3 ms·
> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented wi
by DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts.
I agree with your point, but I suspect your choice of wording tells a little more of the story.
You said "facts", but given your skepticism of their veracity, I think "claims" or "propositions" is more apropos.
Consider the rhetorical difference of these two statements:
"Anti-intellectuals don't accept the facts."
vs.
"Anti-intellectuals don't accept the claims."
I would also question your use of the term "anti-intellectuals". I wonder if, at least for some of the persons to whom you apply that label, a better term is "skeptic".
- AlexB138 10y agoVery good points. My own bias is to believe the claims of the scientific community and is thoroughly revealed in my language. Perhaps I'm the one being bilked.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y agoThanks. I think the discussion gets a little tricky because the groups "scientific facts" and "anti-intellectuals" are pretty broad categories. I'm guessing that in a group of 1000 people that you would call "anti-intellectuals", some portion of them really do deserve that label. Similarly, in the group of propositions you'd call "scientific 'facts'", some really are beyond reasonable dispute (i.e., Newton's laws in everyday-life settings). But that there are some other propositions which the academic community and their mouthpieces (New York Times, etc.) hold with unjustified confidence.