DescentBB

...and, moreover, the celebration of ignorance and antagonism towards intellectuals. This is a professional journal's take on another aspect of American culture that is as much a problem as guns, racism or violence.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... ng-america


I think they are spot-on, and I've been watching the denigration of intellectualism since the days of Spiro Agnew, and it has grown over those 40 plus years. Thoughts and observations?

It's certainly my greatest fear about the future of this country. We have a big chunk of our population that absolutely revels in sheer ignorance, going all the way up to the highest elected offices in the country. (This quote never fails to nauseate me.) And I'm not even sure what the best solution is, or even if there's a good one out there at all. I'm tired of our country being a laughingstock on the world stage in so many ways, and I'm even more tired of knowing that they're right to laugh. Our entire educational model is fundamentally broken, which is what gives rise to this sort of widespread ignorance in the first place. How do we even start to fix it?

I've already written off most of america as just plain ignorant on everything possible. Even at work, we have an american who is just... dumb, cocky and thinks america is the greatest country ever. We treat him what he is, a joke.

Sure there's a smattering of intelligence here and there but moreover, it's the land of the dumb.

Lets take climate change as a example. When is the last time any of you heard of any scientists who take the opposing view? In school do they teach the opposing view? in short are our kids growing up to learn how to think or are they drilled with ideas that are merely main stream thinking? The latest case is the Popes Encyclical about climate. On his panel do you suppose there would even be one skeptical person? The almost was but then Philippe de Larminat was denied access. You wonder why people can't think (and I don't think it is limited to just Americans)? Maybe because they are being taught that having a opposing view opens you up to ridicule. Until the schools stop teaching mass hysteria, and start teaching how a consensus is not good science I'm afraid there is not much hope.

edit
And to back this up:

the Luther Burbank High School teacher explained she does not want to teach Shakespeare’s works despite his esteemed place in American education because his perspective does not speak well to her ethnically diverse students.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/educat ... rylink=cpy

What value is there in presenting an opposing view which is objectively wrong?

woodchip wrote:Lets take climate change as a example. When is the last time any of you heard of any scientists who take the opposing view?

Last Thursday

In school do they teach the opposing view?

opposed to what? Are you suggesting that they should teach that climate change has not been happening at an increased rate over the past century? That would be akin to teaching that the world is flat or the the Sun revolves around the Earth.

the Luther Burbank High School teacher explained she does not want to teach Shakespeare’s works despite his esteemed place in American education because his perspective does not speak well to her ethnically diverse students.

that is equally stupid as the climate example. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of 'indoctrination' in schools. All the good ones do is teach students how to look criitically at any subject. Not all schools are good ones, I'll admit, and in my lifetime, I've seen the notion of critical thought take a huge hit.

Krom wrote:What value is there in presenting an opposing view which is objectively wrong?

exactly. Critical thinking looks at the facts, the rationales, and dismisses the fictional account. That isn't indoctrination, it is thinking and logic.

Yea, but the problem is, deciding an opposing view is wrong before the debate is over simply stifles any further debate.

Unfortunately, well no…fortunately people who are wrong still have the right to express their opinions, and the people who are right have the duty to make their argument.

Let the facts speak for themselves.

The idea that people who are “wrong” should have no voice is pretty foolish in my opinion. (in every debate someone is probably wrong)

Spidey wrote:Yea, but the problem is, deciding an opposing view is wrong before the debate is over simply stifles any further debate.

agreed, but there IS no debate, within responsible, professional scientists as to the fact the earth is in a warming trend(debate centers on causation). Likewise, there is utterly no debate that evolution occurs, the only debate is around the details of how the process went into motion.


moreover, much of what I see as reinforcing a culture of ignorance is fed through the popular media.

Woody's post actually perfectly illustrates another hallmark of anti-intellectualism: treating every single viewpoint as equally valid and worthy of consideration. It's what leads to the obnoxious practice of modern media making sure that all "sides" get their say and reading off random Twitter comments, no matter how asinine. From a critical thinking standpoint, all some people really deserve is the Zoidberg response: "Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!"

Talk about anti-intellectualism, what you describe is also known as censorship.

You can’t expect people to understand their opinions are wrong, if nobody will explain why.

