Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Over in TheSophist's thread, he concludes that the problem the GOP has with Asian Americans from the Northeast Triad has to do with the perception of the GOP as anti-intellectual.
To which KC Mullville asked:
What accounts for the perception of anti-intellectualism?
This is a good question. It should be addressed.
This perception is pervasive. And it leads people like my cousin to put things like this up as their picture on Facebook:
And he really believes it. He believes that Republicans are anti-science and anti-intellectual. To be sure, people on the left can be anti-science too. This same cousin buys organic peanut butter and is against nuclear power.
But the perception persists and is widespread.
So what accounts for this? Why the perception of anti-intellectualism?
I have identified a few causes:
1. Very public boneheads. That clown Akin springs to mind, because he is recent. His comments showed an utter ignorance of science. No one with any background in science could have said such a thing. Or look at someone like Sarah Palin, who was openly anti-intellectual and clearly uncurious about the world around her and yet celebrated for being both.
You'll say that Democrats do that too. Indeed they do. But the standards are higher for Republicans. That means they need to play a tighter game. And that is not helped by people who furiously defend these boneheads, no matter what asinine comments pass their lips, because the alternative is "worse than Hitler."
2. Pandering to Young Earth Creationists. Witness Marco Rubio doing exactly that. Was it necessary? Do politicians need to pander to such a tiny number of very vocal people?
From the amount of noise they make, people assume that Young Earth Creationism is more common than it actually is. And yet politicians who should know better pander to them. To do so is to feed science denialism.
3. Climate Change Denial - There, I said it. I know its not a popular thing to say here, but climate change is real as far as the latest, best scientific consensus can determine.
(Please note: I am not saying "Climate change is real and therefore we must do X." I am merely accepting the broad scientific consensus.)
Denial of climate change is yet more science denialism. Claiming to be a "skeptic" of climate change, while refusing to engage in actual, you know, skepticism, does a disservice.
Science is
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
It is our method of rationally examining the facts of reality. Science denialism is literally denying reality.
4. Evolution Denialism - A lot of Republicans are religious. Fine. Many religious people are creationists. However, not all creationists are created equal. Different people believe different things, and believing God created the universe doesn't mean you need to deny evolution.
If you want to be religious, that's fine, but don't try to teach your creation story in science classes in public schools. "Intelligent Design" isn't science. It's religion. And constant evolution denialism and attempts (front door and back door) to get creationism into the classroom feed that perception of anti-intellectualism.
So long as Republicans and conservatives continue to give safe harbor to anti-intellectual politicians, science denialists, evolution denialists, and climate change denialists -- and as long as they pander to those elements of the public that engage in the same -- then people like my cousin will be able to post the above image and perpetuate the perception of anti-intellectualism.
- Comment (257)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Tommy De Seno: Fred Cole one more thing - your attack on intelligent design.
Not sure you've done the math. It's not only impossible to exclude scientifically, but it remains the most mathematically plausible explanation for human existence (don't misread me I'm not saying scientifically proven).
Read the works of Francis Collins on it (he was leader of the Human Genome Project; certainly a scientist of great reputation).
On irreducible complexity: It's gensis is in Darwin's book. I often wonder what high schools are supposed to do with that page - tear it out? · 26 minutes ago
Edited 25 minutes ago
1. If it impossible to exclude scientifically, then it is not science.
2. Yes, he is a geneticist of great reputation. He also rejects creationism and ID.
3. I assume you mean the passage about the eye, something that has long since been answered without the crutch of ID.
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Western Chauvinist
Fred Cole
Guruforhire
You are assuming a lack of corruption and financial incentive. · in 0 minutes
I'm assuming no such thing. I am, however, assuming that corrupt scientists are in the extreme minority that the peer review process and human ego help to neutralize it. Nothing like one-upping one of your peers and proving they're wrong. · 9 hours ago
You are just wrong. AGW skeptics cannot get published in "consensus" journals. One of the majoreffects of climate pseudoscience is the utter corruption of the peer review process. · 3 minutes ago
Ah the old science conspiracy. It's the same thing that keeps down zero point energy and homeopathy.
Produce good science with conclusions well grounded in solid data and you'll get published. But if you run counter to the existing scientific consensus without sufficient evidence to back it up and, yeah, you're going to have trouble getting published.
Read more Watts Up With That.
Are you saying there's no evidence of corruption in climate science, Fred? It's been a while, but I seem to recall the topic of blackballing AGW skeptics from peer reviewed journals in the Climategate memos.
Dec '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I think that part of the correct answer to KC Mullville's question in the original post is: because the left has turned a philosophical quest for truth into a political power trip since even before the French revolution, but especially since then, and they sometimes use tactics like those of Saul Alinsky to achieve their goals. But isolating and marginalizing Christians has been in the playbook before Saul Alinsky wrote his.
