3 ms·

"Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do." Just because you've studi

"Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do." Just because you've studied something your entire life doesn't make you right 100% of the time. "All those papers published in science journals are by Democrats!" The problem? Many scientific studies are also political in nature and slant to one way, which is why I start to question many of them. I can see the bias 10 miles away and most people just read it as fact. You make it sound almost like a religion: I'm not to question the supreme leader (people who are smarter than I am because they've studied a topic their entire lives), I just need to follow it. I will never think this way. Sorry. I am in no way anti-intellectual. I just refuse to be force-fed things by people claiming to be smarter than me.

kenjackson 15y ago
The problem paul is that this same level of criticality isn't enforced uniformly. Many, if not most, of those same people who doubt anything that comes out of Harvard, MIT, or CalTech as Democratic propaganda will cite Rush Limbaugh as a reputable authority on virtually anything. CalTech says that a certain nuclear facility has problems, Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech are lying." I don't know if Wiles did or did not prove FLT. I've seen the proof, don't understand it. Do I believe it -- I believe that a good faith convincing effort has been made. For most things I know in life that is also what I believe. I haven't confirmed really anything about the periodic table or much about quantum physics our sun or even more basic things like the gravitational pull of things not as large as the Earth. I do generally believe what others have told me (and the fact that they "say" they've done experiments), especially if they have a history of telling me things that are consistent with other things in my life. And to be clear it's not about people claiming to be smarter than you. It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech at lying." See. you're biased. You are talking about the left and the right. Not anti-intellectualism (which described above is actually anti-elitism). The left will never admit Rush is correct, even when he as scientific proof/facts to back it up. "It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge." You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research. Global warming is a good example of this. There is so much government money wrapped up in it (billions of dollars), I seriously doubt we will never know if it's truly man-caused or not (why would anyone go against it when their funding/tax dollars in many European countries gets cut). A friend of mine has his phd in epidemiology. She really opened my eyes up to the biased nature of research studies.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    > You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research. No. The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who funds it. So long as they're releasing all the papers[1] and the data[2] you can check the results yourself. [1] unethical scientists will do many studies and only release the ones that confirm the results they want to find. [2] often data is hidden somewhere and not available.
- rsanchez1 15y ago
  Of course it's the evil Rush Limbaugh's fault.
DanBC 15y ago
That's fine - a questioning attitude is great. When someone says "This research shows us X, Y and Z" it's a useful skill to look at the research and spot any flaws in the methods or the stats or the write up. Anti-intellectualism is not that. Anti-intellectuals will say things like "I don't need to read the research, that scientist gets money from $CORPORATION and thus nothing they say can be trusted. That's why climate change is bogus." or they say "So what if that research has proven a link between $FOODSTUFF and $DISEASE? So called studies come out all the time saying this or that are dangerous. That's why cigarettes are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be." People know very little about the scientific method ("Yeah, but that's just like a "theory"" they say, scornfully.) and scientific research is often mangled by journalists or politicians. (Also, unfortunately, by scientists needing a bit more funding.) But, worse, many people don't want to know anything about science, preferring to regard it all as too complicated or for boffins or dangerous. ("I don't want chemicals in my food!") Anti-intellectualism appeals to fringe "science", to quack "medicine", to wishy-washy pseudo-religious idiocy, and to religious fundamentalism. And it's not new, either. People have been railing against it for years. See, for example, "The Underground Grammarian" and this essay "Hunger in America". (scroll down a bit.) (http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv08/8.5.htm http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv08/8.5.htm)

kenjackson 15y ago

The problem paul is that this same level of criticality isn't enforced uniformly. Many, if not most, of those same people who doubt anything that comes out of Harvard, MIT, or CalTech as Democratic propaganda will cite Rush Limbaugh as a reputable authority on virtually anything. CalTech says that a certain nuclear facility has problems, Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech are lying." I don't know if Wiles did or did not prove FLT. I've seen the proof, don't understand it. Do I believe it -- I believe that a good faith convincing effort has been made. For most things I know in life that is also what I believe. I haven't confirmed really anything about the periodic table or much about quantum physics our sun or even more basic things like the gravitational pull of things not as large as the Earth. I do generally believe what others have told me (and the fact that they "say" they've done experiments), especially if they have a history of telling me things that are consistent with other things in my life. And to be clear it's not about people claiming to be smarter than you. It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge.

paulhauggis 15y ago
"Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech at lying." See. you're biased. You are talking about the left and the right. Not anti-intellectualism (which described above is actually anti-elitism). The left will never admit Rush is correct, even when he as scientific proof/facts to back it up. "It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge." You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research. Global warming is a good example of this. There is so much government money wrapped up in it (billions of dollars), I seriously doubt we will never know if it's truly man-caused or not (why would anyone go against it when their funding/tax dollars in many European countries gets cut). A friend of mine has his phd in epidemiology. She really opened my eyes up to the biased nature of research studies.
- DanBC 15y ago
  > You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research. No. The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who funds it. So long as they're releasing all the papers[1] and the data[2] you can check the results yourself. [1] unethical scientists will do many studies and only release the ones that confirm the results they want to find. [2] often data is hidden somewhere and not available.
rsanchez1 15y ago
Of course it's the evil Rush Limbaugh's fault.

DanBC 15y ago

That's fine - a questioning attitude is great. When someone says "This research shows us X, Y and Z" it's a useful skill to look at the research and spot any flaws in the methods or the stats or the write up. Anti-intellectualism is not that. Anti-intellectuals will say things like "I don't need to read the research, that scientist gets money from $CORPORATION and thus nothing they say can be trusted. That's why climate change is bogus." or they say "So what if that research has proven a link between $FOODSTUFF and $DISEASE? So called studies come out all the time saying this or that are dangerous. That's why cigarettes are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be." People know very little about the scientific method ("Yeah, but that's just like a "theory"" they say, scornfully.) and scientific research is often mangled by journalists or politicians. (Also, unfortunately, by scientists needing a bit more funding.) But, worse, many people don't want to know anything about science, preferring to regard it all as too complicated or for boffins or dangerous. ("I don't want chemicals in my food!") Anti-intellectualism appeals to fringe "science", to quack "medicine", to wishy-washy pseudo-religious idiocy, and to religious fundamentalism. And it's not new, either. People have been railing against it for years. See, for example, "The Underground Grammarian" and this essay "Hunger in America". (scroll down a bit.) (http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv08/8.5.htm http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv08/8.5.htm)