Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[Estrid]

And not one of them has anything to do with any of the threads you keep trying to inject them into. No one cares.

Whatever our hero of the shroud chooses to think, a number
of us have done our due diligence on the "shroud" question.

All aside from that it's authenticity would constitute
proof of god, a very fraught proposition, there is that
the support, like that for creationism, all comes from
various woo woo type sources.

If it's so real, let it be properly tested. Our Hero of
the Shroud claims researchers are afraid to "look
for God", but fails to note that the church is loathe
to allow testing for a very obvious reasos..

Until / unless it is properly tested, all claims
about it are void.

The only reason for dragging it into every conversation
is a cheap attempt to make other people look as if
they are the ones unwilling to be reasonable or
look at facts, etc, as was repeated enough times
that nobody failed to get the idea,

 

[Speedwell]

This is happening across a range of issues like with gender ideology for example. Basically I think we have moved into or have been in a new mode of thinking (post modernism) and politically the left are more slanted towards disregarding the science and often forcus more on personal rights regardless of the facts. Here’s is the definition of post modernism and this seems to fit what we are seeing in recent times.

Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or economic power. Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value systems as contingent or socially-conditioned, framing them as products of political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-consciousness, self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
Postmodernism - Wikipedia

For me what stands out in this definition is obviously the general skepticism towards just about everything including objective reality, human nature and science but it seems to be more about self-consciousness, self-referentiality. Self consciousness is a heightened awareness of self, a preoccupation with self ideas and reality and theres is only self truth rather than any real truth. Self-referentiality is about how the subject sees things rather than how reality is measured outside the subject objectively.

As we have seen in modern times some people are placing more importance on how the individual or group sees things. Reality is slanted towards the subjective rather than the objective. Personal experience and emotions are regarded as the true measure of what is happening. That is why some become outraged about certain issues or when confronted with objective reality. They disregard the science and replace it with subjective ideologies. I think this is why we see so much fake news.

It can be difficult to counter this as it appeals to personal emotion and rights which are hard to dispute with facts. Reason and facts are seen as scare mongering and personal attacks. Science is made out to be one possible perspective that is not necessarily true and in fact oppressive. But as Shapiro says facts don't have feelings.

So you are accusing religious conservatives of being postmodernists? There might be something in that, but they won't like hearing it.

 

[Estrid]

This is happening across a range of issues like with gender ideology for example. Basically I think we have moved into or have been in a new mode of thinking (post modernism) and politically the left are more slanted towards disregarding the science and often forcus more on personal rights regardless of the facts. Here’s is the definition of post modernism and this seems to fit what we are seeing in recent times.

Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or economic power. Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value systems as contingent or socially-conditioned, framing them as products of political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-consciousness, self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
Postmodernism - Wikipedia

For me what stands out in this definition is obviously the general skepticism towards just about everything including objective reality, human nature and science but it seems to be more about self-consciousness, self-referentiality. Self consciousness is a heightened awareness of self, a preoccupation with self ideas and reality and theres is only self truth rather than any real truth. Self-referentiality is about how the subject sees things rather than how reality is measured outside the subject objectively.

As we have seen in modern times some people are placing more importance on how the individual or group sees things. Reality is slanted towards the subjective rather than the objective. Personal experience and emotions are regarded as the true measure of what is happening. That is why some become outraged about certain issues or when confronted with objective reality. They disregard the science and replace it with subjective ideologies. I think this is why we see so much fake news.

It can be difficult to counter this as it appeals to personal emotion and rights which are hard to dispute with facts. Reason and facts are seen as scare mongering and personal attacks. Science is made out to be one possible perspective that is not necessarily true and in fact oppressive. But as Shapiro says facts don't have feelings.

This post modern stuff sounds an awful lot like
pre modern religious fundamentalism in its
approach, for all that the issues may be different.

 

[durangodawood]

I've been shouting over and over again here about the terrific irony of the right falling in love with
post-modernism in the Trump era of "alternative facts".

 

[sjastro]

This is happening across a range of issues like with gender ideology for example. Basically I think we have moved into or have been in a new mode of thinking (post modernism). Here’s is the definition of post modernism and this seems to fit what we are seeing in recent times.

Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or economic power. Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value systems as contingent or socially-conditioned, framing them as products of political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-consciousness, self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
Postmodernism - Wikipedia

For me what stands out in this definition is obviously the general skepticism towards just about everything including objective reality, human nature and science but it seems to be more about self-consciousness, self-referentiality. Self consciousness is a heightened awareness of self, a preoccupation with self ideas and reality and theres is only self truth rather than any real truth. Self-referentiality is about how the subject sees things rather than how reality is measured outside the subject objectively.

