Anti-intellectualism

[blue tie]

Now more than ever, I have this inkling feeling... A fear even. Initially, I couldn't describe it. Then, it was a series of little things that bugged me. But they could all potentially be pointed back to one thing.

Anti-intellectualism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

It's a combination of issues, and I want to mention some of them. And I'd like to know what your thoughts are for combating this revolution. Or just how you feel in general.

Misuse of logic
Especially with the US elections on the horizon, there's a lot of persuasive argumentation and rhetoric that often employ "logic", as I put it. Or real logic, but picking and choosing certain parts and failing to maintain others, essentially defeating the entire logical framework. But still persuasive to some, nonetheless.

Extremists/religion
I believe even the greatest scientists should have a religion, or some sort of faith. But not the same type of religion that's commonly featured. Again, lots of "logic" in this crowd...

Anti science/education
The US is increasingly being seen as a stupid country. Why don't we care?

Lack of accountability
Do people not want to be accountable anymore?

Here are some really meaty questions:

* How do we as rationals reconcile that not everyone is rational? Are we "wrong"?
* Is there really an anti-intellectual revolution going on, or has it been this way for a while? Should we worry?
* Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion? Is that oxy moronic or self-defeating?

[Undead Bonzi]

Now more than ever, I have this inkling feeling... A fear even. Initially, I couldn't describe it. Then, it was a series of little things that bugged me. But they could all potentially be pointed back to one thing.

Anti-intellectualism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

It's a combination of issues, and I want to mention some of them. And I'd like to know what your thoughts are for combating this revolution. Or just how you feel in general.

Misuse of logic
Especially with the US elections on the horizon, there's a lot of persuasive argumentation and rhetoric that often employ "logic", as I put it. Or real logic, but picking and choosing certain parts and failing to maintain others, essentially defeating the entire logical framework. But still persuasive to some, nonetheless.

Extremists/religion
I believe even the greatest scientists should have a religion, or some sort of faith. But not the same type of religion that's commonly featured. Again, lots of "logic" in this crowd...

Anti science/education
The US is increasingly being seen as a stupid country. Why don't we care?

Lack of accountability
Do people not want to be accountable anymore?

Here are some really meaty questions:

* How do we as rationals reconcile that not everyone is rational? Are we "wrong"?
* Is there really an anti-intellectual revolution going on, or has it been this way for a while? Should we worry?
* Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion? Is that oxy moronic or self-defeating?

#1. We are in a 'democracy' and are outnumbered by the irrationals, of course we are wrong.

#2. Nothing intentional but yes, I have seen a lot of trends that seem to lead away from rational and logical thought. However I am only 24 so I can not really say if or when this trend started or if it has always been. I also consider the Greek and Roman times vs. the Dark Age that followed their fall. Maybe these things go in cycles, we reach a peak and fall down, then a few centuries later somebody picks it up again.

#3. Illogical. Religions require faith while science is based on observation and conclusion which negates faith even if the conculsions arrived at are false. Plus a 'religion' of science would spawn more psuedo-science things like Intelligent Design. If the world wishes to circle the drain for awhile let it, there is nothing anyone can do to stop social inertia once it is really in motion.

[Doppelbock]

You make many of the same points that Susan Jacoby makes in her book "The Age of American Unreason. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"

And I agree.

The science/logic-based "religion" to counter all of this is called CRITICAL THINKING.

DB

[blue tie]

Is it our job as rationals/intellectuals to advocate? Preach? Teach? Spread the good word of science?

PS, thanks to the mod who moved the thread. I wasn't sure what the appropriate forum was. :)

[stasis]

I believe even the greatest scientists should have a religion, or some sort of faith. But not the same type of religion that's commonly featured.
Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion?
I like to argue that it is actually a prevailing religious weltanschauung inclining us to classify rationalism as or needing a counterpart form of religion. It is not, it does not. Basically, my opinion is that the concept of 'religious need' is itself an exponent of the influence of religious worldview in our background culture.

When reading even spirited philosophical defenses of rationalism and empirical planning, we might take note of the common practice that is rendering the non-religious experience and non-religious summaries of the human condition in terms of "only," "nothing more," "we are just a," et cetera. Implicit in those defenses, therefore, is the notion that materialist models dealing with what exists, could exist, and might exist are somehow summarizing something "less" than what the analogous religious models summarize, when in fact they both purport to be suited to dealing with the same all-encompassing dataset. Of significance, there can be nothing more than everything.

