It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Conspiracy Against Intelligence

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The Conspiracy Against Intelligence

I say "conspiracy" but it is really more of a general fog I believe covers many people's social outlook.

I take pride in my education. I possess a BA, a MA and will be working on a PhD in the relatively near future. I take much gratification in pointing that out to people, call me vain if you will, mainly because it was not something that was easily achieved, I had to work and study many long, hard hours, days, months, years to do so, so for my effort I believe it is allowed; at least as permissible as it is for those who have success in business, or in winning the lottery for that matter, to flaunt their achievement. I flaunt my intelligence, and I notice that society doesn't really like that, it never really has.

But I digress, this thread is not about me, it is about what is apparent in society...to me.

I have a hard time calling it a "conspiracy" because it seems to be something more blatant than anything else, but, I want to explore the tendency of society to, almost, exclude and ridicule its members who exhibit higher, or different, levels of mental ability.

Lets start at the beginning, shall we?

Allegorically speaking, the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge is closely associated with that which is forbidden, taboo, and innately sinful and to be punished. We see this with the stories of Adam and Eve as much as we do with that of Prometheus. Following through the centuries and the various evolutions of the plethora of theologies and mythologies out there, the same trend tends to occur throughout most(especially the most popular); those who do not accept a particular understanding will, likely, be punished.


Fair enough, philosophically speaking, knowledge is dangerous, so lets talk about the dangers of philosophy.

Socrates was put to death because of his intelligence, as well as the refusal to not be the gadfly on the butt of Athenian politics, exposing the leaders of society to be fools because they proclaimed great knowledge but was found to be lacking; while it is the man who claims to know nothing who is the wiser.

Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest until his death because he dared to pursue knowledge and advance science, against the will of the church.

Science, lets talk about science...how about inventors who come out with amazing creations that have the possibility of advancing mankind for the better, and then mysteriously die...for instance Tesla and that guy who invented an engine that ran on water, then was mysteriously shot down.

World movers and shakers who are assassinated for promoting peace and understanding for all mankind, such as Martin Luther King or Ghandi?

Feel free to add to the list...

But perhaps I should get to the modern day before I run out of space.(I really don't feel like writing too many posts, cause no one will contribute if too much is said up forward.)

To me it seems as though it is so difficult to grow up as an intelligent child. The constant ridicule, name-calling, the unachievable expectations that are put upon them. There aren't nearly enough rewards in society for being intelligent, the honour role student's significance is always dwarfed by the varsity sports captain, and that is just the simplest example.

This web forum’s motto is "deny ignorance", and it is by no coincidence that it attracts certain types of people, many of whose, I would say, intelligence or insightfulness is greater than the average-Joe. And yet, "we" are still a fringe element in society. "We" have a lot to contribute, "we" can put together pieces of the puzzles that many other people, or as "we" call them "sheeple" can't...but what do "we" see for our lack of "apparent ignorance"? A label; "Conspiracy Theorist" or "nut job" or "Truther" or "geek" or any of the other various names and nomenclatures.

So, the question I'm trying to get to is, perhaps, why? Why does society punish the members who ask the hard questions and try to find the

[edit on 25/6/08 by madhatr137]




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
(...briefly Continued)

To this point, I also ask the question, why is it that when confronted by someone who has a higher level education, lets say in a social science or philosophical subject, their opinion tends to be thrown away as fabricated by "liberal professors"? Or for that matter, if someone has achieved a PhD and has been a professor, their opinions or statements are often discounted as being disconnected from reality?

To this point, I will refer to the tendency of the more conservative of individuals, the right-wingers, to act as though someone like Barak Obama, who was a professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years, knows next to nothing about the subject or governance in general?

Doctors have to be well educated to practice medicine. Lawyers have to be well educated to practice law. Mechanics, electricians, and plumbers have to be, or are presumed to be, well educated in regards to their trades... But somehow, when it comes to education in and of itself, there seems to be a general presumption by a segment of the population that those responsible for educating others in subjects, especially social sciences, law, politics, etc., don't know what they are talking about in regards to the subject they've spent years studying.... It is just mind boggling.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I think it's a very complicated issue. Though I do agree with most of your points I have to disagree in some respects as well.




