Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[ForHimbyHim]

I will admit, right of the bat that I am not a scientist, therefore I must be seen as an anti intellectual.

Having said that, I will say that science is not just under attack from our crowd, but also from those who are within. I always thought that scientists agree, until I saw one debate that happened within the scientific realm. Firstly I learnt that data can be manipulated to suite your hypothesis. Secondly scientists always claim that their data is proving their theory, then you have another scientist who is proving the exact opposite with their data. Some papers are published, before peer review and you can kick a fuss during the peer review, or threaten your peers so that the data is compromised. Lastly it is possible that the exchange of money can change data really quickly.
The lack of trust in science is due to some things such as the ones I mentioned above and the changing of information that was said to be true. For example, depending on whose 'science' you read, a cooking oil can be a good source of fats, or cancer causing. It's horribly confusing and I can sort of see where the backlash could be coming from.

 

[Oneiric1975]

I will admit, right of the bat that I am not a scientist, therefore I must be seen as an anti intellectual.

Having said that, I will say that science is not just under attack from our crowd, but also from those who are within. I always thought that scientists agree, until I saw one debate that happened within the scientific realm. Firstly I learnt that data can be manipulated to suite your hypothesis. Secondly scientists always claim that their data is proving their theory, then you have another scientist who is proving the exact opposite with their data. Some papers are published, before peer review and you can kick a fuss during the peer review, or threaten your peers so that the data is compromised. Lastly it is possible that the exchange of money can change data really quickly.
The lack of trust in science is due to some things such as the ones I mentioned above and the changing of information that was said to be true. For example, depending on whose 'science' you read, a cooking oil can be a good source of fats, or cancer causing. It's horribly confusing and I can sort of see where the backlash could be coming from.

Scientists have ALWAYS disagreed over things. Hang out with scientists long enough and any 2 of them in a room results in 3 different opinions. This is the "forge" where the strong ideas come from. Once established and tested (that's the beauty of science) the ideas are even stronger.

As for "proving one's hypothesis by tricks", well this is a problem but not for the reasons you may think.

In science there's the new discussion of "p-hacking". This is what happens when people run their experiments and wait until they get a p-value (statistical measure from a test) that falls within an arbitrary range (usually less than 0.05) in order to claim they have found an effect. This, in some ways, falls out of a subtlety of p-values in statistics coupled with the world's "publish or perish" dictum. There's a ton of avenues to publish data that isn't all that fantastic but it hits the right p-value. A few months later someone comes along with another set of tests and finds the first one wasn't that great afterall.

Sure it can SEEM like something nefarious is going on, and it is an "imperfect" system. But it's much better than nothing at all. The rules are still out there. They are real and when understood can give more insight than if we tried doing this all without any rules of inference.

This is probably best characterized as "watching the sausage get made". For the non-scientist it can really seem to be confusing and probably a mess. But, it's also the forge where the good ideas will ultimately come to the top. It just takes time and close attention.

I feel for science journalists who have to communicate the sausage making to the general public. That's got to be a tough job when it's a new area of development.

 

[ForHimbyHim]

Scientists have ALWAYS disagreed over things. Hang out with scientists long enough and any 2 of them in a room results in 3 different opinions. This is the "forge" where the strong ideas come from. Once established and tested (that's the beauty of science) the ideas are even stronger.

As for "proving one's hypothesis by tricks", well this is a problem but not for the reasons you may think.

In science there's the new discussion of "p-hacking". This is what happens when people run their experiments and wait until they get a p-value (statistical measure from a test) that falls within an arbitrary range (usually less than 0.05) in order to claim they have found an effect. This, in some ways, falls out of a subtlety of p-values in statistics coupled with the world's "publish or perish" dictum. There's a ton of avenues to publish data that isn't all that fantastic but it hits the right p-value. A few months later someone comes along with another set of tests and finds the first one wasn't that great afterall.

Sure it can SEEM like something nefarious is going on, and it is an "imperfect" system. But it's much better than nothing at all. The rules are still out there. They are real and when understood can give more insight than if we tried doing this all without any rules of inference.

This is probably best characterized as "watching the sausage get made". For the non-scientist it can really seem to be confusing and probably a mess. But, it's also the forge where the good ideas will ultimately come to the top. It just takes time and close attention.

I feel for science journalists who have to communicate the sausage making to the general public. That's got to be a tough job when it's a new area of development.

