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:
Oct '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Why this perception? In part because people like Fred Cole perpetuate it.
Mar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG
This is not strictly true. Scientists do not invent scientific knowledge, they discover them. If science is the discovery of knowledge, the scientist must have faith that there is knowledge out there to discover.
Scientists must have faith that their methods are sound, their data are correct and their results are unbiased. They must have faith that their equations accurately describe what happens in nature.
Science requires faith that the "laws" of nature are constant. A scientist must believe that gravity will always operate in accord with the equations used to describe it.
Most early scientists had faith in the laws of nature because of their Judeo-Christian belief that God was not arbitrary and, therefore, any natural laws they discovered would not change.
This is why the Islamic world has so few scientific achievements. In Islam, god is arbitrary and could change the law of gravity should
he decide to. Why study something that could change at any time?
Apr '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Perceptions of Republicans have to be made one person at a time. A Republican as defined by his or her opposition will always be the ignoramus at best and the fanatic at worst. We who hold conservative values mustn't be that caricature. Leftists avoid these labels less by addressing substance and argument and more by changing terms (progressive, climate change vs liberal, global warming). Put differently, be more Dennis Prager and less Todd Akin.
Oct '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
AIG:
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 theentire universityconsists of their own experiences.
If you are going to cite Dennis Prager, you ought to listen to him enough to know what you're talking about. He routinely distinguishes between the excellence of American colleges' hard fields and the lamentable state of the soft disciplines.
Edit - I posted my comment assuming that you were arguing in good faith but have only limited familiarity with Prager. Then I read your comment claiming that you have listened to Prager's arguments 10 times. Either that claim is false or you are willfully misrepresenting what Prager has said. Is that the way one opposes anti-intellectualism?
Edited on November 29, 2012 at 2:29amDec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Guruforhire
You are assuming a lack of corruption and financial incentive. · in 0 minutes
I'm assuming no such thing. I am, however, assuming that corrupt scientists are in the extreme minority that the peer review process and human ego help to neutralize it. Nothing like one-upping one of your peers and proving they're wrong. · 9 hours ago
You are just wrong. AGW skeptics cannot get published in "consensus" journals. One of the major effects of climate pseudoscience is the utter corruption of the peer review process.
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Michael,
Did you not notice the two "I believe" statements?
JG
Michael Labeit
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. · 3 hours ago
Nov '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Western Chauvinist
Fred Cole
Guruforhire
You are assuming a lack of corruption and financial incentive. · in 0 minutes
I'm assuming no such thing. I am, however, assuming that corrupt scientists are in the extreme minority that the peer review process and human ego help to neutralize it. Nothing like one-upping one of your peers and proving they're wrong. · 9 hours ago
You are just wrong. AGW skeptics cannot get published in "consensus" journals. One of the majoreffects of climate pseudoscience is the utter corruption of the peer review process. · 3 minutes ago
Ah the old science conspiracy. It's the same thing that keeps down zero point energy and homeopathy.
Produce good science with conclusions well grounded in solid data and you'll get published. But if you run counter to the existing scientific consensus without sufficient evidence to back it up and, yeah, you're going to have trouble getting published.
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I didn't level any charges AIG. Your respect for intellectual life apparently doesn't extend to reading short posts.
I am interested to see that your respect for intellectuals only extends to the "hard fields." So it is ok to criticize the "soft fields?"
I have great respect for scientists and mathematicians.
AIG: 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 theentire universityconsists of their own experiences.
Just saying, do you think engineering and science academicians find your broad accusations to be insulting? · 3 hours ago
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
FireLeaf: ...
Despite your and my views on religion, the fact is a great many smart people believe in it (or at least have never questioned beliefs they absorbed as children), including many left-leaning Americans.
...
Typical atheist conceit. People of faith (especially smart ones) are constantly questioning. You and Fred just can't accept that smart believers find satisfactory answers in their faith.
You're much less likely to question your unbelief than the smart believer is to question his belief. If you don't believe me, just ask G.K. Chesterton, or C. S. Lewis.
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Hi Donald,
I can't figure out why you feel it is necessary to say what you "believe" in regard to the age of the earth.
Belief and science don't go together. One can be a believer and pursue scientific knowledge. But it is not possible to say anything about science that is a matter of belief. Science or knowledge (of course science means knowledge) is not a matter of belief. Don't take my word for it--read the first couple questions of the second part of the second part of the _Summa Theologiae_.
Believers profess their faith because it is the will of God and necessary for salvation, right? Why profess belief that the world is "x" amount of billion years old? All you did below was prove that one can profess belief in a particular denomination and in the world being really old. Your professions have nothing to do with science.
Donald Todd:
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.