You’re wrong, so shut up, yea that’s very intellectual. Maybe you should throw in an insult or two while you are at it.

Also there seems to be confusion between professional opinion and lay opinion, where every one is valid. (I say it should be painted blue, and you say it should be red)

Spidey wrote:Talk about anti-intellectualism, what you describe is also known as censorship.

rejecting factual decision making under the guise of 'avoiding censorship' is part of the problem. In some of the examples(Creationism is a good one) the proof rejecting the validity is overwhelming, yet, when it gets presented that way, the side of ignorance cries foul.

You can’t expect people to understand their opinions are wrong, if nobody will explain why.

see above, and realize that you have a cycle of stupidity that results.

Also there seems to be confusion between professional opinion and lay opinion, where every one is valid. (I say it should be painted blue, and you say it should be red)

artistic license and scientific fact are quite different. While lay opinions can hold some merit, especially if they are bringing an entirely new viewpoint to a topic, laypeople regurgitating half-baked 'facts' or espousing clearly disproven ideas serves NO intellectual purpose, and putting them on some sort of equal footing with those who have devoted their lives to studying a subject in depth is a huge problem.

Another thing that I've found discouraging is that, despite the plethora of available sources of information and education on virtually any topic(I figured out an obscure bird species recently passing through the yard here in Delaware the other day, in a matter of minutes), the Web is also chock full of half-truths, false theories, lunatic fantasies and deliberate falsehoods. Sadly, people give equal weight to all sourcing, and many are so limited in their reading as to fail to perform the slightesyt fact-checking. I gave the example on here recently of an individual on another board who is convinced that Dearborn adopted Sharia law back in 2009 all based on a Tea Party site running with a clear satire piece as fact. This sort of thing can be seen daily, and fuels the entire thing.

Finally, another thing that discourages me is pondering how absolutely our system of government relies on a public which is both informed and engaged. In my family archives, there are several letters written by teen/young adult family serving in the Confederate Army to family at home. These men were not highly educated, and access to knowledge was limited by the times, yet the letters are both erudite, grammatical and show great awareness of the issues of the day. The same can be seen from similar writings from the Civil War to the First World War. Sons of farmers, laborers, miners and the like were full of evocative prose and a great degree of civic and historical knowledge, insightful and imaginative. Yet today, we live in an era where many communicators(using the term loosely) cannot be bothered to even spell properly, let alone form a cogent thought. The whole matter around the loss of the reverence for intellectualism, true academic learning and respect for scholars and experts, to my mind is the surest guidepost that the US is headed towards a very low point in our short history. My European friends always warn that the culture which grows up fast disappears just as quickly and I suspect they may be correct.

So does anti-intellectualism apply to a person or a subject, because everybody’s new hero the pope believes in creationism, and plenty of other anti-intellectual type things?

So is the pope an anti-intellectual, or do we overlook religious beliefs when people say things we agree with? Is the pope on the “side of ignorance”?

Spidey:

this isn't about religious beliefs.

The pope is not from america.

I don't see the value of presenting a flat Earth scenario in school other than to show how utterly wrong it is. If someone wants to present "skeptical" arguments against climate change to illustrate why climate change is real, then fine, but don't spend to much time on it. Also, you are not a skeptic if there is no way to convince you something is true. Most climate skeptics are not skeptics at all.

Spidey wrote:So does anti-intellectualism apply to a person or a subject, because everybody’s new hero the pope believes in creationism, and plenty of other anti-intellectual type things?

no reason that folks can't be selectively anti-intellectual, but I suspect the new pope does not believe in Creationism in the same sense that a Protestant would. There is ZERO support for the US Creation museum, that I know of, from the Catholic Church.

So is the pope an anti-intellectual, or do we overlook religious beliefs when people say things we agree with? Is the pope on the “side of ignorance”?

or, we assume where the pope stands, without grasping that Jesuit Universities teach real science, and the pope holds two degrees in Chemistry. Catholics believe God put everything in place, but do not necessarily feel that evolution has shaped species, nor do they accept the Ark story as strict non-fiction, but allegory. I've talked to a few priests whilst the wife dragged me to her churches over the years. None were strict creationists in the 'God created all species, all at once' sense.