As we have seen in modern times some people are placing more importance on how the individual or group sees things. Reality is slanted towards the subjective rather than the objective. Personal experience and emotions are regarded as the true measure of what is happening. That is why some become outraged about certain issues or when confronted with objective reality. They disregard the science and replace it with subjective ideologies. I think this is why we see so much fake news.

It can be difficult to counter this as it appeals to personal emotion and rights which are hard to dispute with facts. Reason and facts are seen as scare mongering and personal attacks. Science is made out to be one possible perspective that is not necessarily true and in fact oppressive. But as Shapiro says facts don't have feelings.

Politically the left are more slanted towards disregarding the science and often forcus more on personal rights and ideologies regardless of the facts which seems like a paradox as you would think the right would be denying the science based on religious beliefs. But leftis ideologies that are against any talk of scientific facts about genetics and intelligence or gender differences a taboo. It can ever get to the point of violence to stop the truth and scientific facts from coming out. People have been sacked and threatened just for even mentioning a taboo topic.

Anti-intellectualism predates postmodernism by centuries.
An example is the Roman Catholic church's treatment of Galileo in the 17th century.
Using the telescope Galileo found evidence which supported his view of a Copernican or heliocentric model of the solar system.
This clashed with the church's geocentric view based on the Bible.
As a result Galileo under the threat of torture and execution was forced to recant his ideas.
Giordiano Bruno fared far worse being burnt at the stake for holding similar views to Galileo.

Skepticism is a compulsory ingredient in science.
The null hypothesis basically states a new theory or discovery is assumed to be wrong until demonstrated otherwise.
In the mind of the anti-intellectual skepticism is turned on its head where the prevailing view is assumed to be true whereas all opposing ideas are wrong by default.

When it is science providing the opposition anti-intellectuals come up with some pretty extreme ideas to show the science is wrong such as its adherents the scientists are satanists or evil individuals as shown in this thread.
I've been called many uncomplimentary things over the years, an evil satanist is right up there......

 

[sjastro]

Giordiano Bruno fared far worse being burnt at the stake for holding similar views to Galileo.

While the Vatican has issued an apology for Galileo, the Church hasn't been as decisive for Bruno.
In 2000 the 400th anniversary of Bruno's execution the Church was put under considerable pressure to issue an apology by theologians, scientists, politicians, anarchists and atheists.

Vatican on defensive as Italian atheists honour their martyr.
Vatican regrets burning cosmologist.

 

[stevevw]

So you are accusing religious conservatives of being postmodernists? There might be something in that, but they won't like hearing it.

Despite what people say I think generally religious conservatives are for science. Most of the great scientists were Christians and Christians are not against enlightened thought as people think. Many of the topics the left want to refute the science about such as climate change and gender ideology the religious conservatives actually support the science.

Religious conservatives dont actually fit the definition of post modernism when you consider Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value systems as contingent or socially-conditioned. Certainly Christians believe values and morals are not socially conditioned or (subjective) but objective truths. When you consider that postmodernists are also against 'universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth and human nature' I think this is the opposite of what religious conservatives believe as they support these things and I dont think anyone can claim Christians generally dont use reason.

Post modernism also supports moral relativism is also something religious conservatives tend to disagree with. So I am not sure your characterisation of religious conservatives with post modernism is an accurate one.

 

[stevevw]

Anti-intellectualism predates postmodernism by centuries.
An example is the Roman Catholic church's treatment of Galileo in the 17th century.
Using the telescope Galileo found evidence which supported his view of a Copernican or heliocentric model of the solar system.
This clashed with the church's geocentric view based on the Bible.
As a result Galileo under the threat of torture and execution was forced to recant his ideas.
Giordiano Bruno fared far worse being burnt at the stake for holding similar views to Galileo.

Yes I am aware of the anti-science of the Church. Though this was a different time when scientific ideas were just formulating and the Church was ruling. Generally peoples thinking was more religious because they didn’t know anything else. A lack of knowledge caused people to believe all sorts of things even for non-religious people.

But I think the kind of anti-science that the OP is talking about is a more recent uprising where people and especially identity groups are disputing the science despite the evidence. There are still those who believe in ideas like creation but that is to be expected as this is based on faith which is as old as human existence. But this more recent movement of people disputing the science is for non-religious reasons. Its more personal and associated with identity politics where rights trump everything else.

