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:
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
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. My creed demands that I profess faith in "One God" etc. When I go to Church I don't have to profess my faith in the age of the earth!
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...
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Science is not consensus, and never was. Also, mere consensus is not science. Those two words should never be used in the same sentence.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
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.
In the past when people have said things like "science proves X", or "we know Y" when I would try to correct them, I've been accused of being anti-science. I'm told I don't understand how science works.
Rather than responding to my post, why didn't you respond to Fred's when he claimed that science had proven something? Why does my post require correction / clarification, but Fred's does not?
Sloppy language in favor of current theory is often given a pass, whereas the skeptics are held to a much higher standard.
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 10:24pmMay '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
No. You want to know why people think Republicans are anti-intellectual? I'll give you an example: I'm driving down the road and I'm listening to talk-radio (because there is nothing else worth listening to). On comes Dennis Prager.
He gets on some rant about some issue, and almost universally, the rant ends up with a sentence which begins with "...and you can only believe this if you went to college! Only a university graduate could believe such and such!..."
At which point I immediately turn off the radio and begin yelling things at my radio which would break the Ricochet code of conduct.
Really guys? After it has become the pinnacle of "conservative" fashion to attack the university, intellectuals, academia etc., you are now surprised that people think you are anti-intellectual?
I would have through that was the intent.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
Rather than responding to my post, why didn't you respond to Fred's when he claimed that science had proven something? Why does my post require correction / clarification, but Fred's does not?
You posed a question and I provided an answer. I came across the thread when it was quite long and reading through the notes, yours struck me as something to which I could give a decent reply. I'm quite sure I could reply to many other of the postings, but I think it would be impolite of me to block up the thread with too many of my own musings.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Michael Labeit
There you have it, I suppose.
*shaking my head* ยท 22 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
I don't he means the same thing you do by "anti-Intellectual".
He's not against knowledge, nor the scientific method. He's against dogmatic thinking and false assurances of knowledge, if I understand him correctly.
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Can someone go back to first principles here and define the term "anti-intellectual" for me?
It seems like it's frequently used to mean "skeptical of those who attended Ivy League or other elite Universities". My experience with modern university education is that it's sole purpose is now credentialism, and that intellectualism has very little to do with the experience.
Some of the dumbest people I know have advanced degrees. Some of the smartest never went beyond High School.
If refual to aquiesce to the principles and policy preferences of anyone affiliated with an "elite" educational institute makes me "anti-intellectual', then I'm proud to embrace the label.
Semi-unrelated - was it Churchill, Orwell, or someone else who said that there are some ideas so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them?
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
He gets on some rant about some issue, and almost universally, the rant ends up with a sentence which begins with "...and you can only believe this if you went to college! Only a university graduate could believe such and such!..."
Perhaps he was thinking of Richard Feynman, to whom the following quotation is attributed:
"The theoretical broadening which comes from having many humanities subjects on campus is offset by the general dopiness of the people who study these things."
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
NoWayerMan
Rather than responding to my post, why didn't you respond to Fred's when he claimed that science had proven something? Why does my post require correction / clarification, but Fred's does not?
You posed a question and I provided an answer. I came across the thread when it was quite long and reading through the notes, yours struck me as something to which I could give a decent reply. I'm quite sure I could reply to many other of the postings, but I think it would be impolite of me to block up the thread with too many of my own musings.
I'm sorry, this is probably an example of my defensive hackles being raised within this forum. I did want to be sure my original comment's meaning was clear, it was an attempt at irony.
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 10:39pmMar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I think that there is a consideration here which should surface, that being global warming which has evolved (a scientific word) to climate change. I assume that it is now climate change because it did not globally warm. One of my impressions is that the melting occurring in the arctic (which is a fact) is being matched by the growth of the Antarctic ice shelves, which is another fact. As the arctic shrinks, the Antarctic grows. I am not sure if this means that you should book your ski vacation at McMurdo Sound, but that might work out better than a swim at the North Pole.
I find this of interest because it appears that a lot of scientists, having discovered the wonder of money, prostituted themselves to serve the political interests of Chicken Little and AlGore. The money, it turned out, was able to dictate the "facts" about global warming, even when those facts did not exist.
Carbon offset credits are an up and coming thing. Buy them now before the science catches up with the facts.
