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:
Jan '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole:
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.
I agree with Fred on this, especially regarding the low-hanging fruit of Young Earth Creationism.
Stipulating that I'm a laymen, my impression with Climate Science -- specifically regarding claims of AGW -- is that it's an unusually fraught field with an usual combination of direct political and financial implications and an exceedingly complicated set of variables (Step 1: accurately simulate a planet). Given those factors and it's relative novelty, I'm leery of claims that its claims are "settled," even if they're probably (mostly) correct.
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
This process is less foolproof then you appear to assume. There is a serious problem with fraud in the scientific community:
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 9:06pmNov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
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! · 42 minutes ago
That's my point...
Here we have a science advocate using lazy language to advocate for science. On other threads when I say it's wrong to use such language, I'm lambasted for being anti-science and not understanding how science works.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me here, or contradicting...
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Donald Todd: I am a convert to Roman Catholicism, out of evangelicalism.
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.
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 about30,000 years ago, human or pre-human beings existed, if the carbon dating techniques are recognized.
History apparently is recognized as about6,000 years...
Well summarized, Don. Concerning your conversion from evangelicalism, I wish to point out that in a sense that is irrelevant.
My own cosmological outlook accords closely with what you have outlined here, and I am an evangelical. Heck, in the usual taxonomy of world views as generally articulated, I'm probably a "fundamentalist" (I just don't use the term because frankly it appears to be meaningless as used today). "Evangelical" is no synonym for "anti-intellectual".
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me here, or contradicting... · 4 minutes ago
I mean specifically that none of the scientists whose works I have read has ever claimed that science proves anything in the sense of a mathematical proof. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to regard a theory as "good" when an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence supports it, and it makes testable predictions which also support the theory. This is why I regard evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics as good theories. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, scientific theories are subject to revision, and my scientific beliefs may be mistaken, but I think that is unlikely to be the case based on my current information.
I remember watching John Maynard Smith, Richard Dawkins, Lord Winston, Arthur Peacocke and David Berlinski in a debate. Somebody in the audience asked Maynard Smith if he could be mistaken. He recalled Oliver Cromwell's words to the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken," and said that he could be wrong but based on current scientific understanding he thought that it was unlikely.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
NoWayerMan
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me here, or contradicting... · 4 minutes ago
I mean specifically that none of the scientists whose works I have read has ever claimed that science proves anything in the sense of a mathematical proof.
I wasn't requesting a statement of faith.
I was attempting to highlight an example of someone overstepping the bounds of science by using the word "prove"; it artificially inflates the veracity of scientific claims.
The scientists you have read in other venues may not have used the word in that fashion, but Fred did in this venue.
Your post seemed to be an attempt to correct my position. I'm wondering where you think I was wrong that I needed correction.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
NoWayerMan
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me here, or contradicting... · 4 minutes ago
This is why I regard evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics as good theories. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, scientific theories are subject to revision, and my scientific beliefs may be mistaken, but I think that is unlikely to be the case based on my current information.
This is why I get so frustrated with these conversations. Because I advocate for more skepticism and an open-minded approach, and fight against the dismissal and derision of those with other viewpoints, I'm automatically lumped into the idiot box and people begin arguing against points I didn't make. I spend so much time trying to prove that I didn't say something I didn't say, my actual points never seem to be considered.
I.E. I highlight AGW as an example of bad science, and then I'm told I can't attack science because of some bad scientists.
I've never attacked science.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
Your post seemed to be an attempt to correct my position. I'm wondering where you think I was wrong that I needed correction.
Please read note #56 again. You quoted Fred and added just one sentence of your own, "If I point out that science doesn't "prove" things, am I anti-science?" My response was to that sentence alone.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
Group Captain Mandrake
NoWayerMan
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me here, or contradicting... · 4 minutes ago
This is why I regard evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics as good theories. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, scientific theories are subject to revision, and my scientific beliefs may be mistaken, but I think that is unlikely to be the case based on my current information.
This is why I get so frustrated with these conversations....
I.E. I highlight AGW as an example of bad science, and then I'm told I can't attack science because of some bad scientists.
I've never attacked science. · 4 minutes ago
I don't see any logical conclusion to this. There's nothing whatever in my reply to suggest that you're an idiot. Furthermore, I would argue that I have precisely the open-minded skeptical approach that you advocate.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
I mean specifically that none of the scientists whose works I have read has ever claimed that science proves anything in the sense of a mathematical proof.
I agree with this but take exception to the continual use of "science" here as if it were a homogeneous abstract category and that it is somehow distinct from "mathematics".
This contradicts my daily experience. In point of fact, I am a professor in a Faculty of Science at a major Canadian university, with three postsecondary degrees, including PhD, in my discipline. I do research and publish that research in peer-reviewed journals of that discipline, and have won grants and a prestigious award on the basis of my research.
Would you say, considering the above, that I am a "scientist", and my research is "science"?
What would you say if I told you that the research I publish is proven, "in the sense of a mathematical proof"?