Skepticism is a compulsory ingredient in science.
The null hypothesis basically states a new theory or discovery is assumed to be wrong until demonstrated otherwise.
In the mind of the anti-intellectual skepticism is turned on its head where the prevailing view is assumed to be true whereas all opposing ideas are wrong by default.

Yes this is more of a postmodernist or leftist position. There is Scepticism and criticism of the science even if it is validated. The science is seen as the enemy.

When it is science providing the opposition anti-intellectuals come up with some pretty extreme ideas to show the science is wrong such as its adherents the scientists are satanists or evil individuals as shown in this thread.
I've been called many uncomplimentary things over the years, an evil satanist is right up there......

Yes this is an extreme religious position that is taken, not too dissimilar to ISIS or any other extreme position except most people in democratic nations don’t go to the point of acting on violence. But we all know this type of anti-scientific position based on extreme religion.

What I think the OP is pointing out is a growth of non-religious and sometimes extreme anti-science happening as well and this can also become violent and sometimes become physical. Just look at what happens in Universities where speakers cannot even mention certain topics like gender differences, abortion, climate change, intelligence differences and virtually anything associated with identity politics.

The same with scientific papers being attacked and forced to be shut down. Even demonstrations associated with these issues like the environment are based on a personal view of what is happenbing and what should be done rather than any science. People are not only expressing their view but becoming angry and sometimes violent in imposing their view.

 

[stevevw]

This post modern stuff sounds an awful lot like
pre modern religious fundamentalism in its
approach, for all that the issues may be different.

Yes there are a lot of similarities. But what I can't work out is why. At least with religion you knew it was not based in science but theology and belief. Though some tried to make a case against the science the two areas did not really go together. So you could understand the opposition to science.

But this recent movement of defying the science is more personal. Possibly based on identity politics because it seems that people identify with groups that have similar views and become fixated and radical about what they stand for. Their view is right no matter what others say even the science. Its more about a personal truth and how people are personally affected by any outside influence that may undermine their position including science.

 

[Speedwell]

Despite what people say I think generally religious conservatives are for science. Most of the great scientists were Christians and Christians are not against enlightened thought as people think. Many of the topics the left want to refute the science about such as climate change and gender ideology the religious conservatives actually support the science.

Religious conservatives dont actually fit the definition of post modernism when you consider Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value systems as contingent or socially-conditioned. Certainly Christians believe values and morals are not socially conditioned or (subjective) but objective truths. When you consider that postmodernists are also against 'universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth and human nature' I think this is the opposite of what religious conservatives believe as they support these things and I dont think anyone can claim Christians generally dont use reason.

Post modernism also supports moral relativism is also something religious conservatives tend to disagree with. So I am not sure your characterisation of religious conservatives with post modernism is an accurate one.

I wasn't talking about what religious conservatives think about themselves, but what others observe about them.

 

[sjastro]

Yes I am aware of the anti-science of the Church. Though this was a different time when scientific ideas were just formulating and the Church was ruling. Generally peoples thinking was more religious because they didn’t know anything else. A lack of knowledge caused people to believe all sorts of things even for non-religious people.

But I think the kind of anti-science that the OP is talking about is a more recent uprising where people and especially identity groups are disputing the science despite the evidence. There are still those who believe in ideas like creation but that is to be expected as this is based on faith which is as old as human existence. But this more recent movement of people disputing the science is for non-religious reasons. Its more personal and associated with identity politics where rights trump everything else.

Yes this is more of a postmodernist or leftist position. There is Scepticism and criticism of the science even if it is validated. The science is seen as the enemy.

Yes this is an extreme religious position that is taken, not too dissimilar to ISIS or any other extreme position except most people in democratic nations don’t go to the point of acting on violence. But we all know this type of anti-scientific position based on extreme religion.

What I think the OP is pointing out is a growth of non-religious and sometimes extreme anti-science happening as well and this can also become violent and sometimes become physical. Just look at what happens in Universities where speakers cannot even mention certain topics like gender differences, abortion, climate change, intelligence differences and virtually anything associated with identity politics.

The same with scientific papers being attacked and forced to be shut down. Even demonstrations associated with these issues like the environment are based on a personal view of what is happenbing and what should be done rather than any science. People are not only expressing their view but becoming angry and sometimes violent in imposing their view.

The OP and myself happen to be one in the same person so I think I am amply qualified to act on behalf of the OP.