Well, excuse me, I always thought creationism was a belief that a supreme being created the universe.

You know…the “fairy tale” as you put it.

But forget it, because I’m not in the mood for the goal post moving BS. You win, I'm not spending all my energy defending what I never said.

Spidey wrote:Talk about anti-intellectualism, what you describe is also known as censorship.

You can’t expect people to understand their opinions are wrong, if nobody will explain why.

You’re wrong, so shut up, yea that’s very intellectual. Maybe you should throw in an insult or two while you are at it.

Also there seems to be confusion between professional opinion and lay opinion, where every one is valid. (I say it should be painted blue, and you say it should be red)

There's no "censorship" involved here: people are always free to say whatever they want, but again, that by no means implies that their words are worth considering. Idiots can always be idiots, and the rest of us will always call them on their idiocy. I think it's very disingenuous to claim that not treating every random Joe's opinion with equal validity counts as censorship, since that leads to the pathetic excuse for modern news reporting that I decried above.

And who said anything about not explaining? I wouldn't be working as a teacher if I didn't place massive personal value on clearing up ignorance and explaining how things work. Hell, I used to genuinely try to explain various topics all the time here, but just like so often happens, what eventually beat me down was getting rejected over and over by individuals who had utterly closed their minds to understanding the truth. Eventually I just gave up on it and started treating this place as a source of cheap laughs. Maybe Lothar's right, and we can raise the standard of discussion here if we try, but to me personally the real problem isn't personal insults nearly so much as that sort of rejection of rational thought.

When one side or person is convinced they have the lock on reasoned thought because they might be correct on some of the issues, I’m pretty sure that becomes part of the problem.

Then they start doing stuff like declaring themselves the winner and think they have the right to insult people because the other side is stupid.

It’s statistically impossible that the same side of any given debate is always wrong.

Why am I skeptical?:

"Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings."

Knowing this won't enhance the warmers position:

"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... year-2000/

Spidey wrote:When one side or person is convinced they have the lock on reasoned thought because they might be correct on some of the issues, I’m pretty sure that becomes part of the problem.

Then they start doing stuff like declaring themselves the winner and think they have the right to insult people because the other side is stupid.

It’s statistically impossible that the same side of any given debate is always wrong.

A lock? No. But the more correct a certain person is on multiple issues, particularly issues that they've been studying their whole life, the more credence one should lend to what they're saying, non? And conversely, if a person is wrong a great many times, one would have to be foolish to trust them yet again. There's a certain old proverb about a boy crying something that comes to mind.

And outside of the broken-clock adage, why shouldn't it be possible for a particular source to continuously be wrong about some topic? If you asked every five-year-old in the country where babies come from, you'd probably get a fascinating range of answers, but precious few that had any relation to the truth. If a person bases all of their positions on some fundamental irrationality or flawed line of thinking, chances are they're not going to come up with correct answers for much of anything.

Further thanks to woody for once again proving this thread's original point. Let's just take a cursory look at this Steven Goddard, shall we? The name "Heartland Institute" jumps out like a blazing neon sign, for one.

Spidey wrote:Well, excuse me, I always thought creationism was a belief that a supreme being created the universe.

many see it that way, but many others feel it involveds said being creating everything, all at once, intact and fully functional in current status(ie-higher animals, mammals, complex plants from the get-go).

woodchip wrote:Why am I skeptical?:

"Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings."

Knowing this won't enhance the warmers position:

"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend."

(facepalm)--first off,, you are citing a blog based on hearsay("Dr Jones said") and editorial interpretation of government data and even his results however dubious only deal with the US continental states, a small fraction of the overall system(the PLANET). Given that our mere basic weather patterns in the Continental US involve air flow, water vapor flow and such from the extreme Southeast Pacific Ocean and from Coastal Africa, with ocean currents connecting continents, such a narrow view has little scientific merit in speaking to GLOBAL warming/ climate change models. One's task in sorting out bogus data sets such as this is when the authors refers to fellow human beings(most of whom he disdains are highly educated scientists) as 'warmers', which speaks to the innate distribution of hate that Lothar posted about.


so, returning to the topic at hand, which WAS NOT intended to be a rehash of either evolution or climate change, but a far broader fight against intellectualism that has gripped the US for at least 40 years. Religious anti-intellectualism discussed above plays a role, but I fear it is far broader than that.

woodchip wrote:Why am I skeptical?

