Note: I would like to make this an article worthy of the Knowledge Base. So make your posts good, and tell me what to change, so I can refine this rough draft. Anti-intellectualism is very pervasive in American politics, much more so than I had previously thought. I recently checked out from the library The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, a journalist who specializes in the relation of science and politics. In this book, Mooney tells the history of the Republican ideologues' attempt to win support for their ideologies by distorting science and misrepresenting facts — substituting sound science with junk science — and then accusing other people of doing this, usually liberals and Democrats. While political groups on the left have distorted science for their own causes before, and while it is healthy to suspect that most politicians distort the facts to some minor extent, the left is almost never as guilty as the right. This flagrant disregard for science is extremely worrying to me as a man who greatly values the scientific method for its ability to refine our understanding of the universe. The fact that they're succeeding is terrifying to me as a man who values knowledge, intelligence, and critical thinking. The fronts in the war on science are manifold: There are those who want to confuse the public on whether or not cigarettes and second-hand smoke are harmful, even though many, many habitual smokers die of cancer in the respiratory system. There are many who wish to disparage environmentalism, the movement to literally save the world, by claiming that environmentalists are overreacting over trivial things, even though the facts show they're anything but trivial. And there are many who, for ideological reasons, wish to convince people that evolution has little or no supporting evidence, even though it has mountains of it. I wish it were more obvious to people that anti-intellectualism is irrational to its core. Think about the common claims made by these people: Universities, well-respected institutions of learning, are propagating left-wing ideology; scientists, largely impartial in their quest for knowledge, are a bunch of liberals with an agenda to brainwash the public; intellectuals, who exercise their mind and think critically, are prone to ideologue. It all rests on the ideas that smart people are stupid, ignorant people are smart, and that people who aren't experts, are experts. The scientists who have dispassionately discovered and studied the facts don't know what they're talking about, while the common taxi driver or barber with only a high-school diploma — if even that — is perfectly qualified to say exactly what's fact and what's speculation. A person with a Ph.D. makes too many mistakes to count, but the average Joe off the street is practically infallible. I hope that you, the reader, see how irrational this way of thinking is. And I wish it were more obvious to more people. But sadly, it's not. And this is very troubling. It's one thing to promote a policy when the facts indicate the policy is unwise. It's another thing entirely to deliberately win support for your side by distorting the facts. It is intellectually dishonest and morally deplorable to do this. As far as science is concerned, there is no shame in acknowledging our negative impact on the environment but declaring we should do nothing for economic reasons; this much is for economists and politicians to debate. It is very shameful to magnify uncertainty, and to declare that the facts are wrong and that any impact we have is negligible, in order to make your side look better. Science is not politics. Facts and evidence are not matters of opinion. Scientific consensus does not indicate a political agenda. Scientists may make mistakes — they are human — but the scientific method is a remarkably effective safeguard against the spread of mistaken knowledge among the scientific community. There is room for honest criticism in the scientific community, but no room for Lysenkoism. I do realize there are people who have simply been misinformed and are not aware of what the facts really are. One cannot blame them; when science is politicized, it often confuses people. It does annoy me to see people confuse fact with speculation and conclude that evolution is "only a theory", or that global warming is "junk science". And I'm sure it annoys many other people too. But we should try to recognize who's deliberately distorting science and who's been victimized by such. I seriously hope that, in the end, science and intellect will triumph, and that no politician will ever again represent scientific facts as political conjecture. Further reading: :- Wikipedia: Evidence of evolution. :- TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. :- Wikipedia: Causes of global warming. :- Wikipedia: External links concerning global warming.
Certainly. I propose deleting pretty much everything and replacing it with the following: Anti-intellectualism - A rhetorical tool typically comprised of a series of logical fallacies but essentially boiling down to an Ad Populum attack on intellectual arguments. The basic argument is that intellectuals do not represent the common man and that their arguments are therefore invalid. The opposing position, Intellectualism , is essentially the same. Typically reducing to an Ad Verecundiam fallacy. The basic argument is that the intelligentsia by definition are more knowledgeable and are therefore correct about any given subject. Interestingly (and rather humorously), though neither position constitutes a logically valid argument, each uses the position of the other as an Ad Hominem attack on the other. Rhetorically they validate the opposing argument by acknowledging the position rather than critiquing the fallacy. A rather ironic turn of events that the unfortunate naive typically miss in their exhortations of partisanship. Both positions are simply the consequence of mistaking rhetoric for reason. ~Raithere
I believe that all can be incorporated into it. Deletion most likely isn't necessary. Also, I felt that I accounted for the fallacies you encounter when you try to be the opposite of a fallacious belief and take that to its logical extreme. I tried not to overcompensate for anti-intellectualism. But I'll go over it and see where I may have strayed unacceptably from this goal. Thanks for your input. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Brilliant post Raithere. Since you are obviously an Intellectual, I will now believe every single thing you ever post, for as long as we both shall live.
I wish there had been something useful in Athelwulfs post. There was nothing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is there a difference between an intellectualist and and intellectual? I don't want to look it up in a dictionary. I'd rather have it explained by some member, because it usually is much more interesting. Pardon my laziness.
It would be easier to consider your criticism if it were more constructive. Please try again, because I do want constructive input.
Sorry, with what I have to work with I have nothing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, me, too! Anyone who is willing to spend that much time and effort to type up that many words and post it here is obviously an intellectual. Therefore, I, too, will hereafter believe every single thing he posts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
I'll highlight what I see as problem areas in your post: This demonstrates a partisan position. Rather than noting that the argument itself is erroneous you present sides based upon Mooney's rhetoric, blaming Conservatives and Republicans while excusing Liberals and Democrats use as "almost never as guilty". I would simply present the fallacy of the argument. It doesn't matter who uses it, particularly when you can't really support the assertion. These are not simple, straightforward, topics. Even when the preponderance of evidence supports a conclusion the political argument lies outside the scientific. For example, even if we assume that the second-hand smoke studies are conclusive, the prescribed action to ban smoking is not. We could just as easily require that public facilities that allow smoking install ventilation systems to reduce the exposure to acceptable levels. There is also the ethical argument that exposure is voluntary. People voluntarily expose themselves to a multitude of risks on a daily basis. The question then becomes whether or not it is the government's responsibility to eliminate such risks. I'm quite certain that very few people would be happy if the government approached all such risks on equal grounds. Intellectualism is an ideology. It doesn't matter who is making the argument, the argument must succeed or fail on it's own merits, not the merits of it's proponents. More rhetoric here. Whether or not assertions of uncertainty are valid depends on the arguments themselves. Presumption of certainty is equally fallacious. The presumption that science as an industry is immune to the influence of politics and ideology is extremely naive. As a quick example, environmentalists have denounced oil industry funded environmental studies as irredeemably biased while at the same time asserting that studies funded by environmentalists have no such bias. Neither argument is valid nor are they scientific. Science needs to be critiqued scientifically, not by rhetorical fallacies. ~Raithere
Thanks, although I'm more of a Pragmatist than an Intellectual. Still, it's best if you believe everything I say. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No. Intellectualism is retarded. Anti-intellectualism is double retarded. Anti-anti-intellectualism is therefore triple retarded. Skeptical parsimony is a useful tool for excising the redundancies. Yes. An intellectual believes that knowledge can be ascertained by reason. An intellectualist forgoes their own ability to reason and lays claim to the authority of other people's reasoning. Actually, it took me more time to embed the links than to write my response. But once again, it is best if you just believe everything I say. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Raithere
I read it, and found it wanting. It is wanting, Athelwulf. •Passive voice. He is. She has been. They are. It is to be. Get rid of that shit. It weakens the writing. •Too many superfluous words. Omit them. •I don't care about you. I could care less what annoys you. Fix that. Make it annoy me, too. • The fact. The facts. Virtually every paragraph mentions "the facts." What are they? Edits because the writing could be better: ... a journalist who specializes in the relationship between science and politics. ((gets rid of a little ambiguity} ...While political groups on the left distort science for their own causes, and a healthy suspicion of politicians distorting facts to a minor extent, the left is almost never as guilty as the right. ((removed some wordiness)) As a man who values knowledge, intelligence, and critical thinking, their success terrify me. Their flagrant disregard for science undermines the scientific method and its ability t refine our understanding of the universe. ((cleaned up writing, removed passive voice)) The fronts in the war on science are manifold: There are those who want to confuse the public on whether or not cigarettes and second-hand smoke are harmful, even though many, many habitual smokers die of cancer in the respiratory system. There are many who wish to disparage environmentalism, the movement to literally save the world, by claiming that environmentalists are overreacting over trivial things, even though the facts show they're anything but trivial. And there are many who, for ideological reasons, wish to convince people that evolution has little or no supporting evidence, even though it has mountains of it. ((Get rid of the passive voice. You use it in every sentence: too much for me. Also, 'even'. Don't use it. Get rid of the 'even's. Omit needless words.)) I wish it were more obvious to people that anti-intellectualism is irrational to its core. Think about the common claims made by these people: Universities, well-respected institutions of learning, are propagating left-wing ideology; scientists, largely impartial in their quest for knowledge, are a bunch of liberals with an agenda to brainwash the public; intellectuals, who exercise their mind and think critically, are prone to ideologue. ((Clearly you've never been to college. I suggest the paragraph go something like: blah blah blah, while most college professors tend to be liberal, blah blah blah, we shouldn't question their ability to keep their beliefs seperate from their studies, blah blah blah. You could do without the blah blah blahs, but that seems to be your style. jaykay, jaykay wolfie. Seriously though, maybe you suggest that colleges and universities tend to the left (way left) because, rather than a result of, the studies and intellectualism in their hallowed halls. The paragraph will cause manifold problems with a reader who disagrees with you, and a few with one who does. A suggest you add some concessions to the opposing side.)) Smart people are stupid, ignorant people are smart, laymen are experts. The scientists dispassionately investigate and study the facts don't know what they're talking about, while the unqualified taxi driver or barber determines what's fact and what's speculation. A person with a Ph.D. makes innumerable mistakes, but the wisdom of Joe Blow is infallible. ((Could be better. Much better. I suggest you reread what you wrote and omit needless words. I edited what I thought made it read better. The dispassionate researcher is a myth. And wait 'till you get to peer-review.)) It troubles me that many do not realize the irrationality of anti-intellectualism. I hope that you, reader, do. It's one thing to promote a policy when the facts indicate the policy is unwise. It's another thing entirely to deliberately win support for your side by distorting the facts. It is intellectually dishonest and morally deplorable to do this. As far as science is concerned, there is no shame in acknowledging our negative impact on the environment but declaring we should do nothing for economic reasons; this much is for economists and politicians to debate. It is very shameful to magnify uncertainty, and to declare that the facts are wrong and that any impact we have is negligible, in order to make your side look better. Science is not politics. Facts and evidence are not matters of opinion. Scientific consensus does not indicate a political agenda. Scientists may make mistakes — they are human — but the scientific method is a remarkably effective safeguard against the spread of mistaken knowledge among the scientific community. There is room for honest criticism in the scientific community, but no room for Lysenkoism. ((Third verse, same as the first. Remove the passive voice.)) I realize some have simply been misinformed, unaware of what the facts really are. One cannot blame them; when science is politicized, it often confuses people. It annoys me to see people confuse fact with speculation and conclude that evolution is "only a theory", or that global warming is "junk science". And I'm sure it annoys many other people too. But we should try to recognize who's deliberately distorting science and who's been victimized by such. ((Started fixing the passive voice, but the whole paragraph is me me me. You should do without. Remove the bitching, or remove the paragraph.)) I seriously hope that, in the end, science and intellect will triumph, and that no politician will ever again represent scientific facts as political conjecture. ((That's nice. Too much you, though. Who cares what you think? Make your conclusion more relevant.))
