The Insignificance Of Scholarship

The words of a scholar are of no more innate significance than the words of a young child; it is the words of whoever is rational and correct that are of greater significance than those of other people.  It does not matter how popular or educated someone is--these things, on their own, are not intelligence.  They do not guarantee that someone is rational, consistent, or correct.

When people trust in an academic figure, they leave themselves at the mercy of another person's potential fallacies, either hoping that they are not being deceived or blindly embracing the person's statements without regard to actual proof.  Reason erodes trust in an authority figure, refuting the very basis for having trust in anyone at all; it does not build it up.  No scholar can earn the right for others to assume he or she is correct.  No reputation will ever bring it about that an assumption is rational, for assumptions are the very antithesis of rationality.

If an "authority" is correct, then they will be able to establish every point they make with logic.  If an authority figure's claim can be verified through reason, then that figure can be legitimately praised, but if the opposite is the case, then that figure cannot be defended through any legitimate means.  Thoroughly intelligent people, of course, look to reason for verdicts, not the words of another person.  They only hold the claims of others in high regard if the claims are demonstrably true.

Whether or not a position “has scholarship behind it” is entirely irrelevant to its veracity or falsity, for popularity or perceived academic authority does not, and cannot, make a concept true.  Academia itself is not intrinsically useless.  Having intelligent, informed people to represent true ideas to the public is a valuable thing.  Educators are important figures precisely because self-education is so rare.  That's the purpose of my blog, after all: to educate!  It is that some people will not entertain, investigate, or embrace an idea unless some figure they look up to endorses it that I am criticizing, as well as the tendency of many to respect a position more from a distance because scholars claim it.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful, and it is true whether or not someone admits it.