You are not a skeptic.

Also, here are 4 more threads on this board where Goddard has been brought up and discredited:

Remember all the Global Warming hysterics in the US?
On again off again
Who said this?
The Ridiculously Resilient Ridge

If this is all you've got, you're in trouble.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Why am I skeptical?

You are not a skeptic.

Also, here are 4 more threads on this board where Goddard has been brought up and discredited:

Remember all the Global Warming hysterics in the US?
On again off again
Who said this?
The Ridiculously Resilient Ridge

If this is all you've got, you're in trouble.

:

and you are in trouble when you stop looking beyond the official pap being spoon fed to you:

"The global warmers are the ones refusing to discuss, debate or even mention the growing body of science questioning and in increasing instances disproving their theories. They also mostly ignore news of manipulated climate models and the serious concerns of scientists who no longer believe the climate is changing significantly."

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... z3dn04WxBx
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

It would seem some here would take the easy route of believing consensus is settled science as it is easier than using their brain. And they never even hear the click of the collar as it snaps around their necks.

Tell me something, where is the youthful rebellion against the govt. like we had back in the 60's? Has the U.S. educational system become so moribund that it can't even graduate students that don't look beyond the govt. for answers? Where are the Abbie Hoffman's? The only protests I hear are in rap music that seems to only inspire urban riots. Are todays young adults so mentally deficient that a meme like "Hands up don't shoot" is taken as fact ? Sad days we have and it is no wonder people around the world are thinking Americas greatest days are behind us.

[quote="woodchip
Tell me something, where is the youthful rebellion against the govt. like we had back in the 60's? [/quote]
oh, it's there, maybe(for reasons pertinent to the thread) not in the huge numbers, as we've lost the teaching of critical thought in many quarters. Still, most of the rallies and such that I've attended in that last decade had plenty of youthful participants.

Has the U.S. educational system become so moribund that it can't even graduate students that don't look beyond the govt. for answers?

get out more, seriously.

Where are the Abbie Hoffman's? The only protests I hear are in rap music that seems to only inspire urban riots

once again, you need to get out there. Listen to some college radio. Also, please find the time to link to rap music that inspires riots.

. Are todays young adults so mentally deficient that a meme like "Hands up don't shoot" is taken as fact ? Sad days we have and it is no wonder people around the world are thinking Americas greatest days are behind us.

it sure isn't the young alone in that deficiency. Remember, a lot of supposed grown ups thought that Obamacare would bring death panels.

Rap music may not inspire riots, but it sure is a form of anti-intellectualism that glorifies violence, sexism, racism and egoism just to name a few.

they said similar things about twisted sister, alice cooper, etc.

Spidey wrote:Rap music may not inspire riots, but it sure is a form of anti-intellectualism that glorifies violence, sexism, racism and egoism just to name a few.

kinda what my folks said about the music I listened to in the late 60s.

After that kind of argument got smashed into the dirt over and over again, i'm pretty surprised people are still trying it.

There are really multiple flavors of anti-intellectualism at play in the US.

There's the religious form that surrounds Christian Fundamentalism. In the mid-1800s, it was common for people calling themselves "intellectuals" to make arguments about the reliability of the Bible that were actually completely wrong (extrapolating "there are spelling differences between copies" into "therefore it's been heavily edited" instead of the more correct "sometimes people make spelling mistakes, and the people making copies were so hard-core about not changing things that they mostly even preserved those mistakes".) This led to an "anti-intellectual" overreaction wherein people assumed the King James Bible had been correctly and perfectly preserved/translated, and that any "intellectual" who claimed otherwise was a charlatan (and every time an "intellectual" says something ignorant about the Bible, this perception is strengthened.) Said "intellectuals" also tended to treat the Bible as purely figurative, leading to the predictable backlash of treating the Bible as purely literal, which is where opposition to evolution comes from. [As an aside, "creationism" generally means "believing Genesis 1 is a literal timeline for creation". Neither the Pope, nor Orthodox bishops, nor the majority of non-Fundamentalist protestant leaders, believe in creationism.]

