On the American democracy front, the Trump phenomenon embodies post-truth in its purest form, with the full triumph now of a movement devoted to saying whatever will get them to power, with less than no interest in whether any of it is true.He complains that super-smart physicists promote untenable string theory, or as one comment says:
Indeed, if Physics PhDs can look you in the eye and say that they really believe that wormholes form when you entangle spins simply because Maldacena and Susskind say so, why should you be so surprised that people get taken in by demagogues?Okay, but Woit also complains that big money was allowed to influence the election, that Fox News was allowed to be different from the other networks, and that Trump won the less educated voters and lost the more educated voters!
This make no sense. The big money outspent Trump maybe 3-to-1, or 5-to-1, in the election.
If the super-high-IQ super-educated physicsts can be wrong about string theory and entangled electron wormholes, then why can't they be wrong about Trump?
The whole idea that the Democrats are on the side of Truth, and Trump is opposed, is absurd. These Trump-haters cannot give any examples.
Kamala Harris knows nothing about science. The closest she gets is dopey babbling like:
So, let me say this: This is an issue that Josi actually highlighted in terms of the importance of this. The Governor and I and we were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time. Right? The significance of the passage of time.She also said she believes in Astrology!So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children and what that means to the future of our nation, depending on whether or not they have the resources they need to achieve their God-given talent.
I don't want to pick on Woit, as he lives in a bubble where no one supports Trump. Most of American elite academia have Trump Derangement Syndrome. They have no grasp of what Trumpism is about, and can only babble platitudes about Truth.
I cannot even figure out what Woit means by "post-truth", as he only gives a few hints. He mentions Newt Gingrich, who was House Speaker for several years in the 1990s. He is mostly known for passing some reforms, after the other party controlled for decades. He mentions Fox News reporting on Clinton Whitewater, but that was an investigation ordered by Clinton's attorney general. Not much came of it. Mentions a Michio Kaku book on parallel universes. Yes, that is all a big fantasy.
Perhaps Woit is alluding to Trump's reputation for exaggeration. Yes, he sometimes exaggerates. He claimed to pull off the greatest comeback in American political history, if not world history. Dubious. Nevertheless, he is a much more authentical character than Kamala Harris. He is what he appears to be. Harria was unable or unwilling to say who she is, and what her agenda is. She convinced people that she is pro-abortion and hates Trump, and nothing else. Those voting for her had very little idea what she stood for.
Harris and Walz also told a great many lies.
I think Woit is from another country, and may have very little understanding of American politics. His criticisms are lazy and stupid. Trump was President for four years, and it was four years of peace and prosperity. Disagree with him if you want, but most of the opposition to him consists of calling him a fascist. His decisive win in the election is from a common and informed view that he was the much better candidate.
I stopped following Woit over his vitriol against Trump the first time around almost eight years ago. While I do admire him for challenging the the Super Silly String paradigm long before almost anyone else dared, I was taken back by his derangement syndrome, which to me indicated either a cognitive dissonance or just plain fear of being ostracized from the academic political groupthink.
ReplyDeleteIt is more acceptable to be an avid pedophile, murderer, or woman beater than a political conservative in the vaunted halls of academia. People who can't figure out what people on the other side of the isle are thinking without invoking Hitler or fascism aren't anywhere near as smart as they think they are.