Would it change your answers to any of the above if I added that I am a mathematician and that my posting is, like that of most math professors, in a Department of Mathematics within a Faculty of Science?
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
This is where modern scientific practice has gone off the rails, but perhaps it isn't all that new.
Anyone expressing skepticism towards the currently accepted dogma is fiercely attacked. Lots of assumptions are made from a single expression of doubt: that the skeptic is anti-science, or doesn't understand the physics, or is highly religious, or is stupid, or is intellectually incurious.
The substance of the comments are rarely addressed directly.
There's also a practice of bad faith. Rather than trying to understand the point someone is trying to reach, specific vocabulary is picked apart into irrelevant detail. Illustrations are disproved through their scientific inaccuracy rather than trying to elicit the meaning behind the allusion.
When Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe." he wasn't speaking of literal dice, yet often the "scientific" response to such a statement seems the equivalent of "there isn't nearly enough ivory in the universe to create dice sufficiently large."
The history of science isn't one of open-minded truth seeking. It skips from dogma to dogma, peppered with isolated individuals speaking against consensus who are routinely persecuted until the current dogma dies out.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
I don't see any logical conclusion to this. There's nothing whatever in my reply to suggest that you're an idiot. Furthermore, I would argue that I have precisely the open-minded skeptical approach that you advocate.
I didn't mean to imply you were make that implication, nor that you have a closed mind. Quite the contrary, I've enjoyed our discussion.
But your response is a minor example of what I'm talking about. I don't know why you elaborated on your beliefs in such a way and I still don't know if you were quoting me in support or trying to show how I was wrong; or something else entirely.
What was your point?
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
But your response is a minor example of what I'm talking about. I don't know why you elaborated on your beliefs in such a way and I still don't know if you were quoting me in support or trying to show how I was wrong; or something else entirely.
What was your point?
My point was to highlight what a scientist would say about scientific theory, that it was not a proof in the sense of a deductive logical proof but that nevertheless it carried a high probability of being accurate. I was simply trying to show that all the scientists of my acquaintance are open-minded and skeptical.
May '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
There you have it, I suppose.
*shaking my head*
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 10:17pmNov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
R. Craigen
I agree with this but take exception to the continual use of "science" here as if it were a homogeneous abstract category and that it is somehow distinct from "mathematics".
This contradicts my daily experience. In point of fact, I am a professor in a Faculty of Science at a major Canadian university, with three postsecondary degrees, including PhD, in my discipline. I do research and publish that research in peer-reviewed journals of that discipline, and have won grants and a prestigious award on the basis of my research.
Would you say, considering the above, that I am a "scientist", and my research is "science"?
The distinction is between mathematics as a deductive process, proving statements that are logically true and science as an inductive process testing and verifying the strength of hypotheses. Alfred Ayer once wrote that an all-knowing being would not study mathematics. It would all be self-evident. He or she (or it) might well study science, however. I'm afraid I can't answer your other question because I don't know the nature of your work. My experience as a scientist was exactly in line with what I wrote earlier.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
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.
May '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Christian and USC philosphy professor Dallas Willard speaks about how Christianity has completely been taken out of the realm of what is understood to be "knowledge." This may be good or bad, depending on your perpsective.
What is undisputed is that conservatives are not represented in academia and it is a tool of the left. Assuming that conservative policies are indeed better than liberal policies, the movement needs to do the hard work of getting back into academia. This applies to the media and entertainment too.
These sorts of changes have happened in the past. Academia used to be dominated by the religious and that has changed.
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I like the way you say "denying science." A few hundred years ago, the Inquisition would have said you were "denying the faith."
Your faith in the scientific consensus is interesting. You are living proof of Nietzsche's observation that faith in Christianity has been replaced by faith in science. Unlike you, Nietzsche realized that faith was the enemy of genuine science.
I recommend that you read Bacon's _New Atlantis_ for a more balanced view. Bacon, one of the great proponents of modern science, was aware that there were dangers in placing faith in science. Rousseau's _First Discourse_ would be helpful too.
The new heretics ("denialists") don't deny the Trinity (that is of course perfectly acceptable today); modern heretics dare to defy the scientific consensus.
The type of adherence to a shifting scientific consensus which you advocate fits the way Marxists in the USSR had to be ready to profess their faith when the Party shifted course. German good/Germany bad=Climate warming/climate cooling.
Fred Cole
If you think Noah's Flood carved the Grand Canyon, then you're literally denying science. · 4 hours ago
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Peter having a chit-chat with David Berlinksi. Worth reviewing for this discussion.
Mar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
R. Craigen: Well summarized, Don. Concerning your conversion from evangelicalism, I wish to point out that in a sense that is irrelevant.
Point taken.
I have a sense that a portion of the evangelicals, the fundamentalist types, are also the Young Earth Creationists. I did not believe that when I was converted from atheism to evangelical Christianity, and nothing occurred for me in the move from evangelicalism to Catholicism. I did note that Catholicism has historically had an open attitude toward science of the proven kind, but not toward scientism which is a competing belief system.