I do literally have a master's degree in a science—it seems like a sick joke these days more than anything else, worthless for practical purposes. However, it has occurred to me more than once that my M.S. degree has great value in one domain: that of the scientician, in just the sense that Troy McClure's using it.
"Scientician" isn't a real word, but it nevertheless describes a real profession. The purpose of a scientician isn't knowing or studying any human science; rather, the professional scientician's job is conferring a glamour of scientific authority, even to arrant nonsense, by presenting the appearance of weighty scientific understanding. It's like playing the role of a technobabble-spouting scientist in a horror movie, except in real life—bristling with intimidating polysyllabic words and formulae and chatter about studies and theories, maybe dressed in a white coat or professorial tweeds in order to look more convincing, backed up by diplomas on the wall (never mind where from) and a string of letters after their name to advertise their scientific bona fides. It's ninety-nine percent aesthetics with just enough actual scientific knowledge to make the act more convincing.
There used to be a series of comedy sketches, widely broadcast on the radio, called "Ask Dr. Science" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Dr._Science) that lampooned the ease with which it's possible to present oneself as a scientific expert without ever saying anything sensible. "Dr. Science" took care to announce that he wasn't a real doctor ("I have a master's degree!" he'd proudly declare) but he'd have answers for every question, delivered in a patronizing tone of utmost confidence and infuriating condescension, because Dr. Science "knows more than you do" and you ought to be grateful he's even bothering. Here for example, Dr. Science answers a question about why cauliflower looks like a tree by explaining that the questioner's observations are subjective and therefore false, but his own observations about cauliflower are objective and therefore true. He's the scientician, and you're not. https://youtu.be/HSP8bB1bcQU
The joke would be funnier if we weren't oppressed by real-life scienticians, who talk almost exactly this way, and yet demand to be taken seriously—nay, who demand to be recognized as the greatest minds on Earth, stuffed to bursting with "intelligence", as proved by their test scores and business success. Increasingly, the contemporary authorities on what deserves to be acclaimed as "scientific" and "rational" and "objective" aren't people with much formal education or experience in science—the world of business, supported by the world of reactionary politics, has long been taking refuge in the notion that the mainstream scientific community has in fact been corrupted by Marxism and "woke" and other Satanic wiles. The modern-day scienticians, therefore, tend to be people like corporate executives, Internet media personalities, fanatical Christian professionals, and propagandists from one of the numerous right-wing "research institutes" that posture themselves as the true remaining storehouses of scientific and academic wisdom, now that the world's universities are all run by Communists or something. The situation is not unlike Catholic sedevacantism—the notion that the papacy's moral authority no longer exists, because it was destroyed by Vatican II (or some other imagined betrayal), and therefore the only real Catholics are fringe reactionaries who've broken away from the main Church.
And who's to say they're wrong? Isn't this valid, at least in part? Mainstream scientific authority might not be sodden with Marxism, but it's certainly corrupt. The corrosive effects of money, capitalism, racism, and corporate sponsorship have all been eating away at the credibility of established sources of scientific authority. How much should anyone still be trusting the words of (say) a Harvard or Stanford expert? Or a CDC official? The perceived authority and credibility of such institutions has never been lower, and that's not entirely the fault of the reactionary political figures and Christian fanatics who have exploited this situation. They have perceived a growing void in the existing state of scientific authority and have therefore eagerly put themselves forward as the new custodians of academic and scientific knowledge, the infallible experts on what's "objective" and therefore unquestionably true, in just the same way that the declarations of "Dr. Science" are unquestionably true. He knows more than you do; so does Dr. James Dobson or Jordan Peterson.
It's a deceitful, cynical exercise, this business of establishing oneself as a right-wing scientician—and yet, the people doing it have every right. Authority is ultimately a matter of successful assertion. As long as "scientific authority" means something in our society, then surely every person is free to set themselves up as an expert, superior in wisdom and credibility to all others. It does very little good, in dealing with the purported scientific experts of reactionary politics, to complain about the flimsiness of their credentials (mind you, I've done more than my share of such fruitless complaining.) For instance, the "American Enterprise Institute", one of the many think-tanks which furnish safe jobs for right-wing intellectual figures, notably Charles Murray of Bell Curve infamy, may be a sick joke of an organization, an imitation university—but as long as the AEI can successfully assert itself as a source of authority, they've won themselves a degree of invincibility.
I'm pretty sure the only way to fight a scientician is to refute them, but this is no easy business. Right-wing scienticians, in particular, have worked out a number of ingenious methods for avoiding intellectual refutation by the simple act of running away from dangerous arguments. They've sharpened up a keen sense for scientific and academic concepts that are threatening to them, along with an elaborate body of lore about the true origins and natures of such things as post-modern theory and academic inquiry into Western racism. Such branches of study are all "woke", not to mention "Marxist" (all academic sins are ultimately "Marxist" in their worldview), and therefore they refuse to engage honestly with them. They apply racial profile and other bigoted criteria to people who attempt to engage them intellectually; you can have the most eloquent arguments on Earth and it won't matter if you're not pasty and male enough ("diversity hire", they'll sneer). If you make a trivial grammatical blunder in a sentence, that proves everything you say is wrong, by the standards of a right-wing scientician.
I'm making it sound as though it's impossible to fight these people, much less refute them; yet I have some faith that it is possible. To pick a specific example, I have some faith that it's possible to shut Charles Murray up—he won't acknowledge intellectual refutation, once it's visited upon him, but neither will he be able to answer it. But such refutation, if it's possible, will have to come from the sort of person whom Murray is conditioned to trust as credible, i.e. another pasty whıte academic figure with sufficient credentials and social privileges to be heeded by someone like Charles Murray and his admirers, and who is able to phrase their refutation entirely in the specific subset of academic jargon that Murray et alii don't immediately reject as "woke". The refutation will have to come from inside the house, you could say.
At least, that's my speculation. I don't really know what I'm talking about, even though I have a master's degree—in science.
~Chara of Pnictogen
