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:
Feb '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
I can understand the frustration, but when Fred points out a perception of "anti-intellectualism", I believe this has a lot to do with the fact that we're fighting on the Progressive's chosen battlefield - trying to argue their apparently unassailable fact that society is best ruled by "experts", scientists, and intellectuals (progressives), not the collected wisdom of the community deffused through the ages (conservatism). This is where the mention of scientism is apt, conservatives have, always been skeptical of the perceived utopia that science can acheive, these days any questioning of scientific orthodoxy, no matter how legitimate is seen as lunicy the most the progressive mindset takes hold.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Kelly B
NoWayerMan
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. · 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.
Yeah, I think I misread it.
I was surprised to get an answer to a rhetorical question. It was meant as an ironic highlight.
I am admittedly sensitive on this topic for personal reasons.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
The responses here demonstrate why people think Republicans are anti-intellectual. Are you somehow demonstrating the opposite of the "group think" mentality you think universities instill on people? Or are you also repeating the same "spoon-fed" arguments which you heard on the Dennis Prager show?
But I'll say something more on this. It amazes me that close to 100% of the accusations against the university, particularly from people who are university professors (e.g. Dennis Prager, John Grant etc.) come from people who are from the "soft fields". These people have lived their entire lives in the soft fields in the universities, and not only proclaim to detest these environments, but also proclaim that the entire university consists of their own experiences.
I'd like to ask you a question? Do you detect a hint of self-importance? Do you think that the soft-fields from whence you come from, are representative of other sciences and field? Maybe, the soft fields are precisely irrelevant? Maybe, you can't attack science through your experiences in Russian history or philosophy?
Just saying, do you think engineering and science academicians find your broad accusations to be insulting?
Feb '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I've always liked this quote:
"There is, in truth, a terror in the world, and the arts have heard it as they always do. Under the hum of the miraculous machines and the ceaseless publications of the brilliant physicists a silence waits and listens and is heard. It is the silence of apprehension. We do not trust our time, and the reason we do not trust our time is because it is we who have made the time, and we do not trust ourselves. We have played the hero's part, mastered the monsters, accomplished the labors, become gods— and we do not trust ourselves as gods. We know what we are. In the old days when the gods were someone else, the knowledge of what we are did not frighten us, there were Furies to pursue the Hitlers and Athenas to restore the truth. But now that we are gods ourselves we bear the knowledge for ourselves, like that old Greek hero who learned when all the labors had been accomplished that it was he himself who had killed his son."
-Archibald McLeish
May '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
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.
I'd be quite confident in saying that young Earth creationists qua young Earth creationists are being anti-scientific.
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!..."
This is a version of the old line (mentioned elsewhere on this thread) "only an intellectual could believe such nonsense"; the point of which is to highlight the anti-intellectual nature of modern university.
Prager has a degree, Ivy league no less (Columbia). He's also a fellow at Stanford.
This is where we start violating the 11th commandment as a matter of course. We should give people the benefit of the doubt and try to understand their actual meaning, especially if they're on our team.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I am quite sure that the appropriate construction techniques for building a bridge, or an airplane, are best left to the experts. As is the composition of atoms, or human hormones.
The problem is that the "fashion" these days, among some "conservatives" is not to argue the point you just made (which obviously I agree with).
The "fashion" is to hold a universal disdain for all things "college", all things "academia". If Dennis Preger went on his radio show and said "you know, these particular people who teach philosophy and polisci are hacks", I may agree. But he doesn't say that. Instead, he equates his experiences in these (irrelevant imho) fields, with the entire university, and attacks, not only through association, but directly, every person who seeks to expend their knowledge through the university.
We glorify the ignorance of blue collar workers. Incidentally, this populist approach can never lead to "smaller limited government". Populism always leads to bigger more intrusive government.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
I was surprised to get an answer to a rhetorical question. It was meant as an ironic highlight.
Things like irony and even sarcasm are sometimes difficult to spot by the recipient of an e-mail, even though the sender knows it to be so. Is there an an "irony tag" like a "sarc tag"?
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG:
Maybe, you can't attack science through your experiences in Russian history or philosophy?
Maybe you can't attack history or philosophy with your science?
(irony, again)
May '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Precisely.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Which of course, I did not.
Oct '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Crow's Nest: 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.
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".