There's the anti-profit form that surrounds anti-vax, anti-GMO, and anti-AGW movements. The idea is that you can't trust "big phrama" or Monsanto or "government-funded scientists" because they have a profit motive to push some particular solution. Really, anything one might disagree with, the accusation of "follow the money" turns into an excuse to ignore the other side entirely (I saw a comment about guns this morning claiming a huge number of media people are "bought off by bribe and advertisement money from NRA lobbyist".) This form of anti-intellectualism is strengthened every time there is actually a scandal related to someone being paid off to promote bad science.

There's the racist form that intentionally downplays contributions from other cultures. I've heard people of more than one race seriously suggest that science is "for white people". I've heard people claim that scientists from India can't be trusted because India is "culturally backwards". Some people don't trust any science being done by "weenie euro socialists" even if it has nothing to do with economics.

There's the authoritarian "PC" form of anti-intellectualism that was outlined in this Vox article.

One of the weaknesses I see in the original article is that it only seems to recognize the "other side"'s forms of anti-intellectualism, while subtly encouraging its own (notice the "follow the money" comment relating to corporations and climate change.) Indeed, I think that's the core of the problem: people criticizing anti-intellectualism in some of these forms often end up encouraging it in some of the other forms, as a direct response. One person will encourage an "ignore the other side entirely" mentality, while another will encourage a faux-skepticism predicated on "they won't even address this, because it's so devastating". People will say they encourage critical thinking, but then get offended if that critical thinking happens to touch on any of their cherished beliefs -- whether it's your aunt on Facebook blocking you for not being a creationist (but she'll "pray for your soul"), or Larry Summers being run out of Harvard for suggesting that men and women might be statistically different in ways that are relevant to hiring in certain fields, or a neighbor blaming you for your kid being autistic because you chose to vaccinate. IMO the best way to encourage critical thinking is to accept it most readily when directed against you, and criticize anti-intellectualism most swiftly when it's being used to support you -- go directly against ego, and make it clear that the problem isn't with the conclusions but with the sloppy methodology.

Ferno wrote:After that kind of argument got smashed into the dirt over and over again, i'm pretty surprised people are still trying it.

I view it as largely generational. I hold back from the temptation to do it, all the time, but at least my daughter likes good(ie-my sort of) music.

Lothar wrote:There are really multiple flavors of anti-intellectualism at play in the US.

There's the religious form that surrounds Christian Fundamentalism. In the mid-1800s, it was common for people calling themselves "intellectuals" to make arguments about the reliability of the Bible that were actually completely wrong (extrapolating "there are spelling differences between copies" into "therefore it's been heavily edited" instead of the more correct "sometimes people make spelling mistakes, and the people making copies were so hard-core about not changing things that they mostly even preserved those mistakes".) This led to an "anti-intellectual" overreaction wherein people assumed the King James Bible had been correctly and perfectly preserved/translated, and that any "intellectual" who claimed otherwise was a charlatan (and every time an "intellectual" says something ignorant about the Bible, this perception is strengthened.) Said "intellectuals" also tended to treat the Bible as purely figurative, leading to the predictable backlash of treating the Bible as purely literal, which is where opposition to evolution comes from. [As an aside, "creationism" generally means "believing Genesis 1 is a literal timeline for creation". Neither the Pope, nor Orthodox bishops, nor the majority of non-Fundamentalist protestant leaders, believe in creationism.]

if I'm reading this correctly, you are making the assumption that viewing the Bible as allegory and not literal is 'anti-intellectual' which essentially ignores any concept of the study of Theology, which has discussed such views for centuries. Tell me I'm reading you incorrectly, please.


imho, anti-intellectualism DOES cut all ways, but is a huge issue with our culture. While I see folks celebrate the abjectly crass and stupid as 'redneck culture', completely ignoring that 'redneck' was a term generally used to describe farmers in the south, most of whom were working like the devil hoping that the kids could go to school, and learn to be more intellectual. When I see religious debate come down to what some 'leader' tells his followers to believe, that is anti-intellectualism. Likewise, if your poltical, social, or other thinking is primarily shaped by what you are told is 'real' by some website or 24 hour news channel, with no study or imput by your own grey matter, THAT is anti-intellectual. I'd love to see all interweb debate points be supported by footnotes for further study, and more folks fact check everything before presenting it. I'd love to see more reverence for the arts than for mixed martial arts, for reading over texting, for respect for nuance, context and factual proof. Will it happen? I have my doubts.

callmeslick wrote:if I'm reading this correctly, you are making the assumption that viewing the Bible as allegory and not literal is 'anti-intellectual'

You're not reading it correctly.