Why does society punish the members who ask the hard questions


As you so thoroughly covered, society has always been this way. If someone knew something others couldn't understand he was a witch and expediently put to death, etc. Today it's more of a social death, but the message is the same: mediocrity rules.




why is it that when confronted by someone who has a higher level education, lets say in a social science or philosophical subject, their opinion tends to be thrown away as fabricated by "liberal professors"?


I believe there are several reasons for this. Most importantly, no one likes to be made to feel stupid, and blatantly flaunting credentials usually has this effect on people who don't have equal education or knowledge. Although I will be the first to point out that a donkey laden with books does not a wise man make, people who have not the same level of education are intimidated by someone who has spent years in school; especially people who for whatever reason have not attended a university. Besides this, it's in poor taste to flaunt anything really. There's definitely a line between being proud of one's accomplishments and wearing them on one's sleeve.

Secondly, as someone who has spent many years at university, you above all people should realize the vast number of nincompoops whose attendance benefits the university's coffers yet will never be of any benefit to themselves. So many students don't take education seriously, are only there to play a sport, are doing what their parents want, just came to party. They graduate none the smarter than when they graduated high school and it shows in their job performance and social skills. Because of this people without a degree can feel as if they didn't miss out on anything by not attending a university and thus they tend to downplay the benefits of such an education.

Also, if someone spent a large chunk of their life and money pursuing a higher education in something like philosophy, it begs the question "What job will this degree allow them to get?" Most people see these degrees as a waste of time regarding the job market which, for most, is the reason for going to a university.




To this point, I will refer to the tendency of the more conservative of individuals, the right-wingers, to act as though someone like Barak Obama, who was a professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years, knows next to nothing about the subject or governance in general?


As one of said "right-wingers", I believe you are mistaken. I have never heard any opponent of Barack Obama cite his ignorance about governance as the reason they see him as unfit to be the President. Their reason is usually that he lacks the experience, not the intelligence to govern. And there's always the little problem of disagreeing with his platform.

I also think you are mistaken when you assume that people in general believe that educators in a particular field are ignorant about what they have studied. I believe it would be more accurate to say that people in general assume that a person highly educated in any particular field lacks knowledge about day to day things and thus suffers from lack of common sense. It seems that the higher the eschelon of education a person has in a field, the further removed from reality they are. So while they may be THE absolute authority in chemical engineering or what have you, they spent their time and energy becoming that authority and thus have no knowledge of how to change a tire, attract a mate, do the dishes, or other mundane tasks that are necessary and important to understand despite seeming to be menial if one is to have a life that is fulfilled in different areas rather than just one.

I also don't want to leave out the fact that many lecturers at university use their classrooms as a soapbox for their own personal views, and such people will not hesitate to grade you on your level of agreement. This sort of thing occurs in every field, but I believe educators should be held to a higher standard since their very job is to educate, not prostyletize.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I would have started a new thread, but I figured, the thought was kind of on the same vein as this one...and few would pay much attention to these ramblings anyway...so why bother?

Something I notice time and time again, not only in these forums but also in real world conversations with those of opposing ideologies, is a difference in not only the manner in which to pursue crisis resolution, but also in the further mitigation of crises.

Take, for instance, the most recent front-page crisis of the Somali pirates. First we had the immediate crisis, the ship was attacked and the captain kidnapped, him being a US citizen, there was an uproar about how we needed to get him back and how the Democratic administration was not doing enough to get him back. Then what happened, before the weekend was over, the Democratic Administration signed the order to use deadly force to get him back, and he is on his way back home to his family. What was the immediate political outcome of that? The attempt of the Right to pretend that the rescue mission had nothing to do with the will of the current administration, with cries of “oh well, he’s at home in Washington, playing with his dog…”

This slight annoyance is, however not the point of this post.

