DescentBB

I can see where you're coming from snoopy, but I guess what I'm left wondering is why so many people are perfectly willing to lend credence to expert opinions in certain cases, but then completely reject them in others. To cite a recent personal example, when my mechanic tells me that my brake rotors are shot and need to be replaced for my car to pass inspection, I'm not going to go out and buy Cars for Dummies in order to prove him wrong. I'm going to defer to his decades of experience working on cars and the trust I have in him, and so I'll grit my teeth and pay the bill. Likewise, if an orthopedic specialist tells you that you need knee surgery in order to alleviate your chronic pain, you're probably not going to watch some YouTube video and try a DIY fix (or at least I hope you won't). If you know he's a good doctor, that he went to medical school and is well-recommended by former patients, you're going to go along with what he says. Yet when it comes to something like, say, the climate, you have tons of people out there going, "This guy with a blog posted some numbers, so I'm going to believe him over thousands of people who do this for a living!" Now don't get me wrong, I know there are people out there who do exactly that in the first two instances, but there seems to be much more willingness to do so when it comes to science, and as both a scientist and a teacher I find that extremely disheartening.

(Also note that I'm not saying it's not a good idea to get second opinions, whether for your car or your knee, and experts can make mistakes just like anyone else. But when you have a whole bunch of experts with a whole bunch of data saying one thing, and you decide to not give them any heed...yeah, that's anti-intellectualism in a nutshell.)

As far as the political side of things goes, I will agree with you that holding a Ph.D. in one field doesn't necessarily qualify someone to make political statements. However, right now in this country we have one political party that has had many prominent members, all the way up to presidential candidates, making statements contrary to extremely basic and well-established scientific principles. At this point, science is already being used as a political football. Given that, I think scientists have an obligation to speak out against the misconceptions and falsehoods being spread around, even if it means having to enter the political arena in turn.

Well it’s always good to get a second opinion on a medical diagnosis, and if you trust your mechanic, then fine, but I will never just accept the opinion of somebody that wants to sell me something.

Here in lies the problem I have been pointing out all along, when politics enter a scientific issue, all bets are off for some people.

Top Gun wrote:I can see where you're coming from snoopy, but I guess what I'm left wondering is why so many people are perfectly willing to lend credence to expert opinions in certain cases, but then completely reject them in others. To cite a recent personal example, when my mechanic tells me that my brake rotors are shot and need to be replaced for my car to pass inspection, I'm not going to go out and buy Cars for Dummies in order to prove him wrong. I'm going to defer to his decades of experience working on cars and the trust I have in him, and so I'll grit my teeth and pay the bill. Likewise, if an orthopedic specialist tells you that you need knee surgery in order to alleviate your chronic pain, you're probably not going to watch some YouTube video and try a DIY fix (or at least I hope you won't). If you know he's a good doctor, that he went to medical school and is well-recommended by former patients, you're going to go along with what he says. Yet when it comes to something like, say, the climate, you have tons of people out there going, "This guy with a blog posted some numbers, so I'm going to believe him over thousands of people who do this for a living!" Now don't get me wrong, I know there are people out there who do exactly that in the first two instances, but there seems to be much more willingness to do so when it comes to science, and as both a scientist and a teacher I find that extremely disheartening.
(Also note that I'm not saying it's not a good idea to get second opinions, whether for your car or your knee, and experts can make mistakes just like anyone else. But when you have a whole bunch of experts with a whole bunch of data saying one thing, and you decide to not give them any heed...yeah, that's anti-intellectualism in a nutshell.)

I agree - "Trust but verify" comes to mind. If my orthopedic specialist tells me that I need knee surgery, I'd probably schedule it and then go home and google the procedure... mostly because I'd be curious about what I just signed up for. If I saw something on the internet that raised a red flag, I'd dig further - either by getting another opinion or by looking for more text on the matter. If my orthopedic specialist started telling me about how I should vote Republican because it'd make the knee procedure go better I'd probably still schedule the procedure and promptly ignore the fact that the guy felt the need to project his political views onto my knee issue. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people go for "I don't like Republicans so this guy must be a fool and a charlatan... let me Google for something to tell me about how my knee's really okay." (Or something akin - throwing out the baby with the bathwater.)

