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?
Aint that the truth.
Fred Cole
R. Craigen:
One is a barrage of liberal talking points that have become accepted wisdom. They are full of falsehoods and distortions, but through repetition seem real, often in the face of countervailing facts, even to those who ought to know better. Nowadays it is common to hear these lies forecefully asserted with no actual evidence, and the assertion alone is believed sufficient to close an argument.
Talking points are a disgusting phenomenon, but they're not limited to the left, the right uses them too. Listen to Sean Hannity and you'll get them, point by point. Some have some grounding in reality, some are stupid. But people on the right do that too. · 5 minutes ago
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Austin Murrey: Fred, you can't claim science is science in the comments and mention scientific consensus as a determining factor about "climate change" (or global warming or global cooling as it used to be called). Saying science is settled because a number of people calling themselves scientists agree with a supposition is utterly nonsensical.
To give you an example I point to plate tectonics (I have a Geology degree so this is my go-to area). Until the 1960's anyone who took plate tectonics seriously was considered a crazy in the Geology world - a small number of people persued the theory and finally proved it out, but theconsensusup to that point was wrong.
If consensus settled science you'd be going to the apothecary to have excess humors drained whenever you had a headache. · 5 minutes ago
That's the nice thing about science: When proven otherwise, science adapts and accepts new ideas. It is not holy writ.
Science is the best state of our knowledge so far. When the scientific consensus changes on climate change, I'll adjust also.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Guruforhire:
You are putting liberals on a pedestal, Fred. They are prone to their own conceits, they just believe their conceits are intellectualism.
Liberalsim = intellectualism. Their thinking and self image is really that simple.
Disagreement about anything = rejecting science and reality.
And conservatives buy in to that and so we get posts like #16.
Dec '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Austin Murrey: Fred, you can't claim science is science in the comments and mention scientific consensus as a determining factor about "climate change" (or global warming or global cooling as it used to be called). Saying science is settled because a number of people calling themselves scientists agree with a supposition is utterly nonsensical.
To give you an example I point to plate tectonics (I have a Geology degree so this is my go-to area). Until the 1960's anyone who took plate tectonics seriously was considered a crazy in the Geology world - a small number of people persued the theory and finally proved it out, but theconsensusup to that point was wrong.
If consensus settled science you'd be going to the apothecary to have excess humors drained whenever you had a headache. · 5 minutes ago
That's the nice thing about science: When proven otherwise, science adapts and accepts new ideas. It is not holy writ.
Science is the best state of our knowledge so far. When the scientific consensus changes on climate change, I'll adjust also. · 0 minutes ago
You are assuming a lack of corruption and financial incentive.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
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.
Apr '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Yes, we do have a few outspoken ninnies, and some of them have disappointingly large followings. But I don't think we should define ourselves according to the disingenuous criticisms of leftists. As you point out, the left worships plenty of quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Just because they point to and laugh at clowns like Akin doesn't make them smarter overall -- just better smart alecks. This is something Andrew Breitbart understood well, and it's why his death was a great loss to us.
Despite your and my views on religion, the fact is a great many smart people believe in it (or at least have never questioned beliefs they absorbed as children), including many left-leaning Americans.
And as for anthropogenic global warming, it's far from settled. We know the books were cooked, and even if you accept that warming is occurring, the evidence for its being human-caused is purely circumstantial. More scientific inquiry is needed before we compromise our economy and our sovereignty trying to fix it.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Science is the best state of our knowledgeso far. When the scientific consensus changes on climate change, I'll adjust also.
Isn't that a tacit admission you are a sheep?
Think for yourself.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Austin Murrey: Fred, you can't claim science is science in the comments and mention scientific consensus as a determining factor about "climate change" (or global warming or global cooling as it used to be called). Saying science is settled because a number of people calling themselves scientists agree with a supposition is utterly nonsensical.
· 5 minutes ago
That's the nice thing about science: When proven otherwise, science adapts and accepts new ideas. It is not holy writ.
Science is the best state of our knowledge so far. When the scientific consensus changes on climate change, I'll adjust also. · 3 minutes ago
Fred, I think you've contradicted yourself. If you're saying you totally accept scientific consensus until you are instructed otherwise by the consensus, how is that different from Catholics accepting new teachings from the Church or Muslims receiving a ruling from a cleric?
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
You hit on some good points, but I think miss the target.
