By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, January 20, 2017
‘David Gelernter, fiercely anti-intellectual computer
scientist, is being eyed for Trump’s science adviser.” — Washington Post, January 18
Um. Well, huh.
For those unfamiliar with David Gelernter, he essentially
created parallel computing, which sounds like witchcraft to me, but I’m told
it’s a really big deal. He was also one of the first people to see the Internet
coming, in his 1991 book Mirror Worlds.
Bill Joy, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems, described Gelernter as “one of
the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time.” Ted
Kaczynski — aka “the Unabomber” — agreed, which is why he maimed Gelernter with
a letter bomb in a 1993 assassination attempt.
Gelernter, who teaches computer science at Yale and has
degrees in classical Hebrew, has written books and articles on history,
culture, religion, artificial intelligence, and philosophy. His acclaimed
paintings don’t do too much for me, but that’s probably because I’m a bit of
Philistine about these things.
Regardless, saying that Gelernter is “fiercely
anti-intellectual” is a bit like saying Tiger Woods is fiercely anti-golf.
So what on earth could the Washington Post mean with that headline?
Science reporter Sarah Kaplan gives a few clues. First,
Gelernter is a fierce detractor of Barack Obama and has “made a name for
himself as a vehement critic of modern academia.” True enough, I guess. Also,
he has “expressed doubt about the reality of man-made climate change.” The
evidence provided for this assertion is a bit tendentious, but we’ll let it
pass because I don’t think this is primarily about climate change.
It has to do more with two things: liberal tribalism and
the guild mentality of a certain subset of the scientific community. There’s a
long progressive tradition in America to think that intellectuals must be
liberal, and therefore intellectualism equals liberalism.
Indeed, Kaplan seems a bit bedeviled by this point. The
headline of her story says Gelernter is anti-intellectual. The first sentence
notes that Gelernter has “decried the influence of liberal intellectuals on
college campuses.” A few paragraphs later, Kaplan suddenly informs us that his
“anti-intellectualism makes him an outlier among scientists.”
If you believe that intellectualism requires being loyal
to a certain political agenda, this all makes some sense. The problem is that
decrying the influence of liberal intellectuals is hardly synonymous with
rejecting intellectualism itself.
What Kaplan really seems to be getting at is that
Gelernter is one of the few major intellectuals out there today who is critical
of the intellectual establishment, which acts as a class or guild.
She reports that “Andrew Rosenberg, director of the
Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he
hadn’t heard of Gelernter until Tuesday.” The horror!
Rosenberg adds that Gelernter is “certainly not
mainstream in the science community or particularly well known. . . . His views
even on most of the key science questions aren’t known. Considering the huge
range of issues the White House needs to consider, I don’t know if he has that
kind of capability.”
Translation: If I don’t know him, he just can’t be that
important — or smart.
There are scientists whom science reporters know and go
to for quotes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, historically a very
politicized outfit, is a rich source of such pithy scientists. More broadly,
the world of scientists involved in public policy is a very small subset of the
world of science, and — as with almost every other profession and industry — a
certain guild mentality develops among its members. As a result, they become
inclined to say, in effect, “Back off, this is our turf.”
It was this phenomenon that my old boss (and
thoroughgoing intellectual) William F. Buckley had in mind when he said he’d
rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than the
faculty of Harvard Law School.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a polymath and best-selling
author, is another maverick intellectual who has little use for what he calls
the “Intellectual Yet Idiot” class that trades on its elite credentials to
impose a kind of groupthink on what is permissible to say or believe.
It takes a lot of intellectual firepower and
self-confidence to declare that the intellectual emperors have no clothes, so
it’s no surprise that neither Gelernter nor Taleb has been accused of being
excessively humble. Their brashness can be off-putting to some and threatening
to those invested in the monopoly of authority held by certain groups. But that
doesn’t make them wrong — or anti-intellectual.
No comments:
Post a Comment