What has gotten my attention is the further fallout after the end of the crisis. I was sat, this morning, watch “Morning Joe” on MSNBC before heading off to work and Joe Scarborough was ripping on his, more liberal, co-host for posing the idea of, perhaps we should try looking at the reasons as for WHY the pirates have turned to piracy and do something about that, as opposed to just thinking about wiping them out, militaristically. So he continues to rip into her, joking around, saying how she hates America, how she’s a terrorist sympathizer…now, it was apparent that he was simply creating a bit of banter…but there was an obvious undertone of there being a bit of tongue-in-cheek truthiness behind what he was saying…

This got me thinking about the many conversations I have had with my father over the years, as well as the many discussions that quickly spiral downhill in these forums, that end with a “liberal” expressing the idea of attempting to understand the rationale of “why the enemy becomes the enemy” and a “conservative” calling that “liberal” a “terrorist sympathizer” or otherwise being overtly disgusted by their interpretation of the liberal’s intent as somehow being “appeasement.”

This theme can apply to so many situations in politics today; the Somali Pirates, Middle East Terrorism, Global Warming/Environmental Protection, etc. It is the theme in which, those who want to investigate a problem and get to its root core, to understand it better, end up as a source of endless ridicule…

It is almost as though the mentality coming from the Right, and mind you though this sounds like I’m just bashing “conservatives” I am not trying to be completely insulting, but rather find myself lacking in a less insulting manner to express my own lack of understanding of motive, is often based in a lack of desire to find deeper understanding of a subject.

Why try to understand why Muslims become terrorists? That’s the way “they” are. Kick their @$$, that’ll teach’em.
Why try to understand why Somalis have turned to piracy? Blow’em out of the water, that’ll stop’em.
Why bother worrying about pollution and global climate change? We’ll all be dead before it gets too bad…

I know that not all “conservatives” think in this matter…but to me, it seems that the loudest voices do…it seems that the loudest voices of the Right ridicule crisis mitigation at the source of a problem because there is some inherent weakness in it, preferring acute action even if that action only acts to alleviate a symptom of a problem, rather than cure the source…

Am I alone in this thought…probably not…do I expect many to comment…not really…it is just a thought that has been on my mind this day. And to be fair, the roles can be reversed in some situations, “liberals” can be equally closed minded…I guess the real question is, “when do we move on? When do we start paying attention to the details and coming up with REAL solutions, rather than just masking the symptoms of what ails us?”

Is it just me...or do others notice this?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madhatr137
 



I'd like to take a moment to address this one point you made earlier:


Doctors have to be well educated to practice medicine. Lawyers have to be well educated to practice law. Mechanics, electricians, and plumbers have to be, or are presumed to be, well educated in regards to their trades... But somehow, when it comes to education in and of itself, there seems to be a general presumption by a segment of the population that those responsible for educating others in subjects, especially social sciences, law, politics, etc., don't know what they are talking about in regards to the subject they've spent years studying.... It is just mind boggling.


I think that it is a perception problem. People don't take most college professors seriously (and Obama was never a professor, btw...he was an instructor) because there are no real consequences for their actions.

Doctors hold lives in their hands. Lawyers hold a clients' freedom in theirs. You see the point, I'm sure.

What happens if the law professor is merely using the podium to further his own view? What can you do? Drop out, I guess, but little else.

And there is absolutely no tougher audience than in some of the trades. People can spot a phony a mile away. Try teaching a master electrician or plumber a new course without having walked in their shoes, i.e., actually done the job. Add to this the fact they are more often working adults instead of impressionable youths (please don't take that the wrong way) with their bread and butter at stake, and you'd better be able to walk the walk.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by madhatr137
 


As to your latest question: Why?

Because to answer why would require a ten dollar solution (in terms of time and money) to a one dollar problem. There are simply too many problems in today's complex world, and not enough time and money to fix many things the 'right' way.

So we swat mosquitoes and manufacture repellents instead of studying their love life and making them want to stop biting us.

That and the fact that in the end, people have to learn to behave and use reason and diplomacy instead of violence. And the ultimate responsibility to better one's condition lies with oneself.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
To the first bit, I understand what you are saying, but have to disagree. I think that most people take most college professors relatively seriously, but many people don't take a relative few, but incredibly vocal, professors seriously.