Top Gun wrote:As far as the political side of things goes, I will agree with you that holding a Ph.D. in one field doesn't necessarily qualify someone to make political statements. However, right now in this country we have one political party that has had many prominent members, all the way up to presidential candidates, making statements contrary to extremely basic and well-established scientific principles. At this point, science is already being used as a political football. Given that, I think scientists have an obligation to speak out against the misconceptions and falsehoods being spread around, even if it means having to enter the political arena in turn.

I agree all the way up to the last sentence. I think the scientists should fight hard to say "keep your politics out of our science.*" I see scientists entering the political realm perpetuating the political football - and I think the solution is to work to encourage awareness of the difference between scientific inquiry and the sociopolitical implications which follow... which in many ways boils down to putting our individual brain into gear and thinking critically about the messages that we receive. (*I realize that the two are intertwined - but politicians and scientists alike can encourage critical thinking about how the two relate - and encourage people to consider that they can accept parts of an argument and reject others, drawing their own conclusions about the two relate.)

Spidey wrote:Well it’s always good to get a second opinion on a medical diagnosis, and if you trust your mechanic, then fine, but I will never just accept the opinion of somebody that wants to sell me something.

Here in lies the problem I have been pointing out all along, when politics enter a scientific issue, all bets are off for some people.

If you're referring to "snake oil salesman", yeah I see where you're coming from. But these days, it's not impossible to tell who is the snake oil salesman, and who is the proper expert.

-------

TG: you're a scientist? what is your field of study?

Top Gun wrote:I can see where you're coming from snoopy, but I guess what I'm left wondering is why so many people are perfectly willing to lend credence to expert opinions in certain cases, but then completely reject them in others. To cite a recent personal example, when my mechanic tells me that my brake rotors are shot and need to be replaced for my car to pass inspection, I'm not going to go out and buy Cars for Dummies in order to prove him wrong. I'm going to defer to his decades of experience working on cars and the trust I have in him, and so I'll grit my teeth and pay the bill. Likewise, if an orthopedic specialist tells you that you need knee surgery in order to alleviate your chronic pain, you're probably not going to watch some YouTube video and try a DIY fix (or at least I hope you won't). If you know he's a good doctor, that he went to medical school and is well-recommended by former patients, you're going to go along with what he says.

Sorry bud but I could tell you about the cardiologist who said I had a heart attack 20 years ago, and after my mitral valve repair job, she then said I'd have to be on drugs the rest of my life. Then went to see the chief of cardiology at the hospital that performed my operation and guess what:

1) He never saw any signs of a heart attack

2) He got me off the drugs of which its been over 2 years, with no ill effect

So I suggest TG you rethink your philosophy.

Top Gun wrote:Yet when it comes to something like, say, the climate, you have tons of people out there going, "This guy with a blog posted some numbers, so I'm going to believe him over thousands of people who do this for a living!" Now don't get me wrong, I know there are people out there who do exactly that in the first two instances, but there seems to be much more willingness to do so when it comes to science, and as both a scientist and a teacher I find that extremely disheartening.

Then why are the scientist who write the opposing viewpoint not listened to? Just like the Pope surrounding himself with yes men does not promote good discourse.

woodchip wrote:Sorry bud but I could tell you about the cardiologist who said I had a heart attack 20 years ago, and after my mitral valve repair job, she then said I'd have to be on drugs the rest of my life. Then went to see the chief of cardiology at the hospital that performed my operation and guess what:

1) He never saw any signs of a heart attack

2) He got me off the drugs of which its been over 2 years, with no ill effect

So I suggest TG you rethink your philosophy.

that speaks to two things. First, even with experts, never settle for one opinion if possible. Second, greater expertise is probably why one was Chief of Cardiology.

