This is not a true statement, but I'm not callng attention to where.Eidolon has not brought up any personal information about you in his posts.
As to personal life, I've said only ten words about his personal life, and I own that.
Anti-Intellectualism
-
Relbeek Einre
- Der Fuhrer
- Posts: 15871
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:16 am
- Location: Eagan, MN
-
Aabe
- Knight of the Brazen Hussy
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:47 pm
- Location: St. George, UT golf capital o th' world.
Sadly too much of science is politicized. Psychology, ecology and others.
They suffer too much from "If I have a hammer in hand, lifes problems ALL start looking like nails".
There is pure honest science. But too many people use their ivory tower degree to push something they cant prove and try to get it accepted as fact. Of course the often uneducated media does us no favor by publishing "findings" without the benchmarks to let common people judge them. How many things are there left that don't cause cancer?
Also your original statement of the farmer tilling the field, I would adjust to say, he gets really ticked off when some degreed person comes up and tells him he can no longer till because they determined an endangered slug/weed now resides on his property.
I have seen bad science abused on both sides.
I have seen funding for suposedly good science sway the published conclusions, we got to look over some of a tobacco companys funded research in "unbiased institutions" when I made medical equipement.
I am in no way against science. But I can sure understand the resentment toward "ivory towered folks" that have never raised a child pushing science to outlaw and restrict how other people can raise theirs.
Or the guy that is plowing a furrow around his house in California with wild fires in sight, while some expert is telling him to stop, because he is messing with a protected area.
Sometimes its not the science, just the laws that get badly crafted around the science. Sometimes the science isnt so good. Either way, I completely understand the mistrust of science and law/policy making. If you are not expert enough to understand it and you know sometimes they use it wrongly to pass restrictive policies, why should you trust it?
Why not let the scientists "educate" the masses throught media, let the public debates rage, let the pressure for new laws come from the common man and not some committee of scientists that know best? Let the psychologists publish their works and convince the people of better ways to raise the kids, let the people try it out, see that it works. Let the people then push for the new laws. Don't let some committee of "we know best" people call the shots.
GO!! BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY!! GO!!
They suffer too much from "If I have a hammer in hand, lifes problems ALL start looking like nails".
There is pure honest science. But too many people use their ivory tower degree to push something they cant prove and try to get it accepted as fact. Of course the often uneducated media does us no favor by publishing "findings" without the benchmarks to let common people judge them. How many things are there left that don't cause cancer?
Also your original statement of the farmer tilling the field, I would adjust to say, he gets really ticked off when some degreed person comes up and tells him he can no longer till because they determined an endangered slug/weed now resides on his property.
I have seen bad science abused on both sides.
I have seen funding for suposedly good science sway the published conclusions, we got to look over some of a tobacco companys funded research in "unbiased institutions" when I made medical equipement.
I am in no way against science. But I can sure understand the resentment toward "ivory towered folks" that have never raised a child pushing science to outlaw and restrict how other people can raise theirs.
Or the guy that is plowing a furrow around his house in California with wild fires in sight, while some expert is telling him to stop, because he is messing with a protected area.
Sometimes its not the science, just the laws that get badly crafted around the science. Sometimes the science isnt so good. Either way, I completely understand the mistrust of science and law/policy making. If you are not expert enough to understand it and you know sometimes they use it wrongly to pass restrictive policies, why should you trust it?
Why not let the scientists "educate" the masses throught media, let the public debates rage, let the pressure for new laws come from the common man and not some committee of scientists that know best? Let the psychologists publish their works and convince the people of better ways to raise the kids, let the people try it out, see that it works. Let the people then push for the new laws. Don't let some committee of "we know best" people call the shots.
GO!! BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY!! GO!!
-
ZanypherCocoapuffs
- Jiggling Anime Tits > All
- Posts: 4319
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 3:59 pm
- Location: Kennewick, WA (This side of the TV)
-
Torakus
- Ignore me, I am drunk again
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:04 am
Relbeek,
Do I give the impression of being anti-intellectual? That would really surprise everyone that knows me. How you could confuse me and Tholiak sort of boggles my mind. If anything I find myself more anti-psuedo-intellectual, something we have plenty of around here.
Anyway, I agree both with you and Eid in this case. I agree that the neo-conservative take over of the Republican party has caused a very public resurgence of anit-intellectualism. I also feel that anti-intellectualism is a very improtant part of our social psyche. As Eid pointed out, in modern terms, it boils down to a healthy mistrust of the intellectual elites babble. Now Bush poo-pooing scientists and shit canning them from boards for not agreeing with the data they provide is something entirely different. Certainly it fits the tone of what anti-intellectualism is but on a scale really that it deserves its on term. Or perhaps my idea of anti-intellectualism is a better candidate for a different term or differentiation from it. It just seems to me, that everything you are labeling anti-intellectualism is dishonest, and I don't think that describes the whole idea. Obviously it describes firing academics for opposing your views, but it does not describe it in the larger sense of a general skeptisism that Eidlon talks about.
Either way, taken to extremes like Tholiak does and other posters many times do, you are right. I am not sure if it is indicative of some great scheme by the neo-conservatives to dumb down the already dumb though. This country has seen such a massive anti-traditionalism movement over the last 4 decades, I prefer to see it is as an attempt to establish a balance between the two. I know, apples and oranges, but I don't make neo-conservative policy, nor do I expect it to make sense, but that is what I see.
Torakus
Do I give the impression of being anti-intellectual? That would really surprise everyone that knows me. How you could confuse me and Tholiak sort of boggles my mind. If anything I find myself more anti-psuedo-intellectual, something we have plenty of around here.