Anti-intellectualism is not a new mode of thinking confined to post modernism or leftist thinking.
It cuts across the political spectrum, religion, income, race, gender and any other subset of the population one would care to define.

The effect of anti-intellectualism is the creation of a culture of ignorance.
Anti-intellectualism can be summarized as follows.

So what are the causes of anti-intellectualism?
A lack of education seems to play a predominant role.
Part of the education process is not only the acquisition of knowledge but also in the development of critical thinking skills which aids in independent thought.

 

[stevevw]

I wasn't talking about what religious conservatives think about themselves, but what others observe about them.

Oh OK sorry about that. I agree generally that non-religious people would think that religious conservatives are against the science. But I still think this can be a bit of a stereotype sometimes as many Christians support science nowadays. It’s only those on the extremes that don't. The idea that non-religious people think there are more conflicts with science for religious conservatives and religious people speaks more about peoples biases than fact.

Plus according to surveys religious conservatives may oppose say human evolution but more will support the science for say STEM cell research than non-religious do. So it’s not that black and white. I think non-religious people are beginning to see religious conservatives supporting the science on things like evolution nowadays.
What U.S. Religious Groups Think About Science Issues

I think there is a difference though between religious belief being against the science and this new political movement against science. We would expect religious conservatives to oppose certain issues not just because of the science but more so because of the moral aspect and Gods teachings. Though they could make a case for the science supporting their moral stand at times it is not a necessary requirement.

Whereas this new movement based on politics has no reason to oppose the science because there is no religious meaning. The justifications being used are about personal belief in self as the all-knowing powerful and justified truth of reality which is placing the subjective above the objective.

 

[stevevw]

The OP and myself happen to be one in the same person so I think I am amply qualified to act on behalf of the OP.

Anti-intellectualism is not a new mode of thinking confined to post modernism or leftist thinking.
It cuts across the political spectrum, religion, income, race, gender and any other subset of the population one would care to define.

The effect of anti-intellectualism is the creation of a culture of ignorance.
Anti-intellectualism can be summarized as follows.

So what are the causes of anti-intellectualism?
A lack of education seems to play a predominant role.
Part of the education process is not only the acquisition of knowledge but also in the development of critical thinking skills which aids in independent thought.

I was referring to the OP more so about the video you linked and how even climate scientists are being threatened which is more about the political side of anti-science. But thankyou for clarifying the definition of anti-intellectualism towards science as it widens the topic beyond just religion and science and for pointing out that it is anti-intellectualism rather than just religious belief against the science.

I think a big part of religious people not accepting the science is not out of anti-intellectualism but because religious belief and science don't go together. So you can't scientifically verify belief in the first place. But I realize that there are some religious extremist in the past and present who are intellectually hostile to all things science. But that hostillity as you point out in the definition can based in what is now known as identity politics based on race, gender, income, education, culture, age and even generation.

The reason I pointed out the post-modern age of thinking was that we seem to go through different stages of thinking as with the enlightenment period. But it seems the post-modern era feeds into being anti-intellectual and against the science. Postmodernism rejects the grand narratives and theories of the modern age like capitalism, Marxism, rationalism, Freudianism, Darwinism etc. and brought things down to a smaller scale of local realities.

That I think has now evolved into the one local reality of 'self’ perceived reality and this has become the new truth. It’s the subjective over the objective. This feeds anti-intellectualism and creates hostility towards science because any idea from science that challenges the personal reality or truth is perceived as violence and an attack on self. So this may help explain the motivation for being anti-intellectual and against science.

 

[stevevw]

I've been shouting over and over again here about the terrific irony of the right falling in love with
post-modernism in the Trump era of "alternative facts".

Yes the right can play that game as well. Its a crazy time where social media is the new medium which can influence governments and elections. Fake news permeates the internet and people don't know fact from fiction. Its all about the language used which has a big influence on peoples perception. Tell a lie enough and people begin to believe it.

The media is the gatekeeper and determining what society will hear and see. Socially engineering people to believe whatever they push or allow them to know. Soon some will believe anything and are denied to speak. Truth is whatever someone makes it and facts are either manufactured or rejected according to who has control of the narrative.

 

[SelfSim]

I think a big part of religious people not accepting the science is not out of anti-intellectualism but because religious belief and science don't go together. So you can't scientifically verify belief in the first place.

Where something, (or some notion), is objectively untestable, one can operationally define a belief and apply that as an objective test. A conclusion of belief can then be inferred (via the scientific method and a testable hypothesis).
...

