Dec 3, 2023Liked by Ruxandra Teslo

One important factor: A high % of media people have very little understanding of the science and/or technology that they write or talk about. For example, in 1903 the New York Times mocked the idea of heavier-than-air flight. In 1920, that same newspaper asserted that Goddard's plan to send rockets into space was ridiculous, saying:

"That professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution [from which Goddard held a grant to research rocket flight], does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

In the present era, I note that very few of the journalists who write about energy know the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour...which difference is of the essence when talking about energy storage.

So journalistic claims about 'the science' should be taken with several trainloads of salt.



Expand full comment
Dec 4, 2023Liked by Ruxandra Teslo

Peter Drucker, the great writer on management and society, wrote a lot about the increasing role of knowledge in modern societies. In 1969, he said:

"As a result, it is quite possible that the great new ‘isms’ of tomorrow will be ideologies about knowledge. In tomorrow’s intellectual and political philosophies knowledge may well take the central place that property, i.e. things, occupied in capitalism and Marxism."

This must have seemed like a rather strange idea to most readers in 1969…the great new ‘isms’, and therefore the great political and cultural fault-lines, were going to be about knowledge? Surely, debate about the nature of knowledge must have seemed like something more appropriate for a university philosophy course in epistemology than a likely major subject for the political and media stage.

But, isn’t this precisely what we are seeing now, with all of the assertions and arguments about ‘disinformation’, the assertions about ‘science says’ and resultant reactions and critiques, the revelations about social media bias, and the concerns about potential artificial-intelligence bias? These are all arguments about what constitutes a valid, useful, and true source of information.

Discussed at my post Drucker's Prescience:


Expand full comment
Dec 25, 2023Liked by Ruxandra Teslo

Good article. I will play Devil's Advocate however, wrt to the joke meme. I see a LOT of commentary from right wing media people claiming Biden IS in fact senile. So to a certain right of center cohort, I would say the meme is in fact misinformation. In reality, I do not think he is senile per se, but I DO think his mental acuity IS compromised, based on things he says and does. But he is not incapacitated.

Expand full comment
Dec 28, 2023Liked by Ruxandra Teslo

This also helps explain why Marxism was rebranded as "Critical Theory"—the Marxist intellectual class had tremendous science envy and wanted their dogma to carry the same weight (and pass disguised as) things like the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity.

"Scientific socialism" was always an oxymoron but word games were/are always the strong suit of the Leftist adversary intellectual, who can play Motte/Bailey like a master musician plays his instrument, all in the service of selling their form of servitude disguised as "socialist liberation".

Expand full comment
Dec 20, 2023Liked by Ruxandra Teslo
Expand full comment

Is there some way to ask Substack to stop sending me this link? This is nothing against Hanania personally. He does not know that I’ve seen this dozens of times before.

Expand full comment