What has been completely lost in this debate over cranks is that the problems surrounding our processes for transforming ideas into theories isn’t simply centered around the persistence of cranks. The problem of dogma is actually the more serious problem, because it embeds itself into our institutions of authority – from which it becomes nearly impossible to both identify and root out.
The problem which leads to dogma is this widespread notion that only professional scientists have the authority to speak on topics of science. People have accepted this premise without critically thinking about what a “professional” actually is. The truth is that the premise of professionalism clashes with the public’s view of “thinking like a scientist”. Jeff Schmidt’s groundbreaking book, Disciplined Minds, exposed the root of the problem. The American Institute of Physics fired him for writing the book, and with Noam Chomsky’s support, Jeff’s case became the largest freedom-of-expression court case in the history of the physics discipline. It seems that while everybody has been so busy ostracizing the cranks, they’ve failed to notice both Jeff’s victory over the AIP, as well as the critical contents of this book.
Jeff’s claims about what it means to be a professional necessarily impacts our views of what it means to be a crank. After all, the crank is a “non-professional”, amateur scientist. So, what, then, is a “professional”?
My thesis is that the criteria by which individuals are deemed
qualified or unqualified to become professionals involve not just
technical knowledge as is generally assumed, but also attitude – in
particular, attitude toward working within an assigned political and
ideological framework. (p16)The qualifying attitude, I find, is an uncritical subordinate one,
which allows professionals to take their ideological lead from their
employers, and appropriately fine-tune the outlook that they bring to
their work. The resulting professional is an obedient thinker, an
intellectual property whom employers can trust to experiment,
theorize, innovate and create safely within the confines of an
assigned ideology. The political and intellectual timidity of today’s
most highly educated employees is no accident. (p16)Furthermore, professionals are the role models of the society toward
which we are heading, a society in which ideology trumps gender, race
and class origin as the biggest factor underlying the individual’s
success or failure. (p19)This book’s analysis finds the supposed political neutrality of the
process of professional qualification a myth: Neither weeding out nor
adjustment to the training institution’s values are politically
neutral processes. Even the qualifying examination – its cold,
tough, technical questions supposedly testimony to the objectivity and
integrity of the system of professional qualification and to the
purity of the moment of personal triumph in every professional’s
training – does not act neutrallly. The ideological obedience that
the qualification system requires for success turns out to be
identical to the ideological obedience that characterizes the work of
the salaried professional. (p26)The professional is one who can be trusted to extrapolate to new
situations the ideology inherent in the official school curriculum
that she teaches. (p32)Professionals generally avoid the risk inherent in real critical
thinking and cannot properly be called critical thinkers. They are
simply ideologically disciplined thinkers. Real critical thinking
means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral
assumptions; applying and refining a personally developed worldview;
and calling for action that advances a personally created agenda. An
approach that backs away from any of these three components lacks the
critical spirit … Ideologically disciplined thinkers, especially the
more gung-ho ones, often give the appearance of being critical
thinkers as they go around deftly applying the official ideology and
confidently reporting their judgments. The fact that professionals
are usually more well-informed than nonprofessionals contributes to
the illusion that they are critical thinkers. (p41)The much-touted “peer review” process does not usurp the power of the
program directors to serve agency goals. Peer review is the process
in which an agency asks outside scientists to give their opinions on
the scientific feasibility of proposed research; the screening by
outsiders leaves the agency with a long list of feasible projects from
which it chooses those that best further its goals. Peer review does
not reduce the program directors to nonprofessional poll takers: The
program directors select the reviewers, decide whose advice to follow
in light of the goals of the programs they manage, and monitor the
work of the scientists they fund. The program directors are the
gatekeepers at the money bin and therefore loom as important figures
for researchers, who if not worried about getting a grant, are worried
about renewing one. Physicists hoping for National Science Foundation
support, for example, are told that “while the advice of all reviewers
is taken quite seriously, the final decision for funding is made by
the Director and Staff of the Physics Division.” (p64)
