That's the conclusion that "intellectuals" will feel most smug about, but the truthful version doesn't speak well of them.
"Intellectuals" have a nasty habit of believing that their conclusions are more grounded in science than they actually are. (For example, the existence of AGW doesn't actually lead to any policy, let alone a specific one.) Moreover, their "it's science" belief gives them unwarranted confidence which they turn to rage when they're questioned by their "inferiors".
Intellectuals also think that their expertise means things that it doesn't. For example, they're sympathetic to the idea that the best chess player should be president of the chess club.
"Intellectuals" have a nasty habit of believing that their conclusions are more grounded in science than they actually are. (For example, the existence of AGW doesn't actually lead to any policy, let alone a specific one.) Moreover, their "it's science" belief gives them unwarranted confidence which they turn to rage when they're questioned by their "inferiors".
Intellectuals also think that their expertise means things that it doesn't. For example, they're sympathetic to the idea that the best chess player should be president of the chess club.