Should we give the microphone to scientific elites just because they hold titles? No way. The public space is overrun by frauds. The media is full of professors who are unknown in real science, commentators who never touched logic, and philosophers who abuse words to hide their emptiness. The result is a society made weak and manipulable.
Continental philosophy flood
Continental philosophy looks deep, but it is empty. It speaks in long sentences, full of metaphors, impossible to test. It hides behind difficult language instead of clear arguments.
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote pages of existential slogans but left little that could be tested. Martin Heidegger invented a whole vocabulary of being, time, and authenticity, but his writings collapse when stripped of jargon. Jacques Derrida turned philosophy into word games, endless deconstruction without truth. Michel Foucault gained fame by making history into power plays, but ignored logic and evidence. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari even praised schizophrenia as liberation, turning madness into philosophy.
This tradition avoids clarity. A good argument should be short, precise, and open to critique. Continental thinkers do the opposite. They bury simple thoughts in jargon. They make readers feel stupid, not enlightened.
It resists science. Analytic philosophy tries to stay close to logic, mathematics, and evidence. Continental philosophy turns away from science and builds castles in the air. It replaces facts with feelings and poetry.
It corrupts education. Students quote Heidegger or Derrida without understanding. They learn to repeat style, not to think. Professors advance their careers on unreadable works. Authority grows without responsibility.
In the end, continental philosophy weakens thought. It breeds confusion, not clarity; it manipulates, not enlightens. It produces followers, not thinkers.
Fake professors and empty authority
The problem does not stop with famous names. Many non-renowned professors pose as scientific authorities. They defy mainstream science while lacking any evidence; they fill lecture halls with ideology and replace reasoning with slogans. They poison students instead of preparing them for clear thought. And behind them stands an army of so-called experts. Tons of experts with no knowledge. Experts in titles, but not in truth. They speak with confidence but bring nothing except confusion.
Commentators without science
And then come the commentators. Journalists, influencers, and television experts pretend to know. They never studied science, logic, or analytic philosophy. Yet they scream the loudest. They appeal to instincts. And they trade in outrage. They attract anger and resentment. They monetize confusion. With every broadcast, they make the population dumber.
They do not even try to educate people. Instead, they write about their dubious personal experiences. They turn private feelings into public guidance. They pass anecdotes as truth. That makes the public not only misinformed but also misled by the worst kind of authority: authority built on nothing but self-display.
Media silence on reality
The media makes it worse. It does not inform the public about reality at all. It almost never explains science; it prefers conflict over evidence, spectacle over truth. Instead of teaching how vaccines work, it invites conspiracy theorists. Instead of showing climate data, it shows politicians yelling. And instead of presenting logical arguments, it prints opinion columns with no basis.
Reality is absent. Science is absent. What fills the void is entertainment, ideology, and confusion. People do not get facts. They get noise. And that noise keeps them blind.
The Czech case: Charlatans vs real thinkers
A Czech study revealed thousands of charlatans. They publish, speak, and dominate the ether. They build authority without real substance.
Yet there are exceptions. Filip Tvrdý and Jaroslav Peregrin represent analytic rigor. They defend mainstream science, clarity, and reason; they use logic, not mystery. They are educated so well that they can respond to questions directly and clearly. Their opponents, by contrast, drag every debate into obscurantism. Peregrin and Tvrdý could enlighten society if given space. But the noise of charlatans pushes them to the margins.
The Czech Republic does have top minds with a mainstream approach. But they are silenced because their words are not catchy. They speak in reason, not slogans. They explain with care, not with drama. And in a media world that thrives on noise, calm clarity has no place.
Analytic philosophy as a model
Unlike continental babble, analytic philosophy keeps thought sharp. It demands clear definitions, logical structure, and testable claims. Ant it connects philosophy to mathematics, linguistics, and cognitive science. It is not about mystifying the public. It is about sharpening minds.
This is the model society needs. Not fog, not empty metaphors, not manipulation.
The real goal: Keep people dumb and easy to manipulate
The dominance of continental talkers, tons of fake experts, and loud commentators is not an accident. Confusion pays. A confused population is easier to govern. The less people understand, the more they can be led by emotion. The system profits from noise. It keeps us distracted, divided, and easy to control.
Ideal state of things
How would it look if people listened to the right voices? Very different. The noise would vanish. The fog would clear. People would not drown in slogans, but rise with clarity.
The right people would answer questions directly. They would not hide behind jargon or obscure language. And they would explain, step by step, how evidence works, why logic matters, and where the limits of knowledge lie; they would not turn philosophy into theatre; they would use it as a tool to sharpen the mind.
They would also give clear examples. They would explain why the death penalty makes no sense: it does not deter crime, it risks killing innocents, and it brutalises society instead of civilising it. And they would show why the so-called fourth wave of feminism often lost touch with equality and turned into identity politics that divide instead of unite. They would teach how linguistics uncovers the structure of language, not through metaphors about power but through testable models of syntax and semantics. They would deliver heavy criticism of theology and of philosophical theology: pointing out that it does not provide knowledge but only wraps belief in academic clothing.
Practical things
They would also be practical. And they would say plainly that vaccines are safe. They would show evidence. They would fight misinformation with data. And they would give thousands of other examples — from climate science to economics — to show how reason works against noise.
The population would not be fed with dubious personal experiences dressed up as universal truths. Instead, it would receive tested arguments, transparent reasoning, and clear explanations. The instinct to follow emotion would weaken. The habit of asking for proof would grow.
In this state, voices like Filip Tvrdý or Jaroslav Peregrin would not be on the margins. They would stand at the center. Their education and rigor would guide public debate. They would enlighten, not confuse. They would challenge, not flatter. And society would be better for it.
The best influence is not manipulation but empowerment. When people listen to those who speak clearly and honestly, they become harder to control, harder to divide, and harder to fool. That is the ideal state: a public culture built on clarity, reason, and courage.
Conclusion
We must stop giving the microphone to anyone with a title or a chair. Scientific elites do not deserve automatic trust. They must be tested by clarity, evidence, and method. Otherwise, society will remain in the hands of charlatans.
Continental babble dumbs us down. Analytic clarity builds us up. That is the choice.
And the Czech media is complicit. It silences the real thinkers while amplifying charlatans. and it gives space to noise because noise sells. It hides clarity because clarity is not catchy. By doing so, it betrays the public. It does not inform, it distracts. And in that betrayal, it becomes part of the manipulation machine.
Leave a Reply