No, professors don't have the immediate consequences on their hands that a doctor or a lawyer have on their hands...but they are, none the less, the ones responsible for guiding those doctors and lawyers into being good doctors and lawyers. Perhaps some don't take that responsibility seriously....but I'll bet my hat an awful lot do, people tend to take their jobs seriously, no matter what they do. Just because you don't hold someone's life directly in your hands, doesn't mean that it is of less consequence.

And Obama was a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 1996 and a senior lecturer there from 1996 to 2004.


Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by madhatr137
 


As to your latest question: Why?

Because to answer why would require a ten dollar solution (in terms of time and money) to a one dollar problem. There are simply too many problems in today's complex world, and not enough time and money to fix many things the 'right' way.

So we swat mosquitoes and manufacture repellents instead of studying their love life and making them want to stop biting us.

That and the fact that in the end, people have to learn to behave and use reason and diplomacy instead of violence. And the ultimate responsibility to better one's condition lies with oneself.


Although I disagree with your line of reasoning, I really really like your response. This is not to say that I think you're wrong, necessarily, but isn't that line of reasoning rather defeatist?

Simply put, doesn't that line of reasoning as for why we do not ask why and address the real issues, because it will take too much time, money, attention and dedication, guarantee that we will be facing the same issues ad infinitum? If we're constantly running up against the same problems, in the long-run, won't it cost us more? It isn't our battle to fight, and yet, for some reason we return to fight it time and time again....

I just think that we need to stop applying the same ointment to a wound that hasn't healed at all in decades...centuries even.

[edit on 14/4/09 by madhatr137]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by madhatr137
 



Simply put, doesn't that line of reasoning as for why we do not ask why and address the real issues, because it will take too much time, money, attention and dedication, guarantee that we will be facing the same issues ad infinitum? If we're constantly running up against the same problems, in the long-run, won't it cost us more? It isn't our battle to fight, and yet, for some reason we return to fight it time and time again....


Oh, absolutely! Applying a band-aid to a festering wound almost always guarantees dire results.

I've often thought that that was was times of peace were for...to attend to domestic issues and then to foster international co-operation to help solve global problems.

But when was the last time we saw peace? Will we ever? I'm not a pacifist, but the way we waste resources fighting each other is depressing...



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by madhatr137
 



No, professors don't have the immediate consequences on their hands that a doctor or a lawyer have on their hands...but they are, none the less, the ones responsible for guiding those doctors and lawyers into being good doctors and lawyers. Perhaps some don't take that responsibility seriously....but I'll bet my hat an awful lot do, people tend to take their jobs seriously, no matter what they do. Just because you don't hold someone's life directly in your hands, doesn't mean that it is of less consequence.


I think this relates to an earlier point that you made:



To this point, I also ask the question, why is it that when confronted by someone who has a higher level education, lets say in a social science or philosophical subject, their opinion tends to be thrown away as fabricated by "liberal professors"? Or for that matter, if someone has achieved a PhD and has been a professor, their opinions or statements are often discounted as being disconnected from reality?


People see the 'softer' disciplines as a luxury. Witness the first programs to be cut when schools need to trim their budget: the music classes, the art class (although that doesn't explain why sports seems to survive most cuts!). This attitude carries over into higher education.

Also, in today's economic climate, the first question asked of the history/social science/etc major is...What kind of job will you be able to get with that degree? Teaching is all too often the only answer that can be given.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
so much to disagree with, so little time.


Originally posted by madhatr137
Allegorically speaking, the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge is closely associated with that which is forbidden, taboo, and innately sinful and to be punished.


not really, it is more to do with the idea that only certain higher authorities should posses knowledge. the modern peer reviewed academic system with it's professional language and publication circles is a perpetuation of the priestly restriction of knowledge, not a remedy to it.

the systems of academia and science that exist today are just as restrictive and exclusive as any priestly institution that has ever existed and claimed power.

why else would credentials and professional language exist?