Many republicans, conservatives (they aren't the same), Tea Party, etc. are Christians. Christianity isn't a cafeteria where poeple pick up what they like and leave behind what they don't.
The Bible is God's Word authored by those he pre-ordained to record it. The first book in the Bible is Genesis, God created everything. I am a Christian and I hold God's creation as dear as I do Christ's resurrection.
Christianity is an affront to centralized power that succeeds through oppression and trumps the rights of individuals. The single biggest threat to progressive tyranny is Christianity.
Progressives try to discredit Christians so progressives can further tyranny. The MSM parrots the idea that believing creation = anti intellectual/anti science adding sensationalism 'Christians think Jesus rode a dinosaur to Jerusalem...'
There is room for evolution forward from the creation, all I have to do is visit the Alamo and duck under the doorways (I am 5'9") to know we evolve.
Progressives are anti Christian and paint believers as anti-intellectual to further progressive tyranny.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I object to the idea that people who don't come to the same conclusions as others are automatically anti-intellectual or anti-science.
As others have pointed out, science is a method, not a set of beliefs.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Because religion and science aren't the same [expletive] thing!
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AGW in just eight words.
I'm stealing that.
Jul '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
To paint "the left" with that broad brush is as inaccurate as it is to paint "the right" with the anti-intellectualism brush we're talking about here.
What you say is doubtless true about many on the left. We're not going to win over those for whom the progressive agenda is an article of faith.
But I am convinced that there are many people who voted for Obama despite deep reservations about his actual policies, simply because they perceive him (and Democrats in general) as being smarter.
It's not a question of defining ourselves according to their criticisms. It's a question of recognizing that some of their criticisms are not wrong, and that we can perhaps win them over if we address those deficiencies.
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 5:09pmNov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan: I object to the idea that people who don't come to the same conclusions as others are automatically anti-intellectual or anti-science.
As others have pointed out, science is a method, not a set of beliefs. · 2 minutes ago
True enough. There can be different interpretations to different data sets.
But if its proven, through the scientific method, that the Earth is round and you say that the Earth is flat, if you literally deny reality, then you're anti-intellectual.
Dec '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
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.
In normal circumstances I would agree, in this particular field I think the government has polluted the process.
Apr '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
But it doesn't need to be that way. Most religious people aren't anti- science. They need not be. But public perception is fueled by the actions of politicians and pundits on the right pandering to the anti-science crowd. · 33 minutes ago
Of course religious people need not (and should not) oppose the study of the natural world, but unfortunately the scientific establishment these days is deeply infected by philosophical commitments that are in no way intrinsically part of that study. The most recognizable mouthpieces for that establishment are little more than shoddy, mealy-mouthed philosophers. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the American public simply thinks that that is what science *is*. And if that's what you regard as science, then yes, religious people probably do need to be anti-science.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Sorry, hadn't intended to keep going, but, Fred, your post is full of flags. One is the term "denialism/denialist".
Or rather I should say "non-term". It is not a word, in either form. It is a made up thing supposed to frame the conversation about those who question the AGW alarmist (which is a real word, by the way) perspective. My Oxford American Dictionary contains neither form. I think it's because those using the term "denier" were uncomfortable with something that sounded so pharisaic. Well, "denialist" sounds no better to me, besides being made-up. What is it supposed to convey, beyond "denier"?
You use the term eight times, Fred. You're in deep.
Apr '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
[...]
It's not a question of defining ourselves according to their criticisms. It's a question of recognizing that some of their criticisms are not wrong, and that we can perhaps win them over if we address those deficiencies. · 2 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
Sure, I'll give you that. But what we need to do is get better at unashamedly defining what we really believe in and explaining clearly and simply why it's better. This is not the same thing as reacting to what the left says about us.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Guruforhire
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.
In normal circumstances I would agree, in this particular field I think the government has polluted the process. · 6 minutes ago
You might have a point, but the fields are too broad. Climate change evidence extends across too many disciplines. If it were corrupt scientists, it would have to be thousands, maybe tends of thousands, and they'd have to be in too many disciplines.
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
NoWayerMan: I object to the idea that people who don't come to the same conclusions as others are automatically anti-intellectual or anti-science.
As others have pointed out, science is a method, not a set of beliefs. · 2 minutes ago
True enough. There can be different interpretations to different data sets.
But if its proven, through the scientific method, that the Earth is round and you say that the Earth is flat, if you literally deny reality, then you're anti-intellectual. · 7 minutes ago
Ever read any Descartes?