I find it puzzling to ponder on the level of intelligence that humankind has risen to, or the lack thereof. Is being intelligent the same as being smart? I, for one, have to say no, not at all. Man is quite intelligent, however, in many ways seems to, despite age, display an immature temperament toward his fellow man as well as his natural and only environment. This in many cases leads to the willful destruction of both vital resources and his natural habitat. For a spacefaring race, this would not seem to be much of an issue, however, for a race that has barely set a foot on another world this would seen foolhardy, at best, and self destructive at worst. Man seems to be the only species on his home planet to seek to destroy said planet. Rather than share resources with others, he seeks to hoard every resource. Other species will seek out and consume resources, however, only man will do so to his own demise. Bears will consume other animals to their fill but never to the point that they destroy their food source. Man will. Ants and bees work collectively together(respectively) for the benefit of the entire colony. Man has rarely, if ever, worked altruistically to the betterment of his fellow man. So, can it be said that man is smart? Can it even be said that man is the smartest species on his own planet? Again, I have to say no.
Intelligence is the ability to create tools, works of art, theory and contemplation. It is simply the ability to repeat others methods to achieve the same results. Smart is having the knowledge to use those things to better, not only yourself, but others as well. Man has used his intelligence to create atomic energy, but he was not smart enough to use it in a way that could have saved his environment. Man had the option to use atomic energy in two forms. One produced massive amounts of radioactive waste, which could then be used to create weapons of massively destructive force. The other could not be used to create weapons and created no hazardous waste byproduct. Which did he choose? Exactly! He chose to be stupid. One must choose to be stupid because one cannot choose to be ignorant. Ignorance is the act of not being knowledgeable in a matter. This is correctable. Being stupid is a willful act of knowing better, yet proceeding in a matter despite knowing better. We do it all of the time. How many times have we all heard from a colleague or friend before; “I knew better, but I did it anyway.”
Science and the lack of smart people. Science has become a social club for the over-educated who simply repeat what others in the club have stated. In an effort to become or stay relative to the rest of the club “Scientists” are willing to ignore, hide or even destroy data which contradicts the agreed upon consensus of reality. At this point, what started out as a search for scientific truth, turns to nothing more than religious dogma based on the tenants of science, yet degraded to the realm of distrust, fear and disinformation by the masses. Can any who are responsible for this truly call themselves Scientists? I think con artist is more appropriate. It is the lack of smart people in science that has failed man. People of integrity who have the willingness to stand before their peers with their data in hand and argue the date rather than personal or professional bias are too few and far between in Science today. Too many are willing to give in to the pressures of funding and academic rebuke by “learned” men who haven’t done real research in decades. Men who will shout that a thing is impossible, yet have no evidence to back their point but at the same instance will argue that the lack of evidence on the opposing view is proof. The lack of evidence is simply the lack of evidence, not the lack of existence. A case in point I will use in this discussion is of that of life on other worlds. Because there is no evidence of life on other worlds so called scientists will say that there is no life on other worlds or only microbial life exists on other worlds but that in so uncertain terms there is no intelligent alien life in the cosmos. Where is their evidence that intelligent life cannot exist on other worlds? They have none, yet will unequivocally state that “it is never aliens”. Their only reasoning in the face of the fact that they have no facts to back up their opinion, can only come from personal and professional bias. The fear of ridicule of lesser men they see as their betters.
Science was to be the search for truth not consensus and certainly not bias or opinion. The data is, what the data is. Just because we do not yet understand how the data can be what it is, does not change the fact that, that is what the data is. We are a young species in the grand scheme of the cosmos. We do not know everything and we will make mistakes. Sometimes we will be right on and sometimes we will be completely wrong. What does it profit us as a species, however, if we are afraid to be wrong? How can we move into new discoveries when every time one is wrong or voice a dissenting opinion they are ridiculed and deposed not because their data is wrong, but simply because it goes against your opinion. Those of you in the scientific community, who are afraid to be wrong, you are a problem. Those of you who believe that you know everything and use position to intimidate and even ruin careers of your fellows you disagree with are an even bigger threat to the academic community than those you oppose. It is you who are responsible for the lack of scientific and social progress in the world today. It is you who have bred a level of distrust between science and the masses at large. You may be intelligent, but you are not very smart.
About the Author
Eric Smith is nobody from nowhere and holds no degrees from any university. He has spent the last 30+ years following the careers of notable persons in the scientific community like Stephen Hawking, Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein. His hobbies include, most notably, Electronic Design, Blacksmithing, Writing and Splitting Beer Atoms among others.