To me it seems as though it is so difficult to grow up as an intelligent child. The constant ridicule, name-calling, the unachievable expectations that are put upon them. There aren't nearly enough rewards in society for being intelligent, the honour role student's significance is always dwarfed by the varsity sports captain, and that is just the simplest example.


that is because the varsity students achievement is only an achievement because it is difficult to understand. a sportsmans achievement can be accessed on some level by most people, all wins in sport are recognised, so that empathy is easy.

on the other hand, even though a B is as hard for a D student as an A is for a B student, or varsity is for an A student, the B gotten by the D student is rarely recognised as an achievement.

the other thing is, of course, that sports is almost always inclusive, a team wins for everybody, the state, the city, the school, while the academic is invariably insular and covets their knowledge and achievement.


To this point, I also ask the question, why is it that when confronted by someone who has a higher level education, lets say in a social science or philosophical subject, their opinion tends to be thrown away as fabricated by "liberal professors"?


because most people recognise that the education system doesn't reward original thinking but rather rote learning, therefore, it indicates that the higher the level of achievement, the greater the ability to regurgitate the opinions of ones superiors.


Or for that matter, if someone has achieved a PhD and has been a professor, their opinions or statements are often discounted as being disconnected from reality?

this is because they invariably are.
there's no point in telling a thirsting man that if he were to dig a well he would have water while not giving him a shovel or a hand to start digging. it's a piece of information completely disconnected from his reality.


Mechanics, electricians, and plumbers have to be, or are presumed to be, well educated in regards to their trades


this is the type of statement that makes me wonder where your head is, you can have all the theoretical knowledge in the world but if you can't put it into practical use then it's a waste of time.

a tradesman is judged on the result of his work where an academic is judged on the potential results of their work.

a tradesman credentials are his results, there is less need to assume anything yet you feel the need to assume more.


Why try to understand why Muslims become terrorists? That’s the way “they” are. Kick their @$$, that’ll teach’em.
Why try to understand why Somalis have turned to piracy? Blow’em out of the water, that’ll stop’em.
Why bother worrying about pollution and global climate change? We’ll all be dead before it gets too bad…


again, this is the difference between saying to a thirsty man "if only you had a well" and handing him a bottle of water.

yes, the well would be the best solution, and he'ld probably prefer it, but if you don't have a shovel he'll take the bottle of water and tell you to stop whining about a well he hasn't got the means to dig every time.

[edit on 14/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Species compete for resources in nature, struggling against one another to survive and reproduce. But as Darwin himself observed, the fiercest competition of all is not between species but among members of the same species. This should be obvious, because members of the same species eat the same food, seek out the same places of shelter, desire the same mates, etc.

Social animals have a special problem. Somehow they must strike a balance between cooperation (which has strong evolutionary benefits for them) and intraspecific competiton between individuals, which is unavoidable. Heavily advantaged ('gifted') individuals cannot be allowed to prosper to the limits of their capability since this would disrupt the delicate balance of cooperation within the group, reducing or eliminating the benefits enjoyed by all and, in extreme cases, even destroying the group.

With the stakes this high, it is hardly surprising that a social species as advanced as Homo Sapiens has evolved various means of controlling and restricting the actions of its most gifted members. In fact, a large part of human effort is dedicated towards this levelling-down process. Religion, tradition, law and order, hierarchies based on seniority and preferment - these are some of the control mechanisms used to keep unusually healthy, strong, agile, beautiful, selfish, intelligent, ruthless or just plain rich folk from stealing the world and running away with it.

These 'modern' human control mechanisms are based on ancient, instinctive ones - hatred of the other and envy of those who seem to be doing better than we are.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
so much to disagree with, so little time.

You said it, Pieman.


the modern peer reviewed academic system with its professional language and publication circles is a perpetuation of the priestly restriction of knowledge, not a remedy to it.

But if we get rid of it, how will we ensure the continued accuracy and reliability of 'scientific' claims?


why else would credentials and professional language exist?

They exist to save people time, effort and money. 'Professional language' - jargon, to describe it bluntly - is a kind of shorthand. By using it when speaking or writing, we can express succintly what would take many pages, or a great deal of breath, to express in lay terms.

By the way, mathematics is an extreme example of this.

As for credentials, they save potential employers, team-builders and those in search of expert knowledge on a particular subject vast amounts of time and money. They are also valuable to prospective colleagues.


the academic is invariably insular and covets their knowledge and achievement.

