anti-intellectualism, left and right
I'm not sure what this signifies in a broader sense, but it's worth noting that there's a strain of anti-intellectualism in modern society running underneath both the left and the right. I think the right is more susceptible to it, by virtue of heavy weighting towards religious dogma. Usually, you see it among Christian conservatives, but I was rather surprised to see this sneer at panspermia theory from a well-educated, Jewish lawyer like Ron:
There are certainly valid critiques of panspermia to be made, but this is not a rigorous one.
Meanwhile, over at My Left Wing, a liberal community site, we see an argument that Science is overrated. Why? because it's sole purpose, apparently, is to wage war:
It astonishes me that anyone sitting comfortably at a personal computer powered by electricity 24/7 in a home with potable water on tap on demand, with education that Newton would have envied and a lifespan that is almost double their forebears (and including a productive and vigorous old age rather than senile frailty to boot) can even dare to ask the question whether science has done more harm than good. Again, there is a dogma at work here; the insistence and overshadowing of War as prime motive to Science that colors the view.
One might be tempted to counter with the question, has War done more harm than good? but the impedance mismatch would be too high to have a meaningful dialouge, it would just devolve.
Perhaps the greatest threat that these anti-intellectuals are really reacting against is simply the Rational process, which undermines their respective dogmas. And neither side has any immunity to dogma.
There is and has to be a counter to the purist Enlightenment argument that places Reason above all; there is a place for dogma. But the application of dogma above serves to stunt rather than constructively channel growth.
We can admit the preposterousness of the suggestion that life spontaneously began and then, after a few tough winters, turned into Albert Einstein, Merv Griffin and Alex Rodriguez on this lonely sphere, because we have an alternative “scientific” explanation: It “could have happened,” see, that life came to earth on magic flying incubator rocks, which are uh-infinity old.
How do “radioactive elements … keep[ing] water in liquid form in comet interiors for millions of years… mak[es] them potentially ideal ‘incubators’ for early life.” (”Potentially”?)
There are certainly valid critiques of panspermia to be made, but this is not a rigorous one.
Meanwhile, over at My Left Wing, a liberal community site, we see an argument that Science is overrated. Why? because it's sole purpose, apparently, is to wage war:
Science has not been cultivated in this country out of a love of learning. Its primary job is to make Stealth Bombers and Nuclear Weapons. This accounts for its funding.
[...]
If Science doesn't carry with it the potential to cure disease or blow up Hiroshima (or Iran, for that matter), we're not even having this conversation.
So if its value is a product of its potential for application, then the only way to determine whether it's overvalued is to consider the value of its fruits.
We need a balance sheet. Has it done more harm than good?
It astonishes me that anyone sitting comfortably at a personal computer powered by electricity 24/7 in a home with potable water on tap on demand, with education that Newton would have envied and a lifespan that is almost double their forebears (and including a productive and vigorous old age rather than senile frailty to boot) can even dare to ask the question whether science has done more harm than good. Again, there is a dogma at work here; the insistence and overshadowing of War as prime motive to Science that colors the view.
One might be tempted to counter with the question, has War done more harm than good? but the impedance mismatch would be too high to have a meaningful dialouge, it would just devolve.
Perhaps the greatest threat that these anti-intellectuals are really reacting against is simply the Rational process, which undermines their respective dogmas. And neither side has any immunity to dogma.
There is and has to be a counter to the purist Enlightenment argument that places Reason above all; there is a place for dogma. But the application of dogma above serves to stunt rather than constructively channel growth.
Comments