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?
NoWayerMan
You have faith in scientists.
They have faith in God.
Either way, it's a matter of faith. · 5 minutes ago
Negative. Faith is when you believe a thing of which there is no evidence.
Trust is when you accept what well-sourced evidence tells you
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Mr. Bildo
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?
I don't think that's a fair characterization. I fail to see how differing on the age of the earth is relevant to foreign policy, or any other matter relevant to a politician's job. I don't care if they're a YEC or not.
Blanketly labeling these people as illogical, or at least invalid politically, because of one trivial issue seems a rather bigoted approach.
Most of the areas where it would matter shouldn't be matters of government policy anyway.
Republicans need to focus more on what is and is not the appropriate role of government, rather than how old the earth may be.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
NoWayerMan
You have faith in scientists.
They have faith in God.
Either way, it's a matter of faith. · 5 minutes ago
Negative. Faith is when you believe a thing of which there is no evidence.
Trust is when you accept what well-sourced evidence tells you · 0 minutes ago
That's a rather weak, semantic point.
They trust God.
You trust scientists.
There are many examples of scientists violating that trust. Can you cite evidence of God violating trust, or do you just have faith that God doesn't exist?
Regardless, there are many people who've declared their witness to evidence of God's work in their lives.
You may not "trust" them, but that's your choice.
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
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. · 4 minutes ago
No, it is not! I do not have 'faith' in scientists. I demand evidence. I will evaluate the evidence to the best of my ability. I demand that the scientific method be used in the gathering and interpretation of that evidence. I demand that theories be abandoned when the evidence no longer supports them.
However, I also have to accept that I am not an expert in all sciences. For example, I know very little about geology. So I have to accept the consensus opinion of the people who do, while also recognizing that the consensus only represents a snapshot of our best evidence to date. I've been alive long enough to see the scientific consensus change on a number of issues, so I don't take any of it on 'faith'.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson
So I have to accept the consensus opinion of the people who do, while also recognizing that the consensus only represents a snapshot of our best evidence to date.
This is a good point that is dealt with in the book "Nonsense on Stilts" by Massimo Pigliucci, where he addresses climate change.
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
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.
Bring on string theory!
"So, Mr. Rubio, how many dimensions do you think the universe has?"
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
That's a rather weak, semantic point.
TheytrustGod.
Youtrustscientists.
There are many examples of scientists violating that trust. Can you cite evidence of God violating trust, or do you just have faith that God doesn't exist?
Regardless, there are many people who've declared their witness to evidence of God's work in their lives.
You may not "trust" them, but that's your choice. · 7 minutes ago
I don't know where to begin with that one.
Jan '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I confess I skipped over the 8 pages of arguing about climate change and science vs. religion. :)
Thanks for this post, Fred. I will say this: "Intellecutal" is not the same thing as "Intelligence". See, e.g., New York Times editorial page. But the fact is that the Left and the Media, together with the Academy and Entertainment, have successfully painted Republicans as dummies.
Those they can't paint as dummies, they paint as evil. See, e.g., John Yoo, Mitt Romney.
I don't know that we need to change to defend ourselves against their efforts. The conservative philosophy is ancient in pedigree and ultimately intelligent in numerous ways.
I do know, however, that the Party had better rethink its messaging and its messengers.
Anyone seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4 This is Milton Friedman's 10-part series "Free to Choose". It was broadcast on public television. That was in 1980.
The money guys behind the disaster that was 2012 Elections should think about funding more projects like that one. Like... maybe... I don't know... Ricochet on TV maybe? Uncommon Knowledge on cable?
I'm available for hire by the RNC. :D
Oct '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
138 comments (Ed. 148) in, what, 3 hours?! I can't read them all, so I'll risk saying something already said.
1. The Dems have an equal number, probably more, of "very public boneheads." Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Weiner, Wasserman-Schulz, Maher, Matthews, need I continue?
3. The issue isn't climate change as much as it's "man-caused" climate change, and THAT is not settled science at all. Hell, neither is "climate change" because until recently it was "global warming," then "global weirding," until Earthly events proved those terms problematic. When the Left cannot answer the question, "What would it take for you to stop believing in man-caused global warming?", when their "science" is unfalsifiable, it ceases to be science and becomes religion.
So why do they get away with all their crap? Because they control the media, and all the OTHER levers of influence in America: the schools, universities, culture, TV, Hollyweird, pop music.
The perception of anti-intellectualism sticks because that's what all the levers of influence sell to the public.
Until we do things like this and this, nothing will change.
Edited on November 29, 2012 at 12:27amMar '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Group Captain Mandrake
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. · 3 minutes ago
The terms were a little on the ambiguous side, but that was on purpose. As good as any approximation can be, it is still not The Truth. It may be we cannot fully get there; indeed, since Gödel proved there are unprovable truths in any formal natural number system, it is unlikely that we can. One can't get much more simple than natural numbers.
