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 '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
cont'd, 2/2
not rational: one may choose with equal right pleasing and otherwise satisfying myths. Furthermore, science does no longer conceive of itself as the perfection of the human understanding; it admits that it is based on fundamental hypotheses which will always remain hypotheses. The whole structure of science does not rest on evident necessities. If this is so, the choice of the scientific orientation is as groundless as the choice of any alternative orientation. But what else does this mean except that the reflective scientist discovers as the ground of his science and his choice of science — a groundless choice — an abyss. For a scientific interpretation of the choice of the scientific orientation, on the one hand, and the choice of alternative orientations, on the other, presupposes already the acceptance of the scientific orientation. The fundamental freedom is the only non-hypothetical phenomenon. Everything else rests on that fundamental freedom.
--from "Existentialism," p. 309.
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
One of the problems the right faces is that the percentage of liberals in the sciences is extremely high, and therefore science has become politicized and used as a weapon against conservatives.
However, the answer is not to attack science, but to use science itself to attack the unscientific behavior of liberals. To do that requires an acceptance of science as our primary methodology for understanding the natural world.
Too often, conservatives go wrong by mindlessly attacking the basic science behind a liberal agenda rather than attacking the unscientific and spurious associations between the science and left-wing policy. For example, if a scientist says that pollution is causing X, and that results in liberals proposing destructive and useless statist solutions to the problem, the conservative temptation is to go after the science instead of the policy.
Specific to the claim that conservatives are anti-science, I'll just say that I have never received as many hostile responses on any other subject as I have when attempting to defend science on Ricochet.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I'm a PhD student. One would hope I have been on campus lately.
Oh yes he is.
I don't assume any such thing. The glorification is precisely of "ignorance". This is not only implicitly stated, it is explicitly stated in anti-academia discourse among some "conservatives". And this is becoming almost a "fashion statement".
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Michael Labeit
I'd be quite confident in saying that young Earth creationistsquayoung Earth creationists are being anti-scientific.
I only think that works if you accept science as a set of beliefs.
YECs aren't universally against the scientific method. They disagree with certain conclusions.
Many of their beliefs may be unscientific (ie, based on faith) - but this doesn't equate to being anti-science. In my experience, most of them believe the science will work out in their favor in the long run. They take exception to the dogmatic insistence that they behave as if science has proven their beliefs to be wrong.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
I'm a PhD student. One would hope I have been on campus lately.
One would hope.
AIG
Oh yes he is.
Then he's attacking himself.
I think you're being overly sensitive here. Rather than turning off the radio and screaming obscenities I would suggest listening to his actual argument.
Mar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Tommy De Seno: 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!
I don't know either, but it is a certainty that they get press for their position. Their take on this is that God made an old earth not so long ago. If one were to try and be exact, we live on a 4.6 billion year old planet that was formed about 6,000 years ago. There is a bit of a disparity in those numbers, 4,600,000,000 and 6,000.
It is not an interesting take, it is the use of Genesis as the basis for dating the age of this world.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Tommy De Seno:
Have you tried talking science with a liberal? My experience is that they haven't read any. Surethey can name a couple of issues like you listedabove, but bring up any detail and you'll be greeted with angerbecause they haven't actually readanything but political talking points.
Oh, I'm sure this is true of a lot of liberals. As I mentioned in the original post, my cousin is anti-nuclear power and buys organic peanut butter. Both things show a lack of scientific belief.
As far as Christian sects go, only a small number subscribe doctrinally to Young Earth Creationism. For example, anyone who accepts the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is not a YEC.
This article lists seven distinct kinds of creationism, only two of which are YEC. Most are Old Earth Creationism, accepting the current scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the universe.
The YECs are the loudest though and get the most press.
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
I don't assume any such thing. The glorification is precisely of "ignorance". This is not only implicitly stated, it is explicitly stated in anti-academia discourse among some "conservatives". And this is becoming almost a "fashion statement". · 7 minutes ago
Hw can you claim you don't assume that, when I was quoting YOU saying that "we glorify the ignorance of Blue Collar workers"?!
And I'm still waiting for someone to give me a generic definition of "anti-intellectual".
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Percival
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.
He still owes me a Guinness.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson:
Too often, conservatives go wrong by mindlessly attacking the basic science behind a liberal agenda rather than attacking the unscientific and spurious associations between the science and left-wing policy.
Too often, conservatives are attacked as anti-science when they attempt to do exactly that.
Dan Hanson:
Specific to the claim that conservatives are anti-science, I'll just say that I have never received as many hostile responses on any other subject as I have when attempting to defend science on Ricochet.
In my case you received a hostile response because you were "defending science" from attacks I never made.