I get that, but honestly if there can be mistrust and two seemingly good, unbiased and intelligent scientists coming out with information that is proving opposition, then how can you expect us 'anti intellectual' to trust science. Man in my years in life I have heard so many contradictions from the intellectuals it's enough to make you go crazy. One scientist says fat is bad, especially animal fat, eat low fat, then another comes out and says, fat is awesome, animal fat is even better, but carbs are the enemy. Then another comes out and says, no, actually it's plant based living that we evolved from, so stay far away from animals and the final one says, no it's fasting, eat maybe 2 days a week, then don't eat the rest of the time. This is just one area of life.

Secondly are scientists saying no one else can question the shape of the earth. I am a round earther, but honestly what do I lose from flat earthers bringing their views. Then I really struggle with this, we are the scientists and everyone who agrees with our general disputed view is an intellectual and anyone who dares to question it, who is not a scientist is an anti intellectual. So I am not allowed to bring an opposing view because I don't hold the badge of scientist? Secondly instead of rebutting and having a proper discussion with us anti intellectuals they go right to calling us names. Like why shame people. What does shaming have to do with science?

 

[AV1611VET]

I get that, but honestly if there can be mistrust and two seemingly good, unbiased and intelligent scientists coming out with information that is proving opposition, then how can you expect us 'anti intellectual' to trust science. Man in my years in life I have heard so many contradictions from the intellectuals it's enough to make you go crazy. One scientist says fat is bad, especially animal fat, eat low fat, then another comes out and says, fat is awesome, animal fat is even better, but carbs are the enemy. Then another comes out and says, no, actually it's plant based living that we evolved from, so stay far away from animals and the final one says, no it's fasting, eat maybe 2 days a week, then don't eat the rest of the time. This is just one area of life.

Secondly are scientists saying no one else can question the shape of the earth. I am a round earther, but honestly what do I lose from flat earthers bringing their views. Then I really struggle with this, we are the scientists and everyone who agrees with our general disputed view is an intellectual and anyone who dares to question it, who is not a scientist is an anti intellectual. So I am not allowed to bring an opposing view because I don't hold the badge of scientist? Secondly instead of rebutting and having a proper discussion with us anti intellectuals they go right to calling us names. Like why shame people. What does shaming have to do with science?

Check out how many theories there are in existence as to how we got our moon!

 

[ForHimbyHim]

Check out how many theories there are in existence as to how we got our moon!

Dude, I am still trying to decide on whether carbon causes climate change, because I came across a whole battle there.

But to be honest like in the name of science, my fellow Africans were placed in a zoo as exhibition of the so called the missing link. Jesus help me to love science.

 

[AV1611VET]

But to be honest like in the name of science, my fellow Africans were placed in a zoo as exhibition of the so called the missing link. Jesus help me to love science.

Wow -- that's pretty messed up!

Human zoo

 

[Oneiric1975]

Check out how many theories there are in existence as to how we got our moon!

These are not "theories"...they are hypotheses. Indeed every concept that ultimately gets a solution starts with a variety of hypotheses.

That's the beauty of it. No one comes out and says "This is the answer, love it or leave it!" There's a reason that sort of thing is called ex cathedra.

 

[Oneiric1975]

I get that, but honestly if there can be mistrust and two seemingly good, unbiased and intelligent scientists coming out with information that is proving opposition, then how can you expect us 'anti intellectual' to trust science. Man in my years in life I have heard so many contradictions from the intellectuals it's enough to make you go crazy. One scientist says fat is bad, especially animal fat, eat low fat, then another comes out and says, fat is awesome, animal fat is even better, but carbs are the enemy. Then another comes out and says, no, actually it's plant based living that we evolved from, so stay far away from animals and the final one says, no it's fasting, eat maybe 2 days a week, then don't eat the rest of the time. This is just one area of life.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see that and it, too, frustrates me. But this is the sausage getting made. It may never end...new knowledge always comes in.

Secondly are scientists saying no one else can question the shape of the earth. I am a round earther, but honestly what do I lose from flat earthers bringing their views.

That's probably a bad example since we've sent people to the moon based on our understanding of planetary shapes. But I see your larger point. In the case of creationism v evolution why does it matter? So long as the creationists don't design our drugs and do our biology anyone can have whatever opinion they want on a topic. Doesn't mean it will be necessarily correct or that anyone should care what their opinion is.

Then I really struggle with this, we are the scientists and everyone who agrees with our general disputed view is an intellectual and anyone who dares to question it, who is not a scientist is an anti intellectual.

Well, to disagree with science is to be trained up in the science one disagrees with. Otherwise it is uninformed doubt. People can get harsh, though and say unpleasant things about those who lack the training. That is unfortunate.