In order to avoid portrayal as an "extremist" or "militant" of some sort (I guess), many otherwise rationalist intellectuals also seem to make diplomatic appeals to what I call the 'aesthetic of the center' by offering broad concessions to the traditional claims of religious worldviews as a matter of course. It all sounds less oppositional that way. Unfortunately, I think this practice usually undermines the rationalist position being advocated; not only by introducing contradictions in the reasoning, but also by helping to maintain the vaunted cultural space that religious worldviews have long occupied. So, on effectiveness, I'd suggest that buttressing rationalism with religion to an even greater degree than it already has been is a significant step in the wrong direction.

[Tocsin]

How do we as rationals reconcile that not everyone is rational? Are we "wrong"?

As with most things in life, right or wrong has nothing to do with majority opinion.

Is there really an anti-intellectual revolution going on, or has it been this way for a while? Should we worry?

Yes (though it could be said the the revolution is nearly complete or possibly complete); it has been this way for more at least a quarter century (in the U.S.); and yes, if you value freedom, and the right to ask questions and form your own opinion.

Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion? Is that oxy moronic or self-defeating?

A religion, or a "faith," to promote reason would be a contradiction.

What reason needs in an ideology, which it already has. It is an ideology that promotes and values knowledge, reason, rationalism, and liberalism. It has been called the "Age of Reason," and also the "Age of Enlightenment." It is the ideology that led to the formation of the United States and underlies the Constitution.

It is not the ideology cuurently dominant in the United States. The current dominant ideology in the U.S. might be labeled "the faith based community."

The old values of the enlightenment have recently been labeled "the reality based community."

"What underlies Bush's certainty? And can it be assessed in the temporal realm of informed consent?

All of this - the "gut" and "instincts," the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, "faith," and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision - often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position - he expects complete faith in its rightness...

The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. The dome of silence cracked a bit in the late winter and spring, with revelations from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and also, in my book, from the former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. When I quoted O'Neill saying that Bush was like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," this did not endear me to the White House. But my phone did begin to ring, with Democrats and Republicans calling with similar impressions and anecdotes about Bush's faith and certainty. These are among the sources I relied upon for this article. Few were willing to talk on the record.

***

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored "road map" for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman - the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress - mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: "Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

***

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

***

By late afternoon on a cloudy Labor Day, with a crowd of more than 20,000 assembled in a public park, Billington stepped to the podium. "The largest group I ever talked to I think was seven people, and I'm not much of a talker," Billington, a shy man with three kids and a couple of dozen rental properties that he owns, told me several days later. "I've never been so frightened."

But Billington said he "looked to God" and said what was in his heart. "The United States is the greatest country in the world," he told the rally. "President Bush is the greatest president I have ever known. I love my president. I love my country. And more important, I love Jesus Christ."
The crowd went wild, and they went wild again when the president finally arrived and gave his stump speech. There were Bush's periodic stumbles and gaffes, but for the followers of the faith-based president, that was just fine. They got it - and "it" was the faith.

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community."
--Ron Sukind, from the article "Faith, Certainty, and the Presidency of George W. Bush," NYT 10/17/2004

Leaders within the faith based community are currently seeking to further undermine the values of the reality based community in order to establish a theocratic "christian naition/kingdom of god on earth."

"We are approaching a time when Christians, especially, may have to declare the social contract between Enlightenment rationalists and Biblical believers - which formed the basis of the constitution written at our nation's founding - null and void."
--Cal Thomas, conservative commentator; Washington Times, 10/23/1996

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country... We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. We want theocracy."
--Randall Terry, former leader of "Operation Rescue"

"It's true that much attention is being placed on the war in Iraq, but there's also another war that's going on. It's a culture war that really gets to the heart of the questions about what is the role of faith in the public square."
--Jim Towey, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, at a conference the 2004 Republican National Convention

As the words of these nascent neo-theocrats attest to, the ideals of faith based thinking are at odds with reason, intellectualism, and the ideals of the enlightenment.

And though the Age of the Enlightenment emerged from an age of faith, and many of its proponents still clung to the unraveling raiment of public faith (and it should be noted that they still lived in an era when a public revelation of apostasy could still merit either social exile or public execution), the one thing that undoubtedly emerged from the ideals of the Enlightenment is modern atheism.

[Antares]

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country... We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. We want theocracy."

Because God thinks exactly like he does (if he even thinks). It's funny how God hates everything he hates, but then again, God hates whatever I hate too. And that's theocracy. Our era seems to be one in a long series of 'Great Awakenings' that pulls the whole nation back to the far right; it's just a phase. If someone more left gets elected soon, he might pull us out. But man he's going to have to clean up the Dubya mess.