Once I heard about straining at gnats and swallowing camels. A lot of scientific camels for the scientific liberals to swallow whole.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
With all due respect, I question your premise, Fred.
:) ( <---smiley to indicate that I'm very nice even while questioning.)
The left has *always* accused the right of being anti-science, but honestly? I don't buy it now, and I see little evidence of it in history. Yes, yes, I know: Galileo. Seriously: For how many centuries exactly is the name Galileo going to be used, all by itself, to "prove" that Christianity is anti-science? Can I just get a ballpark number of years?
On the specific points:
1. The reason that boneheads on the right get nailed is because the media are overwhelmingly leftist. The prevailing narrative is leftist.
2. I am a Christian but not YE, so I really can't speak to this point at all.
3. I don't know *anyone* who denies that the climate changes or even that people influence that change in some way. Not one single person.
4. I don't even know what you mean by "evolution denialism." Do I believe that God created life? Yes. Do I believe that species adapt and change? Yes. Do I believe that apes turn into men? No. Am I a denier?
Sep '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I highly recommend Michael Crichton's lecture on global warming delivered at CalTech in 2003:
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Yes, because all of our problems today are caused by the illiterate rubes who ridicule the universities. Our intellectually bankrupt foreign policy, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank--all due to the idiocracy!
I sure am glad that we have had a string of Presidents educated at America's elite universities. Just think what horrible shape we would be in if the intellectuals were not in charge!
AIG
He gets on some rant about some issue, and almost universally, the rant ends up with a sentence which begins with "...and you can only believe this if you went to college! Only a university graduate could believe such and such!..."
At which point I immediately turn off the radio and begin yelling things at my radio which would break the Ricochet code of conduct.
ยท 7 minutes ago
Mar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG: He gets on some rant about some issue, and almost universally, the rant ends up with a sentence which begins with "...and you can only believe this if you went to college! Only a university graduate could believe such and such!..."
At one time, people going to college for a liberal arts degree went to learn. Given the times, it often appears that the people going to college merely parrot the instructor, which is important if one is there for the grade point average. If the instructor says everything is blue, then everything is blue whether it is actually blue or not.
The idea of working through an issue or problem and attempting to come up with an answer or a solution which differs from the person dictating the grade may not work so well.
Atheism mixed with multi-culturalism served on a PC plate, anyone?
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
I'm sorry, this is probably an example of my defensive hackles being raised within this forum. I did want to be sure my original comment's meaning was clear, it was an attempt at irony.
Fair enough. Today, I don't do irony. Tomorrow......
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Mazal tov Fred Cole! You made it to the main feed.
May '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
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 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...
John...what on Earth are you talking about? You're making zero sense.
Oct '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
Group Captain Mandrake
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.
In the past when people have said things like "science proves X", or "weknowY" when I would try to correct them, I've been accused of being anti-science. I'm told I don't understand how science works.
Rather than responding to my post, why didn't you respond to Fred's when he claimed that science had proven something? Why does my post require correction / clarification, but Fred's does not?
Sloppy language in favor of current theory is often given a pass, whereas the skeptics are held to a much higher standard. ยท 19 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
Maybe you have this all sorted out now, but I read your exchange as GC Mandrake supporting and building on your original statement. Not picking it apart.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Y'know what? I'd go further. I'd say that in fact it is the LEFT that is anti-science. Leftists would rather see millions of people die from malaria than risk that birds might be adversely affected by DDT. They hate dirty energy (coal) and they also hate clean energy (nuclear). In fact, the only energy they appear to like is "energy" that is inefficient and very costly. Many of these folks even admit that they believe that people are essentially a cancer on the earth. The fewer humans the better, which I suppose explains their disdain for inventions like DDT.
As far as I can tell, what leftists like about science is that they perceive it to be a stick with which they can beat theists. Except that traditionally Christians have been emphatically pro-science because we believe that God created the world and everything in it and that He wants us to learn everything there is to learn about said creation.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
So long as pundits and politicians on the right pander to the anti-intellectuals, then people on the left will continue to be able to ignore that history of Christian scholarship and smear all Christians as YECs.
I don't think it's fair to smear all YECs as anti-intellectual, nor as anti-science. They've come to a different conclusion, they have their own reasons.
I don't think it's "pandering" to show them respect.