I'm noting a particular movement in the mid-1800s that involved both (1) unwarranted extrapolation from spelling errors to "it's all unreliable", and (2) an emphasis on the Bible as *pure* allegory. That movement served as a precursor to Christian Fundamentalism, which overreacted to both parts.

Both of those sides are anti-intellectual in their own way. The view that the Bible is pure allegory, as well as the view that the Bible is purely literal, are anti-intellectual views -- they both involve thoughtlessly dismissing reasons for reading some segments in the other way (for an ancient take, see Origen De Principiis book IV sections 11-16.) Likewise, both the view that the Bible is "perfectly preserved", and the view that the Bible has been heavily modified, are anti-intellectual views -- they both involve thoughtlessly dismissing evidence both pointing toward the general reliability, and the presence of occasional errors in, the Bible.

if your poltical, social, or other thinking is primarily shaped by what you are told is 'real' by some website or 24 hour news channel, with no study or imput by your own grey matter, THAT is anti-intellectual.... respect for nuance, context and factual proof.

Agreed. More generally speaking, I view "anti-intellectualism" as a method of thinking which is categorized by dismissiveness, intentional ignorance, and an inability to thoughtfully engage opposing points. When someone says "we cannot have dialogue, only monologue", when they respond to any counterpoint with snark, sarcasm, and disrespect without giving an actual answer, when they insist on picking on the weakest statement of the weakest point from an opposing position while ignoring the strongest statement of the strongest point, that's "anti-intellectualism".

One thing that I try to do is, when arguing with someone, I'll point out anything that's particularly weak about their position, but I also try to engage with the strongest part. I try to be realistic and honest in my disagreement. Sometimes that means admitting that I just hadn't thought about something and that my opponent makes a compelling case; other times it means recognizing that we agree on the facts and disagree on the relative importance of different considerations; other times it means recognizing that we're missing certain key facts and need to do more research. But the end result always should be that both I and my ideological opponent are stronger -- either we have learned new facts, or we've learned how to express them more cogently, or we've learned an area wherein we're making value judgments differently. Sometimes we may even *gasp* change our minds! But even if we don't, the important thing is that we thoughtfully engaged and wrestled with the ideas, instead of just spouting some pre-programmed response.

The difference between your parents and me is…I can actually understand the lyrics.

woodchip wrote:and you are in trouble when you stop looking beyond the official pap being spoon fed to you:

"The global warmers are the ones refusing to discuss, debate or even mention the growing body of science questioning and in increasing instances disproving their theories. They also mostly ignore news of manipulated climate models and the serious concerns of scientists who no longer believe the climate is changing significantly."

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... z3dn04WxBx
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Jesus, Woody...could you please stop flailing around for links for a moment and really listen to what people are saying to you? Okay? You're linking to an editorial by Cal Thomas, a columnist who I can tell you firsthand from seeing his writing appear in my local paper's editorial page for over 15 years wears his biases and loyalties on his sleeve. And his whole article is centered around Steve Goddard, the same person you just cited, who Vision reminded you has already been taken to task on three or four separate occasions here. I mean, on top of the climate change denial (I won't dignify it with "skepticism"), he's gone so far as to claim that carbon dioxide doesn't even act as a greenhouse gas, a statement which fails basic science so completely that I'm utterly amazed he'd dare to make it. Seriously, I can go into detail on some of the basic quantum mechanics behind that last part if you're willing to have a listen.

But this, what you're doing right here, is exactly what the original article is commenting on. You're seeking out these random sources and opinions just because they agree with what you already think, not because of any validity they may have. You're not doing the critical thinking required to ask the important questions: "Does this guy have the background/credentials to know what he's talking about? Is there any obvious motivation or agenda that could be influencing his views? What do other reputable people in the same field think about him?" From where I'm sitting, it's like you've just decided to go against the prevailing viewpoint, and you're grasping at any straw you can to justify that. But I have to ask...why? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that what all of the experts are saying is correct, what the data say is correct? Where is this dissonance you have coming from?