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
This gets to the question of what a layman should believe vs how a scientist should behave. Of course scientists should not just accept consensus as truth; the history of science is full of consensus theories that were later proven to be wrong. Scientists should go where the data and theory lead them, and to always be prepared to abandon what they thought they knew when presented evidence to the contrary.
However, a layman is different. Not being educated in their particular scientific field, it's perfectly acceptable for a layman to defer to the consensus of scientists until the consensus changes. As someone who believes in science, the scientific method, and in general the institutions of modern science such as peer review, I'm perfectly happy to accept a consensus opinion of scientists when my own knowledge won't suffice.
If I'm presented evidence that bad science is going on, that's another
matter. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so until I have that evidence, consensus wins.
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
YECs aren't universally against the scientific method. They disagree with certain conclusions.
Many of their beliefs may be unscientific (ie, based on faith) - but this doesn't equate to being anti-science.
Rejecting empirical evidence and refusing to follow the scientific method because your faith tells you to is the very definition of being 'anti-science'.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
Percival
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.
He still owes me a Guinness. · 6 minutes ago
More than one, I think. I did say "rounds".
I thought we were fighting amicably...
:-)
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson
NoWayerMan
YECs aren't universally against the scientific method. They disagree with certain conclusions.
Many of their beliefs may be unscientific (ie, based on faith) - but this doesn't equate to being anti-science.
Rejecting empirical evidence and refusing to follow the scientific method because your faith tells you to is the very definition of being 'anti-science'. · 1 minute ago
Not all of them do that. Some do, but so do some scientists.
Like I said before, most YECs in my experience believe adhering to the scientific method with eventually prove them out.
I think you're making too many assumptions and are to quick to react to perceived attacks on science when people attempt to critique poorly executed scientific methods.
Mar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Prior to the discovery of every major advance in scientific knowledge, there existed a "scientific consensus" that was consistent, coherent, and wrong.
The amount that the consensus was wrong by is directly proportional to the significance of the advance.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I have. I'm not impressed. By the time I hear them for the 10th time, the only option left is to turn off the radio.
Because it does not follow from my statement that blue collar workers are ignorant.
Yes I think that in this area, and most others, the problem is not necessarily the opinions of the majority of "conservatives", "Republicans", "libertarians" etc, but rather that the public opinion on them has been co-opted by the "loud minority". But this is how the minority turns the majority, so there is reason to be careful.
May '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson
NoWayerMan
YECs aren't universally against the scientific method. They disagree with certain conclusions.
Many of their beliefs may be unscientific (ie, based on faith) - but this doesn't equate to being anti-science.
Rejecting empirical evidence and refusing to follow the scientific method because your faith tells you to is the very definition of being 'anti-science'.
Exactly!
When climatologists cherry pick facts to support their bias they aren't invoking magic to do so. Luckily you can prove them wrong with facts and evidence. I think a lot of people here are glad about that.
When it comes to people like YEC's, none of it matters, because in the end they will claim magic and the debate is over. Is that the world you want to live in? Would you want a YEC politician making decisions about the climate? Foreign policy? Or anything? How would congressional debate work when science is thrown out and it all comes down to magic? There is no common ground, no accepted form of debate. It's just your magic against my magic at that point.
This is the very essence of viewing the right as anti-science.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson
As someone who believes in science, the scientific method, and in general the institutions of modern science such as peer review, I'm perfectly happy to accept a consensus opinion of scientists when my own knowledge won't suffice.
You have faith in scientists.
They have faith in God.
Either way, it's a matter of faith.
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Tommy De Seno asks:
Gallup: One third of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.
Gallup: Republicans, Democrats differ on creationism
From that last link, the Gallup survey found that 60% of Republicans believe that God created the earth as-is roughly 10,000 years ago. That's a huge percentage, and far higher than I thought it would be.
Interestingly, 38% of Democrats said the same thing, yet they're never called on it. And 47% of the population as a whole claim to be young-earth creationists.
This illustrates the Republican's dilemma: It's not just Republicans that are anti-science - it's a vast swath of the entire public. But only Republicans seem to get smeared by the accusation. If a Republican politician says he prays for guidance, the media will caricature him as a crazy Bible-thumper. But if Barack Obama says the same thing (and he does), no one cares.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Percival: Prior to the discovery of every major advance in scientific knowledge, there existed a "scientific consensus" that was consistent, coherent, and wrong.
I would qualify "wrong". Newtonian mechanics has been replaced by relativity and quantum mechanics but at a macroscopic level with weak gravitational fields, it still "works" and can be applied to many useful calculations. It would be better to say that it's an approximation to relativity and quantum mechanics, rather than saying that it's wrong.