Then why are the scientist who write the opposing viewpoint not listened to? Just like the Pope surrounding himself with yes men does not promote good discourse.

truth be told, few of those 'scientists' who write opposing viewpoints are not scientists in the fields pertaining to the discourse. The Pope is on another level, and that is religion, so I won't opine there, but am surprised that you know him and his entourage well enough to opine about them(yes men?).

Ferno wrote:TG: you're a scientist? what is your field of study?

Well, more like "scientist" by training and in the wishful sense, not exactly current career. I went to school for physics, and did some undergrad research in a magnetics lab, but nothing professionally after that. I definitely wouldn't mind working in the field if there was an opportunity to do so.

woodchip wrote:Sorry bud but I could tell you about the cardiologist who said I had a heart attack 20 years ago, and after my mitral valve repair job, she then said I'd have to be on drugs the rest of my life. Then went to see the chief of cardiology at the hospital that performed my operation and guess what:

1) He never saw any signs of a heart attack

2) He got me off the drugs of which its been over 2 years, with no ill effect

So I suggest TG you rethink your philosophy.

In quite literally the next sentence after you stopped your quote, I noted that it's good practice to seek out second opinions, especially when it comes to serious health issues. There's no way you didn't read that part, right?

Then why are the scientist who write the opposing viewpoint not listened to? Just like the Pope surrounding himself with yes men does not promote good discourse.

Are any of these opposing viewpoints in the form of actual research that's intended to be published in a scientific journal? Because I can't think of a vocal instance I've seen that isn't someone posting on a blog, or writing an opinion article, or giving a speech somewhere. Those are all well and good, but the actual measure of scientific action is doing the research and publishing your data, and the vast majority (we're talking 95% and above) of published research on climate change has reached the conclusion that it's driven by human activity. Basically none of them argue that there isn't warming going on at all.

taking a step to institutionalize stupidity, and we all know a badly educated public is an easily manipulated public, I offer Texas:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/texas-g ... education/


this is a complete disgrace. For a couple of centuries, this nation has thrived due to a robust public education system. Now we have folks actively trying to destroy it. That is NOT to imply that I feel all is perfect with public ed, but it is still damned good.

“He recently vetoed Senate Bill 359, a measure that would have allowed physicians to detain patients if they are deemed to be a risk to themselves or others, after it was opposed by the Texas Home School Coalition as an attack on parental rights.”

Sounds like he might know what he is doing, because that is about as bad an idea as I have ever heard.

How bout we don’t judge the appointee, until we see how she does.

"institutionalize stupidity" man that's harsh, nice to know how you feel about home schooled people.

I am a STRONG proponent of public education. Homeschooling and much private education is merely a reinforcement of pre-conceptions of the parents. This nation, as Jefferson observed, depends on a well-informed, educated electorate. Homeschooling is a haven for religious whack jobs, FAR more often than not. As the head of the STATE Board of Education, she will oversee an institution she clearly doesn't believe in, and that is an egregious step in the direction of further educational decline for Texas.

You're full of ★■◆●. And you have no clue what you are talking about.

CUDA wrote:You're full of ****. And you have no clue what you are talking about.

sorry, I've seen it too many times around here. I'm perfectly aware of the diligent job your wife does....but, then she was a trained educator, correct? That is why I qualified my statement and didn't use the word ALL. Most of the time, homeschooling is used to dodge the study of subjects the PARENTS don't want the kids to deal with. That is wrong, and anti-intellectual. Likewise, my view of many 'Christian' schools in the South. My second cousin was principal of one in VA. She had no educational experience, barely passed High School herself, no college. And she was the principal? The whole purpose of her 'school' was to teach creationism, and avoid topics that offended her conservative Christian philosophy. That and to avoid the little ones going to school with Hispanic or Black kids. Frankly, CUDA, with the exception of geographical challenges, or other phsyical challenges, I see utterly NO reason to home school. None at all. The kids lose the social aspects, the overall breadth of education and as I said before, the curriculum tends to merely reinforce the predjudices of the parents. That isn't education, it's indoctrination.

bull★■◆●. You said homeschooling is a haven for religious whack jobs.