Anyway, I agree both with you and Eid in this case. I agree that the neo-conservative take over of the Republican party has caused a very public resurgence of anit-intellectualism. I also feel that anti-intellectualism is a very improtant part of our social psyche. As Eid pointed out, in modern terms, it boils down to a healthy mistrust of the intellectual elites babble. Now Bush poo-pooing scientists and shit canning them from boards for not agreeing with the data they provide is something entirely different. Certainly it fits the tone of what anti-intellectualism is but on a scale really that it deserves its on term. Or perhaps my idea of anti-intellectualism is a better candidate for a different term or differentiation from it. It just seems to me, that everything you are labeling anti-intellectualism is dishonest, and I don't think that describes the whole idea. Obviously it describes firing academics for opposing your views, but it does not describe it in the larger sense of a general skeptisism that Eidlon talks about.
Either way, taken to extremes like Tholiak does and other posters many times do, you are right. I am not sure if it is indicative of some great scheme by the neo-conservatives to dumb down the already dumb though. This country has seen such a massive anti-traditionalism movement over the last 4 decades, I prefer to see it is as an attempt to establish a balance between the two. I know, apples and oranges, but I don't make neo-conservative policy, nor do I expect it to make sense, but that is what I see.
Torakus
-
Relbeek Einre
- Der Fuhrer
- Posts: 15871
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:16 am
- Location: Eagan, MN
-
Eidolon Faer
- The Dark Lord of Felwithe
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:25 pm
Torakus...
When you talk about the politicization of science...demanding that you get the results I want or you're fired...I'm definitely opposed to that. I am trained as a scientist myself and it infuriates me.
The question is, in the circumstance you mention, who is doing the politicization and who is doing the honest science? Right now on the subject of Global Warming there is a great deal of Academic debate and a great deal MORE political quackery from both sides. We've had this debate in other threads and, ultimately, we don't yet have the kind of observational data over a long timeline we'd need to establish the truth of the question one way or another. That's science. Engineering asks the question "by the time we get that baseline will it be too late to fix anything?" and political quackery replies either "Yes! ZOMG! Yes we're all gonna diiiieee!" or "There's no such thing as Global Warming."
But that's not anti-intellectualism. In fact, it's closer to the opposite. When political hacks try to masquerade as intellectuals for purposes of gaining unearned credibility in political debates, they are making hay from the fact that America is NOT anti-intellectual.
And, unfortunately, spreading cynicism and suspicion in their wakes.
I will admit, however, that there is a strong anti-INTELLIGENTSIA bias among Conservatives. Which is not quite the same thing as anti-intellectualism.
I suppose there may well be a point to the term neo-conservative after all. The main reason I find the intelligentsia so annoying is that they're just as big a bunch of slavish, herd-mentality mindless lemmings as the worst televangelist-groupies on the Religious Right. Sure, they throw fancy dinner parties and make wittay conversation, but they all recite the same talking points in the same words and embrace all the trendy causes... It makes me want to puke.
And when you ask them WHY we simply must do whatever absurd thing they're advocating, they get this horrible, deer-in-the-headlights blank expression. Then they reply "It's TERRIBLY complicated, my boy...you wouldn't understand the subtleties and nuances." Then their eyes rattle around in their head for a few seconds until they regain enough composure for another sip of chardonnay.
Try me. I managed to sort out Fluid Mechanics. How hard can it be if YOU understand it?
When you talk about the politicization of science...demanding that you get the results I want or you're fired...I'm definitely opposed to that. I am trained as a scientist myself and it infuriates me.
The question is, in the circumstance you mention, who is doing the politicization and who is doing the honest science? Right now on the subject of Global Warming there is a great deal of Academic debate and a great deal MORE political quackery from both sides. We've had this debate in other threads and, ultimately, we don't yet have the kind of observational data over a long timeline we'd need to establish the truth of the question one way or another. That's science. Engineering asks the question "by the time we get that baseline will it be too late to fix anything?" and political quackery replies either "Yes! ZOMG! Yes we're all gonna diiiieee!" or "There's no such thing as Global Warming."
But that's not anti-intellectualism. In fact, it's closer to the opposite. When political hacks try to masquerade as intellectuals for purposes of gaining unearned credibility in political debates, they are making hay from the fact that America is NOT anti-intellectual.
And, unfortunately, spreading cynicism and suspicion in their wakes.
I will admit, however, that there is a strong anti-INTELLIGENTSIA bias among Conservatives. Which is not quite the same thing as anti-intellectualism.
I suppose there may well be a point to the term neo-conservative after all. The main reason I find the intelligentsia so annoying is that they're just as big a bunch of slavish, herd-mentality mindless lemmings as the worst televangelist-groupies on the Religious Right. Sure, they throw fancy dinner parties and make wittay conversation, but they all recite the same talking points in the same words and embrace all the trendy causes... It makes me want to puke.
And when you ask them WHY we simply must do whatever absurd thing they're advocating, they get this horrible, deer-in-the-headlights blank expression. Then they reply "It's TERRIBLY complicated, my boy...you wouldn't understand the subtleties and nuances." Then their eyes rattle around in their head for a few seconds until they regain enough composure for another sip of chardonnay.
Try me. I managed to sort out Fluid Mechanics. How hard can it be if YOU understand it?
-
Ddrak
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
While there's nothing wrong with deriding the "intelligentsia" that Eidolon references, I think the more radical political movements (environmental left, neo-coservative right etc.) tends to see any academic that disagrees with their opinions as part of this "intelligensia" until proven otherwise.
It should also be noted that Eid's definition of "intelligensia" is inherently non-partisan and I think that's a notable thing. There are obviously more on the left, but it can't be denied that a few right wing nutters turn up too.
Dd
It should also be noted that Eid's definition of "intelligensia" is inherently non-partisan and I think that's a notable thing. There are obviously more on the left, but it can't be denied that a few right wing nutters turn up too.
Dd