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:
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
R. Craigen:
You use the term eight times, Fred. You're in deep. · 5 minutes ago
If that's all you've got on me, I must be in good shape.
I used the word on purpose. It gave me a squiggly red underline each time (I use Chrome as a browser, and it has a spell checker). I used it because the term is common in the skeptical community.
And it suits perfectly. If you think Noah's Flood carved the Grand Canyon, then you're literally denying science.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Because religion and science aren't the same [expletive] thing!· 14 minutes ago
Fred, my point isn't that they're the same, it's that based on your statements you're treating them the same way - you believe that something is true because a higher authority assures you it is, and if they change their mind so will you.
Aug '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Liberals are convinced that science is on their side. Republicans hope that God is on their side. Liberals see faith as abandonment of reason. Republicans see faith as acceptance of good. These differences conflict. Conservative fundamentalists do suspend reason in favor of faith just as Liberals often conflate "good" with the politic or convenient but immoral.
I do disagree with you on Climate Change. I think the "science" of manmade climate change is easily refuted on scientific, that is "intellectual" grounds. Sure the climate changes, but the question is, why? Climate history does not point to CO2 level as particularily important or potent a factor. In fact, it would appear to be a lagging indicatory, that is a result of warming, not a cause. Which makes perfect sense. It is not anti-intellectual to question man made global warming.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Science is the best state of our knowledge so far. When the scientific consensus changes on climate change, I'll adjust also. · 21 minutes ago
That's a bad way to do science, Fred. Now I'm not assuming you're a scientist yourself. Perhaps you can be excused for this classical appeal-to-authority. But don't underrate your own ability to evaluate competing claims. Turn on your cr*p-meter and listen to both sides for a bit.
I highly recommend Anthony Watt's site as a good clearinghouse for the "skeptic" side. A number of bona fide climate scientists post there regularly, including some, like Judith Curry, who are not associated with the skeptic camp.
Some of this is profoundly difficult science. Fortunately, much of the data pertaining to matters of public interest are quite transparent to non-experts. For example, consider the million-year ice record correlating CO2 levels and temperature, famously and spectacularly used in Al Gore's film. What Al doesn't mention is that there is an 800-year lag in the CO2 figures: CO2 trails temperature. The causal relationship is the opposite of what the alarmists say.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
I used it because the term is common in the skeptical community.
And it suits perfectly. If you think Noah's Flood carved the Grand Canyon, then you're literally denying science. · 7 minutes ago
The only place the term is used in the skeptical community is to point out the absurdity of the term, used by AGW alarmists. I was afraid that the term suited you perfectly.
Why not use the term "denier"? And be clear about what you believe is being "denied"?
What does this issue have to do with "Noah's flood"? That's quite a leap. Do you know anything about what skeptics are actually saying on this issue?
Jan '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Well, are we really taking here about anti-intellectualism ...
... or anti-religion?
Believe me, as an ex-Jesuit, I've seen disrespect for the Catholic Church, including an open contempt for priests accelerated by the scandals and coverups, multiply exponentially the last few years.
Liberal Catholicism is celebrated, especially the kind of Catholicism that doesn't ask you to discipline yourself or restrict any desire in any way. In most of American culture, if you "care about the poor," you can have (and advocate) sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere. If you "care," that makes you a good person. Mainline Protestant churches have gone openly liberal. And who do we have on the religious right? Islam. And - in Charles Murray's terms - bible-thumpers (evangelicals).
I'm wondering if the constant contempt for traditional religion has penetrated the American collective subconscious, to the point that topics that are labeled as "religious" are dismissed immediately, before any serious consideration.
Except for Filipinos, most immigrant east Asians don't give a whit about traditional western religion. They might agree with the idea of fiscal restraint, but "religious issues" don't compel them, and may likely turn them off.
Dec '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Anyway we are getting off track here. I will unhijack your thread.
I agree that there is anti-intellectualism on the right. There is a certain amount of anti-intellectualism on the left, especially in their dismissal of things as anti-intellectualism.
I think the fundamental root of the liberal criticism is their faith in technocracy, and the conservative rejection of the wisdom of the technocracy.
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
No time for reading the other comments. I'm just shocked and appalled (and trying not to scream by using ALL CAPS!) that you, Fred, of all people are going to go there about Climate Change Deniers.
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, has done more to damage the credibility of science than climate change pseudo-science as a means to political ends. Michael Crichton was quite eloquent on this.
The guile behind "climate change" science is horrifying. Or should be to any good skeptic. Ostensible "scientists" with skin in the climate science game won't even engage Anthony Watts (who has very methodically documented the lousy data gathering techniques for years), or talk about the atmospheric effects of cosmic radiation and solar activity. The computer models suck (and I hate that word). To date, they have no predictive value. Why are we so obsessed about CO2 when methane has a much greater forcing effect? A large number of the "scientists" signing onto the IPCC aren't even meterologists/atmospheric physicists/climate scientists. They're biologists with a special interest in some endangered toad in the Amazon. The state of climate science is just appalling because of its politicization.