CUDA wrote:****. You said homeschooling is a haven for religious whack jobs.

yes, I did, and I meant that. Sorry if it offends you, but that is the local reality here.

Again I said you're full of ★■◆● and you have no clue what you're talking about. I've been involved with home schooling for 30+ years, groups, committees. Testing. While there is a good portion of religious people involved with it. Easily half are not from a religious background. They just realize that our public education system sucks.
Plus great way to start an objective conversation by name calling people. REAL mature.
sorry if that offends you. Maybe you should leave this cconversation to people that actually have an understanding of the topic.

our public education system does not suck. It suffers from lack of funding in pockets of poverty, and lack of due diligence by parents as much as anything. It does not suck, and in fact, still performs quite well if left free from ideological nuts. When folks start removing books from study, or telling science classes to teach creationism like a science, or make everything into a feel-good everybody wins exercise(all example of ideology getting involved), yes, education suffers. However, public education has served our nation admirably and merely needs fine tuning and equitable funding, not a plethora of 'charter schools', 'Christian academies' and half-assed homeschool efforts to dilute the funding and focus.

Frankly, I look forward to sending the grandkids to the local public schools here in Delaware. I had a great public system in PA. So, I do have experience with public schools(two terms on the board in PA). Likewise, I have seen the produce of both homeschooling(widely variant) and 'Christian Academies'(generally worse than dismal).

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:****. You said homeschooling is a haven for religious whack jobs.

yes, I did, and I meant that. Sorry if it offends you, but that is the local reality here.

*Maybe* it's a local reality for you... but it's a big over step to apply that nationally. I dare you to tell me that the Philly public schools are better than just about any alternative. I tend to agree with Spidey, let's see what she does before we pass judgement.

actually, the issues with your Philly schools is lack of funding and lack of parental involvement(remember, I lived there for a few years, so I saw the issues). Are you suggesting that you can take one of the kids out of that school and have him/her homeschooled by their parent and do BETTER? I suggest not, and the results from Charters in Philly are pretty dismal in more cases than not. I'd suggest the problem is that we have written off public education and frittered our resources away on 'alternatives', most of whom are far worse.

callmeslick wrote:with the exception of geographical challenges, or other phsyical challenges, I see utterly NO reason to home school

I have an autistic five-year-old son, and an autistic seven-year-old nephew who suffered a traumatic brain injury when he was an infant. They both have very unique educational needs. They are both incredibly intelligent in certain ways, but need a lot of management to keep them focused on "non-preferred tasks" and to keep them calm when things don't go according to expectations. My sister and I both have been professional educators for several years, and would be quite capable of homeschooling our kids.

They're both in public schools, but it wasn't an easy choice in either case. There are very strong reasons to homeschool kids who don't fit the mold.

callmeslick wrote:our public education system does not suck. It suffers from lack of funding in pockets of poverty...

Speaking as someone who taught in one of those "pockets of poverty" last year (that is, my own neighborhood) in the fastest-growing urban school district in the US, lack of funding was far from our biggest issue. Our biggest issue was student background -- the majority of students grew up speaking Spanish, while the standardized tests are required to be given in English by 4th grade for any student who's been in US for 3 full years, so we had to teach a whole extra language that many kids weren't learning at home. Many of our students had missed substantial amounts of schooling, either because preschool wasn't required in their country of origin, or because they didn't get enrolled in a school during the time period when their family immigrated (or during multiple migrations from state to state or city to city). Many of our students were living in unstable family situations -- parents disappearing, dad getting out of prison, dad murdering mom and a neighbor a few weeks before the start of school. Our district has some huge programs in place for dealing with these sorts of challenges (ELA programs, equity and inclusion programs, extended school days, Beacon centers, etc.) but it's a really big hill to climb.