[Monte314]

#3. Illogical. Religions require faith while science is based on observation and conclusion which negates faith even if the conculsions arrived at are false. Plus a 'religion' of science would spawn more psuedo-science things like Intelligent Design. If the world wishes to circle the drain for awhile let it, there is nothing anyone can do to stop social inertia once it is really in motion.

August Comte's logical positivism was a religion based upon logic, scientism, and reason. It failed, of course.

[Futuremouse]

Misuse of logic
Misuse of logic
Especially with the US elections on the horizon, there's a lot of persuasive argumentation and rhetoric that often employ "logic", as I put it. Or real logic, but picking and choosing certain parts and failing to maintain others, essentially defeating the entire logical framework. But still persuasive to some, nonetheless.

i see as a dangerous increase in the use of fallacious argument, and a hesitancy (or scarily-er a lack of desire) for journalists and even candidates, to nip that shit in the bud. ACORN? 50 people are going to show up and vote fraudulently as 'the hamburlgar'? bullshit. no polling station would allow that. the process doesn't work that way. doesn't stop 50 'journalists' and 10,000,000 dumbfucks from repeating it ad nauseam. the lack of accuracy and fact (which i do think is a symptom of anti-intellectualism) makes me want to 'chunder' (which i think is slang for vomit, which i stole from some young lady in another thread, uncredited).


Extremists/religion
I believe even the greatest scientists should have a religion, or some sort of faith. But not the same type of religion that's commonly featured. Again, lots of "logic" in this crowd...

see above. it's a copout. utter absence of fact and accuracy. i think you should have to qualify that shit, then disqualify yourself from the expectation of able participate or be respected in any argument or debate. anyone who argues from a platform of religion should only be allowed to make statements, not debate. i guess it depends on whether you're talking about practical science or theoretical science. i can prove that water boils @ 100C. i can prove why it does, chemically. you can't prove to me that it happens because God decided it should on about then. -1 point for God.

Anti science/education
The US is increasingly being seen as a stupid country. Why don't we care?

ego? i dunno really. objectively, we, as a country, perform less well on tests of knowledge of fact, mathematics, etc than our other first world peers. i blame it on baggy pants and rock music.

Lack of accountability
Do people not want to be accountable anymore?

no. no they don't. but, since there isn't any real mechanism to make people accountable for stupidity, laziness, or intentional malfeasance (i.e being eaten by a bear or pressed to death) it is a phenomenon that the world will either have to rally itself to check, or simply tolerate.

Here are some really meaty questions:

* How do we as rationals reconcile that not everyone is rational? Are we "wrong"?

yes. but, no. but, yes. whoever makes the rules typically wins. we, as rationals, are simply suffering from not having enough chairs on the Rules Committee of life.

* Is there really an anti-intellectual revolution going on, or has it been this way for a while? Should we worry?

yes, but not for the obvious reasons. the people who are actually winning are the puppetmasters, not the puppets. irrationals are easily led, but aren't the ones reaping the spoils. rather than trying to convert a nation of mouth breathers into thinkers, we should probably be trying to get a hold of the strings, or open our own theater down the street. we could have free popcorn at ours, that'll bring in the rubes.

* Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion? Is that oxy moronic or self-defeating?

this one is deeper. anyone who saw 'religulous' would have noticed the abrupt (and somewhat tacked on) rant at the end by bill maher, where he tried to convince us that religious whackjobs who fervently believe in the end of the world will eventually get their way. i disagreed with the tone, but i can't discount the underlying message. we, as a bizarre collective of a specific, minority personality type, would be remiss in assuming that other people are capable, or willing, to perceive things as we do.

it's wiring. it's chemical math in your spongy parts. it's nature, it's nurture, it's frustrating, and it's an ego trip. no amount of coaxing, threats, or kind guidance will likely get an earnest religo-phile to recant, or my wife to actually install the fresh roll of tp on the dispenser rather than just placing it nearby.

keep your head down and pick your battles. strive to win them, sure, but make sure they're the ones that are worth it.

[Karamazov]

The old values of the enlightenment have recently been labeled "the reality based community."

Leaders within the faith based community are currently seeking to further undermine the values of the reality based community in order to establish a theocratic "christian naition/kingdom of god on earth."

As to the paragraphs in bold, It's quite unsettling but not surprising. It's deeply reminiscent of the Grand Inquisitor and the surreptitious ramblings of Leo Strauss.

Religiosity has always been a staple on American society; having relegated Enlightenment values and scientific inquiry that inconveniences "Middle America"'s weltanschauung, as stasis put it. What happened to Thomas Payne shorty after his publishing The Age of Reason is emblematic of this. We are, after all, the only industrialized nation that still places evolution as a "contentious" issue, and "a matter of opinion".