Jul '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
As to the question of of the perception of anti-intellectualism, there are a set of canonized distortions, i.e. all climate change skeptics deny the climate is changing, and amplifications, i.e. Todd Akin is placed as a surrogate for the Republican platform on abortion. Both add to the perception of the right as anti-science. Both are specifically crafted to discredit Republicans no matter what they say. Why ask Rubio a young earth question? For the sake of distortion, and if he manages to muck up, his answer will be amplified.
Mar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I am a convert to Roman Catholicism, out of evangelicalism.
I believe in an expanding universe, approximately 13.75 billion years old, give or take 1.5 billion years in either direction if the physicists are correct.
I believe our own solar system is approximately 4.6 billion years old.
Given the seismic activity of a cooling earth, it was a long time before human beings appeared on the stage of this planet. I have read differing accounts, but it appears that about 30,000 years ago, human or pre-human beings existed, if the carbon dating techniques are recognized.
History apparently is recognized as about 6,000 years, given that we have evidence of cities and all that exist in cities.
There is the fact that we cannot identify what pre-existed our expanding universe. We cannot date what we cannot identify. We don't know what happened to bring about creation in any sense that a physicist or cosmologist could explain. The best theories, such as the big bang, cannot account for where the energy or material came from that were involved in the theory.
Am I anti-intellectual? A YEC? A politician stumbling over his tongue?
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I'll simply say that there are those of us who would defend the intellect against the mere intellectual, and wisdom from the moral decrepitude of sophistry, and leave it at that.
As far as the more garden variety of "anti-intellectualism" which you've limned, I think we are largely on the same side there.
But, of course, in our present moment the 6,000-yr-earth-age creationist is far less dangerous in our political arena than is the nihilist Leftist, whatever cloak he chooses to don--even if it is "science".
The same man who passionately and furiously "believes" in science today, rages against anyone who dare question consensus, and considers this all very unproblematic would, a mere few centuries ago (that is, a mere accident away), have been the most vicious, fanatical Savonarolla-style zealot. He no more possess knowledge than my cat does.
Jul '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
As to the question of religion and science, Christians are all over the board concerning how the two fit together to form a coherent worldview. The agreement among conservatives should boil down to never arguing that science is "settled," which I would never accuse anyone here of doing, being a pack of ravenous skeptics, and respecting religions' right to have the government stay out of their business, particularly at the federal level. Both of these can be agreed upon by the majority of Americans, no mater how anti-intellectual the party appears.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
You know, I once said to a particularly ineffective English professor at Skidmore College, back in 1985:
"I would rather blow my brains out than do with them what you have done with yours."
I am now once more inclined to say this - to Liberal Intellectuals.
Apr '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I'd say I hate to nitpick, but let's face it, I love to nitpick:
1) Two fallacies here: Attack ad hominem and the fallacy of composition. The first is the claim that Akin is an idiot (rather than mistaken on his assertion). The second fallacy states that if we accept Akin is a bonehead, then all conservatives are like him. Interestingly, Liberals recognize what this is, because if one attempts to hoist them by their own petard, they'll complain that said individual does not represent them as a whole -- they never allow conseratives the same latitude. Mostly because liberals are hypocrites (who like to call conservative hypocrites.
3) Fred, you continually claim you're using the Climate Change denier/denialist terms properly, but this has been used almost exclusively as a way to dismiss those who are skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You've accepted the Progressive's false dichotomy: That if you're against AGW, then you're against Climate Change at all.
AGW-proponents have made poor predictions and false claims, yet still are protected from being labelled unscientific. That's because only Deniers are unscientific to the Progressives.
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 10:25pmJul '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole:
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. · 1 hour ago
You may be underestimating how incestuous academia has become. My understanding is that if you swim against the tide, it is virtually impossible to get research funding, tenure, or editorial approval from refereed journals. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't suggest that it's all corruption; it's just the current scientific fashion, and the current state of politics in the academic world.
This sort of thing isn't limited to climate science. Lee Smolin's fascinating book "The Trouble With Physics" describes the serious problems with string theory, which has dominated theoretical physics for decades (despite the fact that it may be a dead end). Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to obtain an academic post in the field if you pursue any other line of research. It's not a conspiracy to suppress anything, but just the natural result when one view comes to dominate.
Nov '12
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. · 2 hours ago
If I point out that science doesn't "prove" things am I anti-science?
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Yes, I agree with you. I would recommend to any of the readers of this thread that they listen to this podcast.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
If I point out that science doesn't "prove" things am I anti-science?
If you are then so are those many excellent scientists who have pointed out the very same thing!
May '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Scientism IS a Liberal...not conspiracy, but anti-Christian religious faith which is equally unsupported by science. And the Liberal adherent to Scientism are less tolerant than Muslims toward other world views.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Because religion and science aren't the same [expletive] thing!· 3 hours ago
It's true that they aren't the same thing. However human behavior can treat them as the same thing. When that happens you have what C.S. Lewis called "scientism" -- a pseudo-religious world view based on authoritative pronouncements under the mantle of science and the tacit acceptance of same on dogmatic grounds.
You haven't answered the critique, which is apt. Your sheep-like deference to "scientific consensus" on this issue is scientism -- not science.