So I am not allowed to bring an opposing view because I don't hold the badge of scientist?

It's not a "badge" per se. One is free to question everything. But for that skepticism to have value they must come from a place of being informed.

Secondly instead of rebutting and having a proper discussion with us anti intellectuals they go right to calling us names. Like why shame people. What does shaming have to do with science?

That's just people being people. Scientists after all are just people. They get tired of fighting against uninformed "skepticism" until a point at which they just lose it and start name-calling. Most scientists will attempt at the beginning to "educate". It's a special skill, though. Not all people have that nor do all people have infinite patience.

 

[sjastro]

I notice again how this thread has become a platform for anti-intellectualism.

Let me clear up a few misconceptions, anti-intellectualism is not about not being a scientist nor disagreeing with one.

Perhaps I can provide perspective here with my own experience of anti-intellectualism.
I created a thread here on debunking plasma cosmology.
Meanwhile on an anti science site an individual whose name I cannot reveal due to forum rules, decided to make a running commentary on the thread.
Instead of making counterarguments which supported plasma cosmology, the author seemed more content on referring to me as being morally and ethically challenged, basically stupid and exhibiting unchristian like behaviour; all for providing a critique on plasma cosmology!

On the surface this would appear to be nothing more than ad hom attacks but the author's history of making the same type of comments against scientists in general puts it squarely into the anti-intellectualism camp.

So what is anti-intellectualism in a nutshell?
It's the negative stereotyping of an individual according to their occupation like stereotyping based on race or gender.

 

[ForHimbyHim]

Don't get me wrong, I totally see that and it, too, frustrates me. But this is the sausage getting made. It may never end...new knowledge always comes in.



That's probably a bad example since we've sent people to the moon based on our understanding of planetary shapes. But I see your larger point. In the case of creationism v evolution why does it matter? So long as the creationists don't design our drugs and do our biology anyone can have whatever opinion they want on a topic. Doesn't mean it will be necessarily correct or that anyone should care what their opinion is.



Well, to disagree with science is to be trained up in the science one disagrees with. Otherwise it is uninformed doubt. People can get harsh, though and say unpleasant things about those who lack the training. That is unfortunate.



It's not a "badge" per se. One is free to question everything. But for that skepticism to have value they must come from a place of being informed.



That's just people being people. Scientists after all are just people. They get tired of fighting against uninformed "skepticism" until a point at which they just lose it and start name-calling. Most scientists will attempt at the beginning to "educate". It's a special skill, though. Not all people have that nor do all people have infinite patience.

So if the sausage is still being made, why can't I bring my thoughts to the table?

 

[stevevw]

Lennox the mathematician?

Yeah, I think because of his math background he has a way of explaining things simply and logically.

 

[Oneiric1975]

So if the sausage is still being made, why can't I bring my thoughts to the table?

You can, and if you come with an understanding of the technical details then the debate should be rather different. Mind you, I've seen scientists be really nasty to each other (my wife's thesis defense turned into a chance for one researcher to attack her advisor and thereby insult my wife in doing so...collateral damage, so scientists can be as nasty and mean to each other as any other human!)

But if you come to the table with a technical understanding the debate should NOT be one of "anti-intellectualism" attacks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I get that, but honestly if there can be mistrust and two seemingly good, unbiased and intelligent scientists coming out with information that is proving opposition, then how can you expect us 'anti intellectual' to trust science.

As Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief according to the evidence". If you don't have the time or inclination to study the evidence yourself, use the consensus of experts as your evidence. If there is no consensus, then proportion your belief accordingly.

... I have heard so many contradictions from the intellectuals it's enough to make you go crazy. One scientist says fat is bad, especially animal fat, eat low fat, then another comes out and says, fat is awesome, animal fat is even better, but carbs are the enemy. Then another comes out and says, no, actually it's plant based living that we evolved from, so stay far away from animals and the final one says, no it's fasting, eat maybe 2 days a week, then don't eat the rest of the time. This is just one area of life.

The world is complicated and the human body is one of the most complicated parts of it, so it's understandable that the science is often uncertain and subject to change, but at any particular time, it's the best understanding we've got - if you would rather not have the best understanding, just ignore the science and see how much better off you are.

Then I really struggle with this, we are the scientists and everyone who agrees with our general disputed view is an intellectual and anyone who dares to question it, who is not a scientist is an anti intellectual. So I am not allowed to bring an opposing view because I don't hold the badge of scientist?

