"...feels ostracized and unseen by the social and economic elite who have created complex, technocratic governing regimes and modes of production that fail to respond to the needs and interests of those with less education and different value prioritizations."
Fail to respond?
Howsabout ignore, or frequently worse, denigrate maybe?
That, to me, seems more the case these last eighteen years than any evident failure to respond.
The first is true to natural language, persons amongst the best of knowledge and experience in a particular field.
Another is nothing like the original meaning. Picking from a large population of persons working in a particular field, journalists and politicians designate the status of expert upon selected persons whose stance they intend to use to further personal and political advantage.
Then there is the real expert in the first sense who is well known and takes a stance on an issue which is way outside their speciality.
Sea level is something that can be measured. It is measured by many methods and some of those methods have been used for a very long time and produced precise records about the level at that location.
Real measurements like those can be compared. They show that the water level is rising very slowly in numerous places, falling very slowly in numerous places and not changing at all in others.
When looked at overall, it becomes clear that some of the sites are actually on rising land, some on land which is sinking and some are neither. These measurements and comparisons are not models and depend upon no theory for their absolute values. The next step is interpretation, and that comes from the knowledge of water as fluid or solid or vapour, the scientific intelligence and imagination of people and their reasoning abilities.
In 2024, based on the data, there is a very, very slow rise which began at the end of the last ice age.
Nothing to write home about. Not a global problem, maybe a local problem where the falling land level threatens to inundate built-up inhabited coastal land and vice versa.
Before I retired I supervised "experts", many of them with PhDs, and in general they were educated too narrowly, lacked curiosity about issues impacting their work, and would get upset when questioned about their assumptions in areas other than their field of expertise. One good example of garbage produced by "experts" is the National Climate Assessment, those documents are so bad the supervising authors ought to be fired. And if there's any doubt about the lack of wisdom and common sense of the American educated caste, all we need to do is notice how PhDs tend to vote left. Given Kamala Harris' total ineptitude and communist tendencies, those holding PhDs and voting for her are evidently unfit to state their opinion on any subject at all.
"...feels ostracized and unseen by the social and economic elite who have created complex, technocratic governing regimes and modes of production that fail to respond to the needs and interests of those with less education and different value prioritizations."
Fail to respond?
Howsabout ignore, or frequently worse, denigrate maybe?
That, to me, seems more the case these last eighteen years than any evident failure to respond.
Experts exist, but in several kinds.
The first is true to natural language, persons amongst the best of knowledge and experience in a particular field.
Another is nothing like the original meaning. Picking from a large population of persons working in a particular field, journalists and politicians designate the status of expert upon selected persons whose stance they intend to use to further personal and political advantage.
Then there is the real expert in the first sense who is well known and takes a stance on an issue which is way outside their speciality.
Sea level is something that can be measured. It is measured by many methods and some of those methods have been used for a very long time and produced precise records about the level at that location.
Real measurements like those can be compared. They show that the water level is rising very slowly in numerous places, falling very slowly in numerous places and not changing at all in others.
When looked at overall, it becomes clear that some of the sites are actually on rising land, some on land which is sinking and some are neither. These measurements and comparisons are not models and depend upon no theory for their absolute values. The next step is interpretation, and that comes from the knowledge of water as fluid or solid or vapour, the scientific intelligence and imagination of people and their reasoning abilities.
In 2024, based on the data, there is a very, very slow rise which began at the end of the last ice age.
Nothing to write home about. Not a global problem, maybe a local problem where the falling land level threatens to inundate built-up inhabited coastal land and vice versa.
Before I retired I supervised "experts", many of them with PhDs, and in general they were educated too narrowly, lacked curiosity about issues impacting their work, and would get upset when questioned about their assumptions in areas other than their field of expertise. One good example of garbage produced by "experts" is the National Climate Assessment, those documents are so bad the supervising authors ought to be fired. And if there's any doubt about the lack of wisdom and common sense of the American educated caste, all we need to do is notice how PhDs tend to vote left. Given Kamala Harris' total ineptitude and communist tendencies, those holding PhDs and voting for her are evidently unfit to state their opinion on any subject at all.