Of course, no need to tell you all of this. I'll let Tracy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) do that.

[melon]

* How do we as rationals reconcile that not everyone is rational? Are we "wrong"?

Nobody is perfectly rational; the best we can hope for is to recognize our human faults and attempt to correct them to the best of our ability. I certainly wouldn't think that anybody would be wrong to assert that not everybody is rational.


* Is there really an anti-intellectual revolution going on, or has it been this way for a while? Should we worry?

While I'm not old enough (or simply haven't read enough recent history) to know if it has been this way for a while, I would say that there is to some extent a rising anti-intellectual sentiment, at least in the United States. It is particularly evident in the media (apparently, being stupid is hilarious now), among certain political figures, and in the social conservatism movement, in which many have been attempting to hinder science in fear that we are "playing God," enforce unnecessary laws in an effort to force their own "family values" upon others, arrest certain types of education (e.g. sex education), and otherwise wallow in misoneism. Another example would be the 2000 election season, in which our president publicly prided himself in having subpar grades back in school (a C average, if I'm remembering correctly) in an effort to relate with the "average American" while portraying Gore as an intellectual, as if this were somehow a bad thing. Even more depressing is that this strategy seems to have worked. So yes, I would consider this to have been going on (in the US, anyhow) for at least the past 10 years.


* Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion? Is that oxy moronic or self-defeating?

Religion usually entails holding a belief by faith alone, so I would consider it to be oxymoronic. And, if you consider your typical reaction to religious preachiness or overzealousness, it wouldn't be hard to imagine others reacting similarly to nonreligious preachiness. It would be annoying and self-defeating.

August Comte's logical positivism was a religion based upon logic, scientism, and reason. It failed, of course.

Could you elaborate? I neither see how logical positivism is a religion or how it failed, unless you're referring its late decline in popularity (which by no means necessarily negates its worth as a philosophy). And, are you saying that it "of course" failed because it is a religion or because it is based upon logic, science, and reason? If it's the former, I would like to hear an explanation of why you think it is a religion, and, if the latter, I would definitely like to hear your reasoning. Or nonreasoning, should reason once again fail.

[Fanowene]

In some ways I'm anti-intellectual myself. It's not like I don't like logical/rational thinking, but I hate people who think they are "oh so smart". Well, I don't actually hate them as people, but I dislike their attitude/arrogance. Thinking for the sake of sounding smart and/or being respected/liked (instead of using what you come up with for a practical/useful purpose) sounds disgusting to me (and is a waste of time in my opinion).

[Tocsin]

Of course, no need to tell you all of this. I'll let Tracy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) do that.

Thank you for that well timed horror clip. Halloween is just around the corner, and the elections less than a week later, and nothing is more terrifying that the fact that there are many people in the country like Tracy, and they have a right to vote.

The results may be as terrifying as what happened in Germany fifty odd years ago, and as predictable as what happens to any good looking blond teenage girl who goes down into a basement alone in a pulp horror movie.

[deinotes]

In some ways I'm anti-intellectual myself. It's not like I don't like logical/rational thinking, but I hate people who think they are "oh so smart". Well, I don't actually hate them as people, but I dislike their attitude/arrogance. Thinking for the sake of sounding smart and/or being respected/liked (instead of using what you come up with for a practical/useful purpose) sounds disgusting to me (and is a waste of time in my opinion).
Those are some poeple really smart poeple know they know very little ;).

[zibber]

* How do we as rationals reconcile that not everyone is rational? Are we "wrong"?

Some don't place an emphasis on reason, don't value reason as highly as you do. I think it would be silly for someone truly to reject the rationality of reason (head explode), but some don't value its application in practice. There is your reconciliation, it's called acceptance. After this, you can be activist, but the reconciliation lies in acceptance.


* Is there really an anti-intellectual revolution going on, or has it been this way for a while? Should we worry?

There have always been rationals and "irrationals" (others who don't emphasise reason).

I think any dogmatism is principally worrisome or troublesome, rather, in that it troubles minds and steers people away from nonconceptual clarity. (How fancily phrased :laugh:)


* Should there be a science/logic-based "religion" to combat overzealous religion? Is that oxy moronic or self-defeating?

No, it may be relevant to your interests to think about something like that. It is abundantly clear that you cannot promote reason by sheer reason. Only religious people really, really susceptible to a rational emphasis are interested in Richard Dawkins, for instance. If you wrap your agenda differently, it may have more effect.