Already by the end of the Middle Ages, scholars and schoolmen were corresponding with one another across the length and breadth of Europe, each fertilizing and building on the other's ideas. Heedless of the wars, religious ferments, plagues, revolutions and other distractions in which the times were so rich, they exchanged letters, essays, books and even scientific instruments - Galileo sent versions of his telescope to other scholars and royalty, for example - between places as far-flung as Prague and Pisa, Oxford and Hiedelberg.

This intellectual exchange has continued ever since, growing ever more intense and crowded. True, there have been scholars who preferred to work in isolation, foolishly jealous of their achievements: Sir Isaac Newton is a famous example. But even Newton, paranoid obsessive that he was, kept abreast of the latest developments in natural philosophy and conducted a long, angry exchange of lettters with Liebniz, the parallel inventor of the calculus. Liebniz, in the meantime, was arguing by way of published monographs with the philosopher John Locke, whose circle of friends included such luminaries as the experimental physicist Robert Hooke. Already, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was becoming difficult for scholars to work in isolation.

This close and fertile cooperation between lovers of learning is particularly evident in science. It was already solidly established in late Victorian times. By the late twentieth century, not even the Cold War could suppress it: Soviet and American scientists continued to exchange results and ideas, often much against the wishes of their political masters.

The Tree of Knowledge has no room in it nowadays for academic squirrels. The days of the brilliant inventor at work in his private laboratory are long gone. Scholars and scientists work in teams, in constant touch with their colleagues via specialist media and the internet. The selfish academic hugging his discoveries to himself is a popular myth. Knowledge is a conversation.


the education system doesn't reward original thinking but rather rote learning, therefore, it indicates that the higher the level of achievement, the greater the ability to regurgitate the opinions of ones superiors.

This is a canard. It is at least two generations since secondary education in developed countries depended on memorizing lists of facts and repeating them when asked to - that's what 'learning by rote' means. Even in developing countries like the one I live in, that approach to education has largely been superseded. It persists at primary-school level because it is the best way to teach things like multiplication tables, rules of grammar and so on. As for tertiary education, anyone who thinks they can get a real university degree simply by memorizing lists of facts is sadly mistaken.


you can have all the theoretical knowledge in the world but if you can't put it into practical use then it's a waste of time.

Another canard. Two of them, in fact: first, that academic achievement is purely theoretical; second, that theoretical knowledge is useless unless it has some immediate practical application.


a tradesman is judged on the result of his work where an academic is judged on the potential results of their work.

What are 'potential results'? Do you mean the practical application of theoretical results? It's true that Einstein got his Nobel for a paper on the photoelectric effect, but is he remembered today primarily for his part in the invention of the photoelectric cell? Or even - heaven help us - the atom bomb?


a tradesman credentials are his results

And an academic's are not? Do you think every physicist with a Ph. D and tenure at an Ivy League university is thought the equal of, say, Stephen Hawking? Believe me, we are all judged by our results; as the Bible says, by their fruits ye shall know them.

I'm sorry to say that what you have written comes across as the public expression of a private grudge, evoking visions of an angry Peri at the gates of the academic Paradise, railing at the fortunate ones inside because he couldn't make the grade - never got that degree, never published that world-changing monograph. Whether or not this really is true in your case I cannot say, but I urge you to recognize that the kingdom of the mind is not a democracy: it is more like a mediaeval principality. It has its royals, its peasants and all grades in between, and one's position in that hierarchy is awfully dependent on one's birth and breeding. Sorry about that, mate.

[edit on 16/4/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you for your very interesting and enlightening summation. You bring some new aspects to the conversation.

I disagree to a point about 'squirreling away' knowledge in today's society. It is still done in the form of industrial and military secrets, the only thing is instead of a single individual guarding it, it is small, elite groups. Not much has changed.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I disagree to a point about 'squirreling away' knowledge in today's society. It is still done in the form of industrial and military secrets, the only thing is instead of a single individual guarding it, it is small, elite groups. Not much has changed.

Sure. It happens and it's big. But it remains something of an exception to the greater rule of intellectual exchange - which technologies like the internet have actually reinforced.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join