That I think has now evolved into the one local reality of 'self’ perceived reality and this has become the new truth. It’s the subjective over the objective.

(As it has always been, surely?!
There are two ways I know of, to distinguish reality:
i) via the scientific method and;
(ii) by way of beliefs.
I agree tha these anti-intellects are just choosing to deny that science does it the other way from the only way they recongise .. which they then think gives them the right to use steam-rollering politics tactics, to override the scientific voice.

This feeds anti-intellectualism and creates hostility towards science because any idea from science that challenges the personal reality or truth is perceived as violence and an attack on self.

I guess it all comes down to whether one perceives oneself as being nothing more than the total set of one's personally held beliefs, acquired by direct experience(?)

I see anti-intellectualism directed at science, as being driven by a hugely over-active pride in the number of accumulated beliefs acquired throughout life (usually called 'experience'). Those who see themselves as being the net accumulation of stories, anecdotes, etc, which have been shared by others in an environment which lacks the rigorous, more formalised realm of skeptical, logical enquiry, testing and the discipline associated with it, I think, end up resenting those particular characteristics, because they know they haven't particularly needed them throughout their own lives(?)
Ie: a lack of discipline can also take one a long way, as far as dealing with life's experiences too, I suppose(?)

 

[stevevw]

Where something, (or some notion), is objectively untestable, one can operationally define a belief and apply that as an objective test. A conclusion of belief can then be inferred (via the scientific method and a testable hypothesis).

I see what you mean but that would be verfitying that a belief exists itself. But I think as far as the OP is concerned it is more about being hostile to science itself. Being against the intellectual establishment that people percieve as oppressing them by using science or facts to dipsute how they see the world.

This is where I think religious people are not too concerned about the science even if it may show contradictory evidence against what a person believes. Because belief in God and what the Bible says including the supernatural events are based on faith and science does not come into for anyone to get hostile about. Though as I said there are extremists but they are the minority.

...
(As it has always been, surely?!

I am only going by how only about a couple of decades ago and for a long time before that people held up the scientific method as the answer to humanaities problems. There was a lot of importance placed on verfication and facts.

But in recent years some have began to question the scientific method as not being the only way to determine nature and reality or even as something that is being pushed onto society. They may have a point but this along with postmodern thinking has led to hostility towards anything that comes from the sceintific elite.

There are two ways I know of, to distinguish reality:
i) via the scientific method and;
(ii) by way of beliefs.

How can personal beliefs destinguish reality. Isn't that a subjective view which for individuals could different for each person. I know that some support the idea that of the observer effect based on quantum physics but this is still yet to be verified if it can be at all. But when it comes to stuff like climate change, gender, human nature, human differences that people seem to become hostile to the science these mostly are based on scientific facts and not personal beliefs.

I agree that these anti-intellects are just choosing to deny that science does it the other way from the only way they recongise .. which they then think gives them the right to use steam-rollering politics tactics, to override the scientific voice.

Sometimes I wonder if its even using science at all but more about politics and personal investment in the issue. But I agree they may use science that can support their case but its usually not a reliable source.

I guess it all comes down to whether one perceives oneself as being nothing more than the total set of one's personally held beliefs, acquired by direct experience(?)

I think that plays a part but what I am talking about is a personal belief that the 'self'trumps all including the science and therefore any opposing views even based on science is seen as hostile. There is a outright rejection no matter what is presented as though it really doesnt matter what the truth or facts are.

I see anti-intellectualism directed at science, as being driven by a hugely over-active pride in the number of accumulated beliefs acquired throughout life (usually called 'experience'). Those who see themselves as being the net accumulation of stories, anecdotes, etc, which have been shared by others in an environment which lacks the rigorous, more formalised realm of skeptical, logical enquiry, testing and the discipline associated with it, I think, end up resenting those particular characteristics, because they know they haven't particularly needed them throughout their own lives(?)
Ie: a lack of discipline can also take one a long way, as far as dealing with life's experiences too, I suppose(?)

Yes I agree, and personal experience can influence how people see things. But any good science would be aware of that, of personal bias, personal experineces and identity tainting the facts. But it seems now personal experience and identity is the outcome that determines reality and everything has be accommodate that. In fact people speak about their personal worldviews like they are facts, like this has now replaced the scientific thinking that determines reality.