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole
Ah the old science conspiracy. It's the same thing that keeps down zero point energy and homeopathy.
Produce good science with conclusions well grounded in solid data and you'll get published. Butifyouruncountertothe existing scientific consensus without sufficient evidence to back it up and, yeah, you're going to have trouble getting published.
Your ignorance is showing here Fred.
That is how Peer Review is supposed to work.
That is NOT how it actually works, at least when it comes to climate science.
Have you not read the full download (IE the unabridged edition) of the Climategate Emails?
If you had, you'd know that several scientists "inside" the consensus were colluding via email to devise a strategy that they could use to get skeptical papers that threatened their conclusions thrown out during the review process. Many of these efforts were successful (we all found out about the plan after the fact, obviously).
It's not a conspiracy theory if it actually happened and millions of people have proof of it.
The only reason you don't know of it right now is laziness on your part for not doing enough research prior to posting this thread.
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
One should of course not mindlessly reject a consensus position simply because it is a consensus position. But accepting a consensus has nothing to do with knowledge. It may be prudent to defer to someone you _believe_ has genuine knowledge (e.g. a doctor). But of course that is merely an expression of faith or belief. It is no more reasonable than the position that God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago. Both are a matter of faith.
Your use of the term layman is interesting. Doesn't this mean that scientists are akin to priests for the layman? Science=religion in this scheme.
Dan Hanson
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 . . . .
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.
· 2 hours ago
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Hey Fred,
This is a case where the knowledge of the "soft" fields comes in handy. You know that the Greek word for faith in the Bible (pistis) also means trust, right?
My undergraduates who have read Plato's _Republic_ know this! Check out the divided line.
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 · 2 hours ago
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Fred Cole one more thing - your attack on intelligent design.
Not sure you've done the math. It's not only impossible to exclude scientifically, but it remains the most mathematically plausible explanation for human existence (don't misread me I'm not saying scientifically proven).
Read the works of Francis Collins on it (he was leader of the Human Genome Project; certainly a scientist of great reputation).
On irreducible complexity: It's gensis is in Darwin's book. I often wonder what high schools are supposed to do with that page - tear it out?
Edited on November 29, 2012 at 3:12amDec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Percival
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. · 3 hours ago
LOL. I don't care what anyone says, you are a funny man, Percival!
Feb '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
I have to note that a high % of the people who consider themselves to be intellectuals, and who regard conservatives as anti-intellectual and anti-science, are themselves not scientists, not engineers, and almost completely lacking in any significant scientific or mathematical knowledge and understanding.
Dec '10
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
The post has been bugging me all day. Since I'm comment #176 I probably won't be noticed, but I knew if I thought about it I could give an example of why it is wrong headed. He's bought into the narrative of the left. The Republican Party and conservatism are not associated with anti-intellectualism because they are anti-intellectual. It is plain and simple demonization by the left. The best example of this is probably the blind faith by the left in Keynes. The "multiplier," for example, has been proven time and again to be non-existent, yet you go into ANY ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT IN AMERICA, and you will find people with PhD's teaching this stuff as gospel. Who are the rubes again? Read Tom Sowell on what intellectuals have done to society.
Using people like Todd Akin as examples just bugs me. The guy was chosen by Claire McCaskill as the easy opponent. She helped fund his primary campaign so she could beat him. Who endorsed a better candidate in the race? That would be Governor Palin. You know the "anti-intellectual."
Dec '10
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? 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.k 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.
This is the very essence of viewing the right as anti-science.
Dear Lord, I don't want any politician making decisions about the climate! It's the same damn lefty synoptic eye (eye of Sauron?) which is going to fix the economy by diddling with markets and distributing wealth! Shall we just make Al Gore president for life and get it over with?
/America is circling the drain and I'm prone to motion sickness...
Mar '12
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
May '11
Re: Why The Perception Of Anti-Intellectualism?
Oh for God's sake (so to speak)!
I am proudly "anti-intellectual" because the people who style themselves as "intellectuals," and who abound in university faculty lounges, are patent morons with no clue about science, morals, economics, or reality.
I am proudly a global warming skeptic because global warming, by which I mean the kind of catastrophic global warming pedaled by noted "intellectuals" like Al Gore (who knows as much about science as my dog knows about calculus) is utter bunk, and has no scientific foundation whatsoever. Don't take my word for it (science doesn't operate on consensus or authority anyway, it operates on data and reproducible experimental results) -- try trusting 100 of the world's most respected scientists, including Freeman Dyson of Princeton (arguably the smartest human alive), Richard Lindzen of MIT (probably the world's best meteorologist), John Maunder (former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization), and A. Zichichi (President of the World Federation of Scientists), or the 35,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying this panic is a bunch of nonsense. Consensus? Bah.