If the left and your cousin could stop bludgeoning us with their false pretenses and start reading books likeThe Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensesby David Berlinski, then a truly enlightening discussion on these topics could ensue. But (big surprise) people like Richard Dawkins are too consumed with the condescending power trip mentioned in the first paragraph to debate any scientists with a religious perspective, and there are scientists with a religious perspective who also hold advanced degrees from mainstream, accredited universities. Of course, if you listen to your cousin or the MSM, the only people who would grant science that doesn't conform to the atheist-materialist worldview a moment of their time are either ignorant, stupid or insane.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I think the explanation is summed up by New York Times columnist (and conservative-poseur) David Brooks, referring admiringly to Barack Obama: ""I divide people into people who talk like us and people who don't talk like us." And, of course, it's Democrats, and those they hire, who do most of the dividing for the Western World.
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I. raptus
Dan Hanson:
...
Interestingly, 38% of Democrats said the same thing, yet they're never called on it. And 47% of the population as a whole claim to be young-earth creationists.
The high numbers (for both Democrats and Republicans) conceivably could be an effect of an anchoring heuristic rather than a real, preexisting understanding and/or belief. Let's be honest; to the average American, regardless of your political interests, the age of the Earth is not of very high relevance to you. One surely may have heard the figure at some point, but if one hasn't been involved with it directly, it's easy for that information to have been forgotten. So most people probably have no idea.
So when the pollster asks, "Is something shorter or longer than X?" the value of X "anchors" the answers around it, because the person being polled simply doesn't know.
Absolutely agree. Which is why, when asked how old the earth is, Marco Rubio should have answered, "I don't know. Why do you ask?"
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I. raptus
Dan Hanson: From that last link, the Gallup survey found that 60% of Republicans believe that God created the earth as-is roughly 10,000 years ago...
Interestingly, 38% of Democrats said the same thing, yet they're never called on it...
The high numbers (for both Democrats and Republicans) conceivably could be an effect of an anchoring heuristic rather than a real, preexisting understanding and/or belief. Let's be honest; to the average American, regardless of your political interests, the age of the Earth is not of very high relevance to you. One surely may have heard the figure at some point, but if one hasn't been involved with it directly, it's easy for that information to have been forgotten. So most people probably have no idea.
So when the pollster asks, "Is something shorter or longer than X?" the value of X "anchors" the answers around it, because the person being polled simply doesn't know. ·
I am forced to concur. A question such as this is adolescent sophistry, it perhaps reveals something of the questioner but very little regarding those who deigned to answer.
May '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Western Chauvinist
Dear Lord, I don't want any politician making decisions about the climate! It's the same damn lefty synoptic eye (eye of Sauron?) which is going to fix the economy by diddling with markets and distributing wealth! Shall we just make Al Gore president for life and get it over with?
/America is circling the drain and I'm prone to motion sickness...
Nor do I. Frankly, I nor more trust Al Gore to make decisions than I would a young earther.
The question here, which has systematically been lost to tired debates about faith and climate change, is why do people see the Republicans as anti-science or anti-intellectual? I was trying to point out that a lot of people would not trust individuals that believed such things to make decisions in government.
If I made any mistake it was assuming the YEC bunch were universally recognized as anti-science.
I filled out my profile section for a reason. I'm pretty sure there is nothing about me being a flaming liberal tree hugger. Sheesh...
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
First some credentials: B.S. Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering GPA:3.65, M.S. Mechanical Engineering GPA: 3.90.
Engineering (Reality) vs ‘Pure’ Science (Theory). Reality trumps theory every time. If you design and build the bridge according to a theory and it collapses, the theory is wrong. Everytime.
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Evolution by random action has some serious issues. First of all, if we start with a one celled organism, which is an insanely complicated piece of machinery, to get to us, or a fish for that matter, by random mutation would take more time than the life of the universe. Remember, random mutation destroys useful information much faster that it constructs it. The probability of advance is quite low, almost zero. Not enough time. Second, the fossil record show what is called ‘punctuated equilibrium”, long periods of stable life forms interspersed with very short period of rapid change. Just the opposite predicted by the model. Third, many biological processes and structures are not piecewise viable or advantageous, again the opposite predicted by the model. And back to the first point, evidently life first appeared on earth almost as soon as the conditions allowed it to survive. However, we still don’t know how that happened. Frances Crick, discoverer of DNA, thought that life came from outer-space since there was not enough time for it to develop on earth.
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Mr. VooDoo there are those who enjoy stirring up a hornet's nest, you apparently prefer a tornado. I admire your courage.
Even though we try for reasoned discussion here on Ricochet you bring forth far too much to be contained in this one. I do not agree with all of your positions but some I would most definitely enjoy discussing at further length. As a favor I would ask you to start new discussions on each, in the tumult of this one your additions are going to be buried.
Welcome to Ricochet.
Edited on November 29, 2012 at 6:16amNov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
R. Craigen
What would you say if I told you that the research I publishis proven, "in the sense of a mathematical proof"?
Please provide a link to something that you have published and I'll try to respond, but it will follow the lines in my earlier note. I think the distinction between mathematical proof and scientific evidence is very clear. · 8 hours ago
You're missing my point, Cap.
I agree that there is a distinction between the natural sciences and mathematics. The first is inductive and the second deductive. No arguments from me there.