In spite of all of that, you are correct that our system doesn't suck. Among other things, when you look at educational outcomes by demographic (see, for example, tables R3 and R1 of this nces report), Americans of Asian origin have comparable outcomes to Asian-schooled Asian natives, Americans of European origin are competitive with European countries, etc. You're also correct that the solution to the difficulties we face in educating the next generation does not lie in half-assed homeschool efforts or half-assed charter or religious schools. But those things, taken seriously, are a part of the solution. Some children respond better to home-schooling than a larger classroom environment, and home-schooling them can alleviate pressure on the system as a whole. Some charter schools (including religious ones) are on the cutting edge of research, and many of their innovative successes can be replicated in part or even across whole districts.

-------

In the specific case of Texas, if you click through to the original article, you'll see that the woman in question has actually been on the school board for 2 years already (and was elected by a solid 18% margin) -- what's new is that she's now the chairwoman. Is there any specific reason to think she'll be worse as chairwoman than other choices? Has her performance as a board member been particularly worse than other board members? Somebody calling her "extreme" isn't really enlightening without knowing the background of the person making the accusation and how they both relate to public sentiment as a whole.

Child leaves home school…believes man lived with dinosaurs.

Child leaves public school…can’t spell dinosaurs.

Spidey wrote:Child leaves home school…believes man lived with dinosaurs.

Child leaves public school…can’t spell dinosaurs.

maybe from YOUR public schools....in which case, I'd urge you to be more active in your local school board.

Spidey wrote:Child leaves home school…believes man lived with dinosaurs.

Child leaves public school…can’t spell dinosaurs.

Either way, that's a problem and must be addressed.

callmeslick wrote:Actually, the issues with your Philly schools is lack of funding and lack of parental involvement(remember, I lived there for a few years, so I saw the issues). Are you suggesting that you can take one of the kids out of that school and have him/her homeschooled by their parent and do BETTER? I suggest not, and the results from Charters in Philly are pretty dismal in more cases than not. I'd suggest the problem is that we have written off public education and frittered our resources away on 'alternatives', most of whom are far worse.

I know you did, which is why I bring up Philly schools in particular. If the parent is involved enough and motivated enough to undertake the task, specifically in Philly, and specifically not applying to the "magnet" schools - yes I think home schooling can be better. The problems in Philly largely manifest as unmanaged classrooms, where the students that might actually want to learn simply can't. Home schooling, administered by a capable parent, at least gives those kids a chance. [Note: I'm not a fan of the charter schools either.]

A lot of erroneous positions people take in life, it seems to me, are reactionary in nature (feminism, ...). Anti-intellectualism, imo, is no different. I think intellectuals overstep certain bounds sometimes. So when the Top Guns and Slicks of this world hold their intellectualism over people like me, do I care enough about education to go through the trouble of finding the dividing line, or do I just dismiss everything they are to guard myself from the threat (I can't homeschool my children because Slick knows best)? I think like Snoopy said it boils down to being honest with oneself.

Intellectuals are like everyone else--they have blind spots. So when someone who can see into their blind spot sees them claiming their intellectualism as the answer to life, and yet it obviously isn't... I think intellectualism is overrated by the intellectual, but I think learning is everything.

OP Article wrote:...

In a country where a sitting congressman told a crowd that evolution and the Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell,” (link is external) where the chairman of a Senate environmental panel brought a snowball (link is external) into the chamber as evidence that climate change is a hoax, where almost one in three citizens can’t name the vice president (link is external), it is beyond dispute that critical thinking has been abandoned as a cultural value. Our failure as a society to connect the dots, to see that such anti-intellectualism comes with a huge price, could eventually be our downfall.