Hear, hear!
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG:
It amazes me that close to 100% of the accusations against the university, particularly from people who are university professors (e.g. Dennis Prager, John Grant etc.) come from people who are from the "soft fields". These people have lived their entire lives in the soft fields in the universities, and not only proclaim to detest these environments, but also proclaim that the entire universityconsists of their own experiences.
I don't think that's really fair. People you find in the media are largely from the "soft fields" because they're media professionals, a "soft field" profession. Hard scientists are notoriously bad on television.
I've known a number of hard-science professionals who've expressed great disdain for modern academia.
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
See, this is exactly the kind of pompous ass-baggery so many of us detest in so-called "intellectuals". Why do you assume that "blue collar" equates to "ignorance"?
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 11:16pmMar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
NoWayerMan
I was surprised to get an answer to a rhetorical question. It was meant as an ironic highlight.
Things like irony and even sarcasm are sometimes difficult to spot by the recipient of an e-mail, even though the sender knows it to be so. Is there an an "irony tag" like a "sarc tag"? · 6 minutes ago
Ok, so now that the two of you are done violently agreeing with each other, maybe you can go find something to fight amicably about.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
The problem is that the "fashion" these days, among some "conservatives" is not to argue the point you just made (which obviously I agree with).
The "fashion" is to hold a universal disdain for all things "college", all things "academia". If Dennis Preger went on his radio show and said "you know, these particular people who teach philosophy and polisci are hacks", I may agree. But he doesn't say that.
I think Prager is actually making the point you say you agree with (I don't think it's as obvious as you do). He's not attacking every person who attends university. Prager encourages people to expand their education, but he also wants people to know that modern university is often not a healthy environment.
Have you been on a college campus in the last 15 years?
I can't recall a specific instance with Prager, but I do often hear conservatives making the anti-university arguments give exception for the hard sciences.
Edited on November 28, 2012 at 11:21pmMay '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Well this goes to my point; they live in an echo chamber, and think that the echo chamber of the "chattering classes" is representative of "science", "academia", "the university" etc. It is not.
And the reason why the "chattering classes" come from those fields, and have inundated the airwaves, is because of the self-importance that people in those fields place upon themselves; self-importance which allows Dennis Preger or some other commentator to assume that their experiences in their limited field are transferable to other fields. With all due respect, they are not. Criticize your own field if you must, but don't criticize "science" or the rest of "academia".
Look at the argument posed above by John Grant: Barney Franks went to college, hence...
Mar '12
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."
I wasn't aware that science had a true church, thank you for that bit of inside knowledge.
I was defending the position that one can be a member of a religion, in my case Catholicism, and not be a no-nothing in regard to science. One can hold to the scriptures without mistaking them for a physics textbook. That, I thought, was a position that needed some defense and so I gave it.
As to the true church of science, does it have a brand name by which I can refer to it or point to it in the yellow pages? You seem to have a bit of familiarity with it and I would appreciate a response.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
John Grant:
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.
Neumann captures this nicely in his Appendix essay to Liberalism:
The choice for science is not scientific. As someone else put it:
[A] science which does not allow of value judgments has no longer any possibility of speaking of progress except in the humanly irrelevant sense of scientific progress: the concept of progress has accordingly been replaced by the concept of change. If science or reason cannot answer the question of why science is good, of why sufficiently gifted and otherwise able people fulfill a duty in devoting themselves to science, science says in effect that the choice of science is
cont'd:
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole,
Have you tried talking science with a liberal? My experience is that they haven't read any. Sure they can name a couple of issues like you listed above, but bring up any detail and you'll be greeted with anger because they haven't actually read anything but political talking points. Try these:
I've asked folks who accept AGW how much the average earth temperature rose in the 20th Century, and none have said they know. Isn't that fact the very reason for the issue?
On accepting evolution, I usually ask the liberal, "Which part?" Watch all those who never read Origin of Species squirm, not knowing that there are very distinct parts to the theory. The parts that can be tested I of course accept. Why would they accept the parts that can not be tested?
Have more fun: Ask if the Planck epoch suggests a supernatural beginning to the universe. Enjoy the reaction of the science wielding liberal.
One question for everyone about Young Earth Creationists: How many are there? I've asked this question before on Ricochet and no one knows the size of this group that apparently yields so many votes!