Giving a probability would be fun, but even if I could, it would only be an approximation. :)
I was more taking a poke at the concept of "scientific consensus." Like the concept of "the science being settled," it is a chimera.
May '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Certainly these two positions are not comparable. Science is precisely based on the lack of "faith"
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson
I do not have 'faith' in scientists. I demand evidence.
I have to accept the consensus opinion of the people who do, while also recognizing that the consensus only represents a snapshot of our best evidence to date.
You have faith that they're presenting the best evidence, and that interpretation of that evidence bears out.
YECs often accept the empirical data and scientific method, it's the conclusions with which they differ. Some of them are even experts in the hard sciences and directly relevant fields.
You also seem to take as a matter of faith that future evidence won't completely eradicate current accepted theory (i.e. Voyager escapes local solar space and suddenly we find that intersolar spacetime behaves differently); otherwise why do you care so much?
If their belief isn't impossible, and has no impact on your belief, why does it matter?
It seems to me that you are behaving no differently than those who ridiculed ether skeptics. It's not good science to assume unknowns and unknowables. It's better to be agnostic in these areas.
Nov '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
NoWayerMan
You have faith in scientists.
They have faith in God.
Either way, it's a matter of faith. · 5 minutes ago
Negative. Faith is when you believe a thing of which there is no evidence.
Trust is when you accept what well-sourced evidence tells you · 20 minutes ago
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." and "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."
Nov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
dittoheadadt:
The perception of anti-intellectualism sticks because that's what all the levers of influence sell to the public.
Until we do things like this and this, nothing will change.
Hear hear!
While we keep fiddling arguing over salt and pepper we neglect to notice the waitstaff is peeing in the bowls.
"Why don't the customers like our food?!!?"
May '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan
Mr. Bildo
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?
I don't think that's a fair characterization. I fail to see how differing on the age of the earth is relevant to foreign policy, or any other matter relevant to a politician's job. I don't care if they're a YEC or not.
Blanketly labeling these people as illogical, or at least invalid politically, because of one trivial issue seems a rather bigoted approach.
Most of the areas where it would matter shouldn't be matters of government policy anyway.
Republicans need to focus more on what is and is not the appropriate role of government, rather than how old the earth may be.
You missed my point entirely.
We are talking about how people perceive Republicans, not specific issues.
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
NoWayerMan said:
This is an abuse of the term 'faith'. Faith means to accept without evidence. I accept nothing without evidence. I have evidence that the scientific community follows the scientific method, and that the peer-review process weeds out bad science. If I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I will modify my position, such as I have with global warming theory, to reflect the politicization of the field.
I find that hard to believe, since the scientific evidence against YEC is overwhelming. I suspect YEC believers only accept the scientific evidence that is convenient for their position and ignore the rest.
I did no such thing, and explicitly said so. If Voyager brings new evidence to the table, theories will have to be changed to accommodate it.
...continued
Aug '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Well for one thing, Republicans are losing elections over it. For another, I believe strongly in reason and evidence and the scientific method as the best way to understand our universe, and I will defend those ideas against those seeking to break them down for religious reasons.
Yes it is. That's why I've made no claim that certain theories are absolutely true. All theories are a snapshot in time - a coalition of our best evidence to date and our best theories as to what the evidence means. Science is always fluid.
A major difference between science and creationism is that science starts with evidence and builds up theories to explain it, while always being reading to abandon theory when presented new evidence. Creationists start with a conclusion, that God created everything, then only accept that science which fits in line with that predetermined conclusion.
Edited on November 29, 2012 at 12:59amNov '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson
Well for one thing, Republicans are losing elections over it.
I think this is the bigger issue, and I disagree with your assessment. If YECs aren't welcome in the GOP I think we'll lose more elections.
If we had a healthier media and social climate, and our government minded its own business, ~nobody would care about the YECs personal faith.
It doesn't matter and shouldn't be a political issue.
That's a more pro-freedom (libertarian?) position, and a stronger argument for people of all faiths.
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Funny that. I had just about given up on reading this thread, then I get home and find it's promoted.
Jun '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Dan Hanson: 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.
The high numbers (for both Democrats and Republicans) conceivably could be an effect of an anchoring heuristic rather than a real, preexisting understanding and/or belief. Let's be honest; to the average American, regardless of your political interests, the age of the Earth is not of very high relevance to you. One surely may have heard the figure at some point, but if one hasn't been involved with it directly, it's easy for that information to have been forgotten. So most people probably have no idea.
So when the pollster asks, "Is something shorter or longer than X?" the value of X "anchors" the answers around it, because the person being polled simply doesn't know.