...

This to me is the author claiming to show the reader a cutting implement that is all new and perfectly suited to complex tasks, only to whip out the old axe and start grinding on it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: So when the Top Guns and Slicks of this world hold their intellectualism over people like me,

What makes you think they are intellectuals? Half the time slick has posited something, he has been proven wrong. Anyone can sound euridite without actually being so. Keep telling the lie long enough and people will start believing it.

Lothar says that the education system in the US isn't a giant mess, and I disagree. It is a giant mess, but Lothar at least does see the actual problem, which has less to do with the system itself and much more to do with the greater culture. American culture and economic policy has largely destroyed the idea of a family, which leads to all sorts of problems, especially things like poor education outcomes and crime. The public school system is a giant mess, however, the vast majority of the cause of that is because of things that happen outside of school and because the public school system is being used for all the wrong reasons.

--------------

As for slick's opinion that only trained teachers are good enough to educate children, it is complete bull★■◆●. Educated parents can educate their own children, and probably do it better than the child would get in a public school because the child gets a greater portion of the teacher's time and attention that way. As for his "losing the social" aspect, also complete bull★■◆●. Actually, socialization isn't universally good thing to begin with, there are different types of socialization. For instance; organized crime and rioting are also social activities. In fact, I'd say the layout of the public school system does considerable harm to children's social skills because of how it groups them together by age/grade. When you go out into the world, you will be working with people often much younger and much older than you all with differing ability levels, having the majority of your social experience limited to people very near your own age and ability is going to be a significant social handicap. The question here is are public schools and society teaching children good social behaviors or are they teaching them bad social behaviors, and I'd argue that the system as it is currently operated tends to lean towards reinforcing the bad social behaviors largely due to the age segregation artificially limiting the children's frame or reference. Socialization and social behaviors are learned by example and role models, but the American system of segregating children by age and grade significantly limits their exposure to positive influencing examples and role models.

woodchip wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: So when the Top Guns and Slicks of this world hold their intellectualism over people like me,

What makes you think they are intellectuals? Half the time slick has posited something, he has been proven wrong. Anyone can sound euridite without actually being so. Keep telling the lie long enough and people will start believing it.

You don't have to be right all of the time to worship at the alter of intellectualism, and then hold intellectualism over people who are not so intellectual. It may be that those who merit the title the least hold it the highest. I think a lot of intellectuals naturally have a bit of an imbalance, and for the reasons Snoopy gave. My point is that some intellectual decrying an anti-intellectual trend is comparable, for instance, to a male chauvinist decrying a feminist trend--if some men weren't the enemy, women would be a lot less likely to embrace the imbalances of feminism, and if some intellectuals weren't the enemy, people would be a lot less likely to run to anti-intellectualism. The problem was never men or intellect, it is/was people being unjust to other people. In the end only a fool leaves themselves exposed to be taken advantage of.

Also Krom is right.

He sure is...

while I agree with Kroms assessment that social issues/family issues are at the heart of the school problems(hence, in my more affluent area, with more intact and involved professionals as family members, the public schools seem to work just fine), I don't agree with the assertion that our system of age segregation for grades doesn't work(why did it work fine from around 1880-present?), I strongly disagree with the assertion that isolation of students to a group consisting of only family members is in ANY way beneficial to adult development(living in a cocoon makes for intolerant, less functional adults)and moreover, feel that we blame the school system for things that go way past the responsibilities of education(Krom touched on that part). We further have gutted the concept of ALL kids learning art, music and to some extent literature and focused on 'adult work skills'. The truth is, contact with, and experience with, the arts develops ways of thinking that are essential.
Now, if I saw some glowing track record of success of either homeschooling or Charter Schools, I'd change my mind. I AM aware of successful home schooling, but as a School Board member I got to see the entire range of what passed in PA as 'acceptable' home-school practice, and it wasn't pretty. The college attendance rate from our students that were home-schooled was less than 20%, which is abyssmal. In our modern world, and global economy, higher ed will prove ever more critical, and the homeschooled children I dealt with just didn't cut it. Of the few I was able to follow that did go to college, those in public institutions consistently failed, with greater success coming from those attending small Christian colleges. The real world, however, is more akin to those large institutions, and my fears are that such insulated learning ill suits eventual integration into a larger society.

