when I’m not required to think?” And consider how rarely educrats refer to learning — as in mastery of the material, not the deliberately undefined “authentic learning” or “higher level thinking.”

Consider how rare it is — much like seeing a unicorn — to see an educrat question any of the favorite educrat myths, such as multiple intelligences. Go to a teaching seminar or an academic conference. Note first how seldom anyone refers to data, and how frequently you hear “Research shows . . .” Then ask, specifically, for citations to that research. If you get citations — which only happens about half the time — it will be to so-called “qualitative research,” personal essays presented as if they had anything to do with reality, based on no data, and utilizing no analysis. The other half of the time, you’ll get an excuse, or deer in the headlights.

To see how destructive groupthink is, spend some time at an education school, surrounded by meaningless babble, full of leftist buzzwords strung together almost at random. Try to force an intelligent, reasoned discussion based on data, and see how far you get.

Science has already been replaced by superstition and myth in the educracy and the general public. What frightens me most is if that transformation happens in the hard sciences. Our civilization cannot survive that, if it happens.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS