Ideally, disciplines must be studied together, because everything is linked. Instead, knowledge is compartmentalized to ensure nobody knows much of anything.
When they tell you to “trust the science,” they are trying to shut you up. Doctors, for one, are one of the most misled people, when it comes to knowing about health and illnesses, yet they are supposed to be highly respected because of a degree from a fraudulent academic machine and years of exercising or, at least, living with, criminally insane and extremely harmful “medical” practices. Granted, a crook can become the best criminal investigator, but most of the doctors who got red-pilled, have been silenced, paid off, intimidated, or unceremoniously killed.
How far can you trust “experts”?
Who are “experts,” after all?
During getting my two doctoral degrees, it boggled my mind to realize that I was supposed to rely on “authorities,” while I was light-years ahead of the available fashionable and celebrated resources. I considered it a miracle that eventually, I was allowed to graduate after my dissertation committee members having no idea about the contents of my work (cognitive modules in computerized text generation and the prolegomena of AI-human communication in natural languages).
I couldn’t find knowledgeable people to guide me through the dispirited bog of pseudo-intellectual crap I was supposed to use as points of reference, but I pretended acceptably-enough to jump through the hoops.
In the last several decades, in my experience, “authority” in the academia meant little more (or less?) than being “well-connected,” which is part of the prostitutionalization process that is so prominent and obvious in academic circles.
I assume that no later than the introduction of CRT, honest academics resigned and the proverbial substance rose to the top.
If that was not enough, because a few academics managed to keep their distance from the shills, nobody with a tint of human dignity would have been willing to go along the torture and humiliation of the muzzles, the dangerous and fraudulent “tests,” and especially nobody with two brain cells left to rub together would have accepted the lethal injections. It was a test for corruptibility for the mentally disadvantaged, who still insisted on posing as the crème of humanity.
So, an essential conclusion I managed to draw as a result of my studies and my teaching in higher education in Europe and in the US for 23 years is that “experts” are usually those, who are “well-connected,” parasitical, and corrupt enough to play along with their masters, who are their puppeteers. Ultimately, when it comes to academic degrees, no matter how far you P(ile) (them) h(igh) and d(eep), the essence of the substance involved doesn’t change.
All this tells you a lot about the quality of “established scholars,” too. About 15 years ago, as an iconoclastic linguist, just for fun, I visited Chomsky at MIT in 2007 with the latest developments of my work, pretending to seek patronage. In about three pages, I described my latest results, being well aware that my research proved that his lifetime “achievements” were useless at best, and I prefer to refrain from verbalizing the worst. He was polite and brushed me off by telling me, my research was not his “field of expertise.” Indeed, it was not, because his “field” was obsolete even at the time.
Cross-publishing and “peer-reviewing” each other’s corporate-sponsored “studies” only adds to the flavor, after which they cross-reference each other for juicing up each other’s “reputation.” Falsifying studies and faking statistics make sure that “academic standards” are indeed maintained. You can only try to imagine the true value of such labor.
While this much might satisfy one’s curiosity about the academia for a while, this is not the terminal stop of the process; the traditional level of corruption looks nearly quaint in retrospect, when juxtaposed with the current state of affairs.
Now, it is a self-proclaimed globalist “elite” that is dictating the terms. They have their puppets: “scientific experts” and “the people’s representatives” (in case the term sounds obsolete by now, that’s what politicians are supposed to be). “Experts” of fields nobody knows much about are created and promoted, making sure people remain muzzled. No more need for a discussion, because the ultimate authority has been imposed on the masses.
Might is right.
That the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.
Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
Of course, said Adeimantus.
Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State; for you understand already.
[Ad.] Certainly.
[Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.
[Ad.] I will.
[Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ –> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
[Ad.] Precisely so, he said.
[Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [–> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].
[Ad.] Yes.
[Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?
[Ad.] True.
[Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?
[Ad.] By all means.
[Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ — > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ –> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [–> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
Simply as an observation we are inculcated in stupidity. Expertise became really important around WW1 and afterwards. We can make few changes to this rule by experts. Experts have told us it will not work. We seek the "best" or the "good" in our eyes, which we see through the eyes of
Experts or Influencers. Our heads are round to let our thoughts change direction but without an expert the direction our thoughts take may not be that favored by presumably well trained minds. Plato takes up this idea in regards to the Pilot of a ship. In Book 6 of Plato’s Republic, in the context of a damning appraisal of the way the democracy at Athens works, Socrates compares the Athenian state to a ship. The owner of the ship, he says, is big and strong – but he is hard of hearing, shortsighted and not much of a navigator. The ship’s crew are in persistent disarray. They recklessly gorge themselves on the ship’s resources, while disagreeing with one another about who should be in charge on board, with each sailor believing he should be the captain (despite having neither experience nor training). Being the captain, the sailors maintain, requires no special skill (Gk. techne).
In this analogy, the citizen population of Athens are the owners of the ship. In Plato’s candid assessment, they are politically powerful but lacking in governmental acumen and intellectual ability. With them in charge, the Athenian ship is not going to cut a clear, sensible or efficient path.
The crew of the ship, meanwhile, are the disputatious demagogues and politicians who hold sway in Athens’ political assembly, each vying for influence and power over their fellow citizens.
Plato wants his fellow Athenians to undertake a thoroughgoing revaluation of the way things on board work. Rather than looking to the ship’s owner, or to themselves, he thinks the sailors on board the Athenian ship should look instead to a marginal, currently powerless figure whose quiet presence on board is regrettably overlooked: this figure he calls the ‘true navigator’. This true navigator is a person of great learning, wisdom and moral fibre: a philosopher.