woodchip wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: So when the Top Guns and Slicks of this world hold their intellectualism over people like me,

What makes you think they are intellectuals? Half the time slick has posited something, he has been proven wrong. Anyone can sound euridite without actually being so. Keep telling the lie long enough and people will start believing it.

I'm not trying to claim any titles for myself, but I at least try to hold myself as best I can to the general principles of critical thinking, seeking out credible sources, and following the scientific method. If that makes me an intellectual, then so be it, because the alternative would be wallowing in my own ignorance and illogic, and I'm never going to let that happen.

well put, TG, and especially poignant in response to Woody who still operates under the delusion that he disproves my facts with his made up inaccuracies("half of what he posts, blah,blah,blah"). Not calling myself an intellectual, but merely one who realizes what logic, reasoning and critical thinking look like. Everyone with a high-school degree should have those skills, and moreover, maintain them.

I gladly call myself an intellectual, based on the this definition I found:

"A learned person or one of high intelligence; especially, one who places greatest value on activities requiring exercise of the intelligence, such as study, complex forms of knowledge, literature and aesthetic matters, reflection and philosophical speculation; a member of the intelligentsia; as, intellectuals are often apalled at the inanities that pass for entertainment on television."

Ego much?

Yea, and I wonder what the disqualifiers are…

Hypocrisy
Denial
Name calling
Bullying
Delusions of grandeur
Dishonesty
Egotism
Snobbery
Perhaps just to name a few.

To me intellectualism is more than just being smart and using your brain for stuff, it also involves things like humility and grace, an example would be William F. Buckley Jr.

In other words, you need some personality to go along with your big fat brain.

You're in the wrong forum if you are looking for humility and grace...

Spidey wrote:Ego much?

Absolutely not. It's called confidence.

Spidey wrote:Yea, and I wonder what the disqualifiers are…

...
Delusions of grandeur
...

... sh**.


Spidey I see your point, but I'm certain you've failed to recognize the various different kinds of intellectuals in your admirable quest for purity...

Sergeant Thorne steps into his emerald Wizard of Oz outfit and begins handing out titles of intellectual achievement. "To Vision, 'Casual Intellectual'; to Slick, 'Card-Carrying Intellectual', and to Top Gun, 'Teacher's/Momma's Little Intellectual'"

well, Thorne, you flatter me. As for declaring myself intellectual, I leave it to others to decide.

Nah, I don’t seek purity, just setting the bar a little higher than some might.

The US is not the only country that nurtures disdain and distrust towards intellectuals. Back here in Poland we've also got serious priority issues, especially coming from the Ultra-Catholic right wingers catered to by one particular radio station. The masses are being taught hostility towards educated people and scientific research (highly successful when given the chance) is being criminally underfunded. So yeah, guess our government's big-ass fascination with America does rub off, haha

callmeslick wrote:well put, TG, and especially poignant in response to Woody who still operates under the delusion that he disproves my facts with his made up inaccuracies("half of what he posts, blah,blah,blah"). Not calling myself an intellectual, but merely one who realizes what logic, reasoning and critical thinking look like. Everyone with a high-school degree should have those skills, and moreover, maintain them.

Lets see, in one case you made the statement that a poll I posted didn't have enough people to be valid. Then I linked how the pool was the same size as most other polls...yours included. Didn't hear much back after that. There's a reason the term "vaporous" came to be associated with your "learned" comments.