Of course you can bring an opposing view; but if you want it to be taken seriously by scientists, you must be able to justify it scientifically. Anti-intellectuals are generally those that subordinate intellect and/or deny the value of reasoned argument.

... instead of rebutting and having a proper discussion with us anti intellectuals...

It seems to me that a 'proper' discussion is a discussion using intellect and reason, so if that's the case, it's not possible to have a proper discussion with an anti-intellectual...

 

[durangodawood]

Anti-intellectualism is also the glorification of "common sense".

Common sense is great. But its applicability is limited and some people dont know when to stop with it.

 

[SelfSim]

Anti-intellectualism is also the glorification of "common sense".

Common sense is great. But its applicability is limited and some people dont know when to stop with it.

The implication is also, (usually), that scientists have somehow been completely stripped of theirs there also, (IMO). Exactly how is that supposed to happen, I wonder?

What is the 'common sense' they pride themselves on there?
Is it just life's experiences based on successive confirmation biases?
Is that somehow supposed to constitute some kind of 'special, uncommon wisdom', which scientists simply don't have, but the anti-intellectual does? Why them, and not scientists?

 

[durangodawood]

The implication is also, (usually), that scientists have somehow been completely stripped of theirs there also, (IMO). Exactly how is that supposed to happen, I wonder?

What is the 'common sense' they pride themselves on there?
Is it just life's experiences based on successive confirmation biases?
Is that somehow supposed to constitute some kind of 'special, uncommon wisdom', which scientists simply don't have, but the anti-intellectual does? Why them, and not scientists?

By "common sense" I mean the set of intuitions that accumulate from daily, human scale lived experience.

Of course, those intuitions are often useless (or worse) when applied to things or events beyond the human scale: very big, very small, long duration, etc. Its not even reliable for all human scale events either.

People want to cling to some feeling that they know what the world is about. And if you dont actually study, then whats left? Common sense!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By "common sense" I mean the set of intuitions that accumulate from daily, human scale lived experience.

Of course, those intuitions are often useless (or worse) when applied to things or events beyond the human scale: very big, very small, long duration, etc. Its not even reliable for all human scale events either.

Yes; like intuition, its success derives from the accumulation of experience in some particular domain. But in the absence of expertise in some domain, it relies on there being common cross-domain patterns, where expertise in one domain may partially apply in another - this is pot-luck and can be disastrously unreliable.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes; like intuition, its success derives from the accumulation of experience in some particular domain. But in the absence of expertise in some domain, it relies on there being common cross-domain patterns, where expertise in one domain may partially apply in another - this is pot-luck and can be disastrously unreliable.

Yes. Like the astonishing number of climate skeptic engineers, who's above average science education made them feel competent to contradict actual scientist specialists.

Most of them have come around.... after doing all the damage they could of course.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes; like intuition, its success derives from the accumulation of experience in some particular domain. But in the absence of expertise in some domain, it relies on there being common cross-domain patterns, where expertise in one domain may partially apply in another - this is pot-luck and can be disastrously unreliable.

.. or its the expertise dissimilarities which are exposing their differences there. (which has nothing to do with what some domain 'actually is').

Different people think differently .. and that accounts for expertise differences.

 

[sjastro]

I asked Christopher Berry whether he is a victim of anti-intellectualism.
Christopher Berry is an expert on gravitational waves and has worked at LIGO.
To put his knowledge into perspective while I can converse with him on the propagation of gravitational waves through space-time on a fairly equal level, I'm in the Stone Age when it comes to the creation of gravitational waves given the tremendous advances in theory in the last couple of decades along with the increases in raw computing power to come with up with waveform predictions for black hole and neutron star mergers.

Chris made some interesting comments.

Hello,

I would say no particular anti-intellectualism in response to my professional activities. There is some hostility around gravitational waves from various flat-earth-related groups, but I have mostly avoided that. Talking about discrimination in science or society (say sexism or racism) typically draws more of a negative response on social. Even just posting for International Women In Science Day with no comment about sexism will draw criticism.

What is perhaps more common, is people with pet theories expecting large amounts of time. Say read long text, select a course of reading material, explain misconceptions, etc. All these are part of an academic's job, but can take many, many hours, which isn't feasible when we have students and our own projects to look after. Some people have nice FAQs on this topic (Katie Mack and Emily Lakdawalla I think may be good examples if I remember correctly). People are generally OK if you explain that you don't have time, but sometimes they just think you're being rude, which does cause aggravation.

Regards,

Christopher