Thomas Sowell introduces his new book Intellectuals and Society and expounds on what he calls "the fatal misstep of intellectuals" -- the assumption that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized as superior wisdom or morality over all. He offers examples of this misstep in areas as divergent as economics, the environment, and national defense.
Finally, he warns us to resist the influence of intellectuals and points out that the demand for public intellectuals is largely manufactured by the public intellectuals themselves.
Bio
Peter Robinson
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits the Hoover Institution's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, "Uncommon Knowledge."
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is an American economist, political writer, and commentator. He is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science.
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.2–7.2 °F (1.8–4.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Thanks for your thoughts. I took your advice and listened to his entire talk. While it is true that intellectuals are people whose “work begins and ends with ideas.” which includes academics from the humanities, social sciences, policy makers, and even journalists, to compare them with physicians or engineers is a mistake. The latter deals with tangible objects that can be measured and verified while the former deals with very complex social issues that is often beyond the realm of the most brilliant intellectuals. No doubt, intellectuals indeed pose a serious problem but the underlying problem does not lie solely with intellectuals.
The social construction of reality that we live in is of our making infected by greed, materialism, selfishness, the abuse of power, and no amount of intellectual acumen can address the vices of human nature and Sowell is certainly no exception. For instance, when he said that Chomsky’s ideas and theories in politics is an "absurdity" how can Sowell possibly say this? Why would Sowell dismiss Chomsky’s decades of study as if they are completely devoid of any truth? What makes Sowell the holder of truth? In this respect, when you said that rights become personalized Sowell absurdity comment was just as personalized by refusing to give Chomsky credit.
Sowell is certainly is able too see the many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:
“I believe we need to cultivate the kind of knowledge and awareness that would allow us to transcend our inner conflicts, our respective ego, our feeble intellect, and the unconscious primitive emotions that keep us in bondage”
Apparently, Dr. Sowell ought to consider that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom.
Blaming intellectuals is only one small piece of a very big puzzle.
In reference to word 'right' as being personalized, yes this is true rights become hopelessly subjective especially if you cannot afford health care. But the issue is not the right to have heath care. The real issue here is that our political leaders, the insurance companies, lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical industry stick to their capitalistic guns. All they care about is the almighty dollar and I’m convinced that this has turned into a pathology of greed. As a result, it dehumanizes others. To think of the well being of the American people as the prime directive is as far removed from them as the planets. So in this regard, the right for these industries to make as much money as possible with a disregard of others is -as you said-a deceptive pitfall for fallacies. And this fallacy is killing and bankrupting many people unjustly.
I think you should watch the whole interview again and listen closely. As you are getting things twisted. Sowell tries to explain how intellectuals keep providing "solutions" (without any realistic perception to a certain situation). Also at the end of the interview, he concluded with the remark that there is no solution to this "problem". Yes it is easy to criticize others, yet there is a difference between destructive and constructive criticism. In my opinion, this can be considered constructive. As it is true that certain intellectuals go beyond their field, trying to dictate the proletariat with the main thought of intellectual superiority. I would like to conclude on your 'rights' argument. I think you misunderstood him. As the quotation from his book already declared the word 'right' can be personalized. What I mean by that, and Sowell as well, is that your definition of right may differ from mine. Where do you draw the line? For this reason, the word can been perceived as a deceptive pitfall for fallacies.
Great job, Dr. Sowell. We rely on intellectuals to try to solve problems- such as the rising cost and the failure of some to have health insurance. Often these individuals propose ideas that make problems worse- Sowell might be ranked by some as an intellectual himself, but he proposes ideas that we can understand and evaluate. He provides us with the facts we need to arrive at our own conclusions- important in a democracy. Thanks for posting this interesting interview.
It's so easy to critize intellectuals or anyone else for that matter...it would be great if Sowell would provide solutions instead. In reference to rights, that health care, for instance, should be a right. The question arises, is social security a right? I don't think so. Social security is a need and as long as we all pay into it, we all benefit from it. Health care should be no different.
When Sowell admitted his dumbfounedness regarding the word "rights" it is a clear indication that he is just another intellectual speaking within the field of intellect with his own fallacies. He says that rights is not in the constitution -implying that you have no right to health care. What he fails to realize is that the health care debate is infected by greed and politics which he makes no mention of and he fails miserably in realizing that you can't have genuine health care without the spirit of compassion. What I mean by this is having geniune concern for the well being of others and it makes its presence felt in every aspect of health care. But as long as you have greed and poltical leaders only concerend about themselves, you cannot have true health care. Sowell makes no mention of this and the many forces that undermine heath care. While it is true that health care is not in the constitution, neither is compassion. But if our forefathers were here today, they'd be appaled by our lack of compassion.
Not all the world is best viewed as economics. This interview just shows whole of the Hoover Institute has become a sham. That is a shame. I do not believe that climate scientists are making up global warming to get research grants. But beliefs are not the issue in science. All Sowell has presented is a plausibility argument that scientists might gain by being alarmist. Now he needs to to an look at their models and find places where this alleged bias has made concrete changes in the data, theories or climate models. Sowell can't because he is not competent in the science he is criticizing. Economists have dogmas and principles, real science has evidence and theories.
member. 