Top Gun wrote:But this, what you're doing right here, is exactly what the original article is commenting on. You're seeking out these random sources and opinions just because they agree with what you already think, not because of any validity they may have. You're not doing the critical thinking required to ask the important questions: "Does this guy have the background/credentials to know what he's talking about? Is there any obvious motivation or agenda that could be influencing his views? What do other reputable people in the same field think about him?" From where I'm sitting, it's like you've just decided to go against the prevailing viewpoint, and you're grasping at any straw you can to justify that. But I have to ask...why? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that what all of the experts are saying is correct, what the data say is correct? Where is this dissonance you have coming from?

very astute observations and assimilation of the OP.

callmeslick wrote:

Ferno wrote:After that kind of argument got smashed into the dirt over and over again, i'm pretty surprised people are still trying it.

I view it as largely generational. I hold back from the temptation to do it, all the time, but at least my daughter likes good(ie-my sort of) music.

good call. and also, nice to see IE being used properly.

Top Gun wrote:"Does this guy have the background/credentials to know what he's talking about? Is there any obvious motivation or agenda that could be influencing his views? What do other reputable people in the same field think about him?" From where I'm sitting, it's like you've just decided to go against the prevailing viewpoint, and you're grasping at any straw you can to justify that. But I have to ask...why? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that what all of the experts are saying is correct, what the data say is correct? Where is this dissonance you have coming from?

I personally don't tend to put all that much weight into people's credentials. I've noticed that I'm in a fairly small minority in this respect - people seem to make a big deal out of people's credentials. I similarly don't put as much stock into citations & sources as the majority of people. I suppose you can call me remiss for this - but I think the trend errs on the other extreme: to accept or dismiss people's statements based on their reputation, not based on the merits of the particular statement in question. I think I have two reasons for leaning this way: First, I see a lot of scientists using their scientific expertise to back sociopolitical or philosophical statements. I don't believe that scientific expertise necessarily translates to authority in other realms. Second, I feel like many times duration of involvement in a field is presented as equivalent to expertise. While I do agree that people generally learn from experience, I've also met enough people who have been doing something for a long time and are still getting it wrong to know that experience doesn't necessarily equate to correctness. For some people, I think it's a matter of ability, for others I think it's a matter of agenda - and that person's willingness to sacrifice correctness in the interest of furthering their agenda. [Note: I don't fault the pure agenda - I fault willingness to either present subjective opinion as objective fact or misrepresent objective fact in the interest of that agenda.] Maybe it comes to me having too much of an ego: I think I can judge statements for their merits, and I don't think I need to know if the person presenting the material is supposed to be right or not. It's a bit of a tricky line to walk: on one extreme blind acceptance of "experts" is a recipe for group-think, on the other you must start somewhere by believing/trusting something or you will have no frame of reference by with to judge everything else - so when I say I'm able to judge statements by their own merits, I'm judging them against what I've already accepted as truth and/or proper logic.

Here's my theory about anti-intellectualism in general: I think as a human race that we're born natural followers. I think our natural tendency is to find something or someone to follow and then latch on for dear life. I'd probably take it a step further and propose that we are all hard-wired to inevitably, always be latched-on to something or someone - and that for everyone it's a question of what, not a question of if. Thus, I think we're all subject to anti-intellectualism, and it comes out when we're presented with evidence that at least seems to falsify that to which we've committed ourselves to following. When we're hit with those challenges, we have to respond - and I think the most intellectual way is can respond is to face the challenges, recognize their implications, and then make conscious choice about what to do about the challenges. The common theme that I see in Lothar's types is denial and avoidance - which means to me that the least intellectual thing we can do is avoid or dodge the challenges.

snoopy, I agree that being(for example) a PhD in Physics does not qualify you as 'expert' on Philosphy. However, I do think it is a mistake to not consider the expertise of folks who have spent a lifetime dedicated to a given field as head and shoulders above the opinions of laypeople on matters pertaining to that field.