If you read my comment again you'll see I'm taking issue with the exclusion of "mathematics" as "science". Mathematics is a field of science. This is why in most universities the math department is contained within the Faculty of Science.
Science has two distinct modes of demonstration -- one inductive, and the other deductive. But both are "science".
Occasionally in our work we will engage in some inductive investigations. For example, I did a large random survey of determinants once and reported on the outcome, with a conjecture regarding what the general pattern might be. Induction, not deduction.
Jan '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
Certainly these two positions are not comparable. Science is precisely based on the lack of "faith" · 6 hours ago
This is generally true but you assume what people, primarily those on the left, call "science" is, in fact, science. My experience has been that many of those that reference "science" in an argument don't have the foggiest notion of what science actually is. Science is based on a hypothesis that is subsequently tested in a series of falsifiable experiments (I realize this is a great oversimplification but the it is the crux of science). Anything else is an educated guess with varying degrees of certainty/information which is without a doubtsignificatnly influenced by biases and personal opinions/desires.
May '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
John Grant: Michael,
Did you not notice the two "I believe" statements?
JG
Michael Labeit
John Grant: I like your profession of faith in scientific consensus; it is very honest. You come right out and admit your adherence to the one true church of science.
I am sure you are aware, as a professed Catholic, that Credo="I believe." I am not sure why it is important to profess one's faith in the subjects you list below. Your faith is very demanding.
Donald Todd:
I believe in an expanding universe, approximately13.75billion years old, give or take1.5 billionyears in either direction if the physicists are correct.
I believe our own solar system is approximately4.6 billionyears old.
John...what on Earth are you talking about? You're making zero sense.
Ok. Therefore, what? To believe in something is a profession of faith? This is nonsense. To believe in something (typically a proposition) is to hold is as true, not to hold it as true without evidence. When did belief and faith, i.e., belief without evidence, become synonymous?
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Mr. Bildo
Western Chauvinist
Dear Lord, I don't want any politician making decisions about the climate! It's the same damn lefty synoptic eye (eye of Sauron?) which is going to fix the economy by diddling with markets and distributing wealth! Shall we just make Al Gore president for life and get it over with?
/America is circling the drain and I'm prone to motion sickness...
...
The question here, which has systematically been lost to tired debates about faith and climate change, is why do people see the Republicans as anti-science or anti-intellectual? I was trying to point out that a lot of people would not trust individuals that believed such things to make decisions in government.
...
Sorry, Mr. Bildo. I didn't intend to lash out at you personally. I'm just disconsolate that we seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees.
Politicians have no particular competence in anything relating to science, economics, personal ethics, or all the myriad illegitimate roles the government has assumed. It seems to me this is the argument we should be making when we're accused of anti-intellectualism.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
R. Craigen
You're missing my point, Cap.
If you read my comment again you'll see I'm taking issue with the exclusion of "mathematics" as "science".
Science has two distinct modes of demonstration -- one inductive, and the other deductive. But both are "science".
Actually, I think you're missing my point which was to address the meaning of the word "prove". All I am saying is that scientific theories (quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution) do not prove anything in the sense that a deductive mathematical proof does. To give two examples, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is not the same as the "proof" that a Higgs boson exists because it follows from the Standard Model (which in turn follows from quantum field theory). So, if somebody says "science prove X" they need to define the terms more precisely or at least provide a better explanation before the statement should be accepted or rejected. I suspect that people's holding different understandings of that statement is what's led to 90% of the postings in this thread.
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Mister D
Tommy De Seno: Fred Cole one more thing - your attack on intelligent design.
Not sure you've done the math. It's not only impossible to exclude scientifically, but it remains the most mathematically plausible explanation for human existence (don't misread me I'm not saying scientifically proven).
Read the works of Francis Collins on it (he was leader of the Human Genome Project; certainly a scientist of great reputation).
On irreducible complexity: It's gensis is in Darwin's book. I often wonder what high schools are supposed to do with that page - tear it out?
1. If it impossible to exclude scientifically, then it is not science.
2. Yes, he is a geneticist of great reputation. He also rejects creationism and ID.
3. I assume you mean the passage about the eye, something that has long since been answered without the crutch of ID. · 10 hours ago
If it's impossible to exclude the cause of a cold, the cause therefore scientifically doesn't exist? Nice try.
Collins rejects a literal biblical intelligent design. He believes in theistic evolution - still creationism.
Wrong about the eye. Look at the math involved in human life developing accidentally.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Percival
As good as any approximation can be, it is still not The Truth. It may be we cannot fully get there; indeed, since Gödel proved there are unprovable truths in any formal natural number system, it is unlikely that we can. One can't get much more simple than natural numbers.
In essence, this is what Popper has said. Successive scientific theories approach the "truth" asymptotically. I don't think Gödel applies here (I assume you mean his incompleteness theorems) because they are theorems in mathematical logic. Although you could argue that both science and mathematics are "incomplete" it doesn't have the same meaning. In mathematics, you can prove the truth of logical statements. Gödel doesn't dispute this, rather he shows that you may need to go outside your given axioms to do it. Popper is saying you can't ever get to the "truth".