Because its so connected to 'self identity' and is so personal any science or facts that oppose this perception of self in determing reality is seen as a threat and people become hostile towards that source including the science. Any scientific facts are shut down and only certain views are allowed.

 

[SelfSim]

I see what you mean but that would be verfitying that a belief exists itself.

My point there is that beliefs, demonstrably, (objectively), produce people's notions of what is real and what isn't. Reality isn't the sole domain of science .. and I think that's the point they're trying to make. Science's reality however has the sole purpose of being useful, whereas belief based reality is more or less about corralling the troops for battle .. (aka: hostilities - as we both agree).

But I think as far as the OP is concerned I think it is more about being hostile to science itself. Being against the intellectual establishment that people percieve as oppressing them by using science or facts to dipsute how they see the world.

Is science's reality really a threat to freedom of choice(?) .. Hmm, I wonder(?)

This is where I think religious people are not too concerned about the science even if it may show contradictory evidence against what a person believes. Because belief in God and what the Bible says including the supernatural events are based on faith and science does not come into for anyone to get hostile about. Though as I said there are extremists but they are the minority.

Maybe religious folk have already broken through the perception of barriers constraining how to think, there(?)

I am only going by how only about a couple of decades ago and for a long time before that people held up the scientific method as the answer to humanaities problems. There was a lot of importance placed on verfication and facts.

I guess the impact of nuclear weapons added the exclamation point on the power of scientific thinking there, too(?)

But in recent years some have began to question the scientific method as not being the only way to determine nature and reality or even as something that is being pushed onto society. They may have a point but this along with postmodern thinking has led to hostility towards anything that comes from the sceintific elite.

They do have a valid point there .. but there should be no reason perceive the scientific method as a 'threat'. I think that perception might be because, being totally honest, there are political influences motivating 'doing' science thesedays (because of the funding process and competition therein).

How can personal beliefs destinguish reality. Isn't that a subjective view which for individuals could different for each person. I know that some support the idea that of the observer effect based on quantum physics but this is still yet to be verified if it can be at all. But when it comes to stuff like climate change, gender, human nature, human differences that people seem to become hostile to the science these mostly are based on scientific facts and not personal beliefs.

Therefore there is an urgent need to be able to educate in ways of distinguishing between extreme subjective perceptions (belief based) meanings of what's real (not quite delusions .. but close to that) and science's way?

Sometimes I wonder if its even using science at all but more about politics and personal investment in the issue. But I agree they may use science that can support their case but its usually not a reliable source.

Logic is lurking underneath it all there too .. It frequently goes under the term of 'common sense', used by protesters against science, I think. One can be convinced by logic .. even when its based on an initial posit of believed-in 'truths'.

I think that plays a part but what I am talking about is a personal belief that the 'self'trumps all including the science and therefore any opposing views even based on science is seen as hostile. There is a outright rejection no matter what is presented as though it really doesnt matter what the truth or facts are.

Yep .. its an extreme viewpoint .. but also a component of it is purely reactionary, (equal and opposite), IMO.

Yes I agree, and personal experience can influence how people see things. But any good science would be aware of that, of personal bias, personal experineces and identity tainting the facts. But it seems now personal experience and identity is the outcome that determines reality and everything has be accommodate that. In fact people speak about their personal worldviews like they are facts, like this has now replaced the scientific thinking that determines reality.

Scientific thinking determines a special kind of reality .. I call it 'Objective Reality', to delineate it from their belief-based purely personal subjective reality.
There's no sense for either 'side' in this argument, in rejecting either of these two demonstrably different methods we go about saying what's real .. and what isn't.

Because its so connected to 'self identity' and is so personal any science or facts that oppose this perception of self in determing reality is seen as a threat and people become hostile towards that source including the science. Any scientific facts are shut down and only certain views are allowed.

That's the equal and opposite reaction to science denying the belief-based method they're using to infer reality, IMO.
I think science need to pay attention to the objective test I'm referring to previously, IMO.

 

[Tom 1]

where no average person is capable of discovering the facts

The average person has access to all the resources needed to understand the facts.

 

[SelfSim]

The average person has access to all the resources needed to understand the facts.

The average, vocal 'anti-intellect' that is ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

The average person has access to all the resources needed to understand the facts.

Really? To understand the expansion of space takes some pretty high level mathematics. I will admit that I do not understand it. That does not mean that others do not understand it. And the ability to understand evolution is not that difficult. But sadly I have not seen a creationist that will allow himself to understand it. Any time that they talk about a "change of kind" they refute any claim that they have of understanding.