Vox Day on Scientists - They aren't that smart

A sentiment I share. From his column:

"It's a real pity that Pew didn't subject scientists to the same "science knowledge" test they gave the public; I bet the "shockingly" low results would surprise everyone. Scientists not only know very little outside their professional fields, but they tend to be given to falsely assuming that their very specific expertise and education is somehow magically applicable to the broad spectrum of human knowledge as well. Remember, as a group they were convinced that totalitarianism was the desirable future... many of them still are. Nor should you forget that the mainstream economists' consensus was that the second stimulus package, Obama's $787 billion plan, would work too.

No doubt people will interpret these results as proving that scientists are smarter and more educated, and therefore the public should follow their lead. This is absurd, as the results actually show that unlike the public, most scientists are incapable of producing sufficient value to society to financially support themselves; they're welfare queens living off the reputation of their forebears and eager to keep the taxpayer money flowing. What makes them stupid isn't their misplaced faith in evolution or AGW/CC, although both will eventually prove embarrassing, but rather their enthusiastic embrace of the very government support that is rendering them largely useless."

Science is far less important to society than business and the ideological freedom that most scientists oppose. Recall that the Soviet Union was devoted to science and spent a higher percentage of its resources on scientists than any nation in the West. The observable historical reality is that science depends on society, society doesn't depend on science. And yet, as the survey shows, many scientists harbor contempt for the very society that makes their existence possible.

During my previous life in the Federal Government, I had to interact with many scientists and Engineers. They were (on whole) very sharp characters and always impressed me - Joe Six-pack. But my admiration evaporated when they got off their area of expertise and started to discuss politics, religion, business, etc. A high IQ - by itself - and unsupported by judgment and firm knowledge of the subject at hand - is useless.

Vox Day - Harry Truman was a War Criminal

I like Vox but he's dead wrong on this one. Truman wasn't a war criminal and dropping the A-bomb was necessary to end the war. Vox quotes the USSBS as follows:

" Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Surveys opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. "

The whole problem with the "lets win the war in Nov 1945 by blockade" is it ignores several things. (1) Tens of Thousands, indeed of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Indochinese were dying of starvation, disease, and combat under Japanese occupation. There was a massive land war going on in Asia and extending the war would have cost hundred of thousands of Asian lives. (2) Allied POW's were dying the hundreds in 1945 every month. Extending the war another 3 months might have cost 2,000 allied prisoners their lives. (3) We were losing 5, 000 men a month in June and July 1945. There was still air/sea war going on. Extending the war 3 months would have cost 15, 000 American lives. And I haven't even counted the UK/Australian lives that would have been lost in 3 additional months of combat. (4) Conventional bombing of Japan was killing 50,000 a month. 3 additional months would have cost the lives of 150,000 Japanese through firebombing alone.

Finally, why would the Japanese have surrendered due to a blockade alone? The answer is starvation. Which means millions of Japanese would have had to die or be on verge of dying before the Imperial Japanese would have given up. Millions of Japanese ALMOST died of starvation in 1945 when the war ended in August. Had the war ended three months later even a massive relief effort by the USA might not saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese from dying of starvation due to inadequate rice stocks.

Ending the war by blockade/conventional bombing may have been the "moral" thing to do, but it would have cost hundreds of thousand s of more lives than dropping the A-Bomb.

Probably the best two books on this subject are Downfall by Richard Frank and Japans Longest Day