
America dumbs down: A rising tide of anti-intellectual thinking - JacksonGariety
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/america-dumbs-down/
======
javert
I'm highly educated (getting a PhD) and I disagree with the author on several
points:

1\. Climate change isn't very problematic.

2\. The best way to counter mass shootings is for more good people to have
guns.

3\. Obamacare will exacerbate the existing problems because the same cause
gives the same result and we've been socializing our healthcare for decades.

When self-proclaimed "intellectuals" treat issues _that are not settled_ as
_dogma_ \---you believe this, or you're stupid---it's _no wonder_ Americans
don't like intellectuals.

In fact, it is to Americans' _credit._

That said, I even consider myself to be an intellectual---but I know I have to
make rational arguments, not rely on dogma.

In closing, presuasion via dogma just gives the anti-eveolution dummies in the
South Carolina legislature more excuse not to listen to you when you actually
do make a rational argument---e.g. about evolution.

~~~
lukevdp
The article didn't ask the question of whether people think climate change is
problematic, it asked the question of whether people believe it is man made.

The relevant quote is: "When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent
expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain."

~~~
javert
Indeed, that is slightly different question. But I have the same opinion of
it.

1\. We know that climate constantly changes over long periods---Big Ice Age,
Little Ice Age, various warm periods with dinosaurs in them, etc.

2\. Ask anybody who is old if they've seen perceptible climate change in their
particular area. Yes, there's _weather_ , but the climate in NYC, Phoenix, San
Francisco, and N for any place, is the same that it was 100 years ago.

We also know that any scientist who comes out against climate change is
ostracized and that it's career suicide, and we've seen it happen. And we know
that climate change is a dogma for the left. That is why I rely on direct
perceptual evidence (per 1 and 2) instead of "what scientists say" on this.

Actually, I always rely on perceptual evidence---but having nukes and
airplanes backs up the physicists, having telescopes backs up the astronomers,
and so on. I have no opinion on matters of science for which I have no access
to perceptual information (e.g. string theory).

~~~
cam_l
"I always rely on perceptual evidence"

so you are anti-intellectual.. or are you just trolling?

~~~
javert
To believe something without perceptual eveidence is to believe it blindly,
just because somebody says so.

We _should not_ believe our intellectuals blindly, just because they say so.

But that isn't an anti-intellectual stance.

An anti-intellectual attitude would willfully dismiss what intellectuals say
even when they _do_ present perceptual evidence.

As an aside, note that it is perceptual evidence that intellectuals rely on
themselves to get their conclusions. This is particularly obvious in science
(e.g. experimental method), but all actual knowledge is knowledge _about
reality_ and that means all actual knowledge is rooted in perceptual evidence.

~~~
javert
I like how somebody downvoted this, but didn't bother to correct the mistake
the presumably believed they saw in my reasoning.

 _That_ is anti-intellectualism.

------
gnu8
Gun control isn't an intellectually enlightened policy, it's an example of
liberal anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism isn't a conservative-
liberal issue, but the author is painting it that way.

~~~
saosebastiao
This is usually what to expect when you see headlines about anti-
intellectualism in the US. The extreme end of conservatism is certainly anti-
intellectual and anti-science, but so is the extreme end of liberalism, and
those examples are always swept under the rug or portrayed as being obvious.
Where are the examples of rent control advocates, anti-GMO paranoia, anti-
vaciine paranoia, etc.?

~~~
halostatue
1\. Maclean’s is a Canadian magazine, and it's a centre-right magazine (which
would be centre-left in the U.S.).

2\. The article mentioned anti-vaxxers as part of the overall anti-
intellectual “movement” in the U.S.

This is someone else in the world observing how broken the U.S. has become
over the last thirty years, and you contributing nothing to the discussion by
saying it’s the “left ignoring its own problems”.

------
codyb
That was a bit depressing.

I've had so many arguments in the last few years only to have my jaw drop when
I hear this theme repeated over and over to me "But say there was a guy, who
was in the situation you described, and say than instead of doing that, he did
this..."

I mean, it's worse than anecdotal even. People are basing their viewpoints on
hypothetical situations with no statistical evidence for their views and
arguing against statistics with these hypothetical stories about nothing.

That resulted in my favorite tweet I've ever composed

"Arguing anecdotally screams religious reverence for ideas not referenced."

Boy, it just sounds so well composed (to me. Subjective).

And it also resulted in me not arguing with anyone anymore. I just plain don't
do it.

------
jqm
Egypt and Iraq were once the centers of world learning. This should give pause
to those considering that Boston and London will be bright lights of
intellectualism forever.

------
tzs
Overall interesting. Some of the specific examples are questionable, but not
enough to invalidate the overall point.

Related is this submission [1] from yesterday on how idiotic conspiracy
theories are getting alarming traction.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7755572](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7755572)

~~~
pdonis
I would say the specific examples are a very mixed bag. IMO the article should
have just stuck with the data from national exams and surveys on relatively
unproblematic things (like ordering North America, the U.S., California, and
Los Angeles by size). That's quite sufficient to make the point; adding the
questionable examples actually detracts from that.

------
Executor
So if you disagree with the author, then you're anti-intellectual.

------
plg
What is the case against natural selection???

------
xname
America is a great country not because Americans know more science, not at
all.

~~~
xname
Who the hell downvoted my comment? for what reason?

Downvoting should require justification.

~~~
xname
A loser downvoted me again, as I predicted.

~~~
xname
So, another loser?

~~~
xname
Maybe I am wrong. The same loser?

~~~
xname
Wow, very efficient.

~~~
xname
New losers joined.

~~~
xname
Funny. Another new loser joined.

------
mantrax5
Ugh: "...found that 42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all”
confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51
per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big
bang” 13.8 billion years ago, and 36 per cent doubted the Earth has been
around for 4.5 billion years."

You know, I wouldn't pile those who are "not too" or have "expressed
skepticism" with those who are completely opposed to the idea of evolution &
the currently accepted age of Earth.

I mean, sure, evolution manifests itself in everything around ourselves, but
that aside for a brief moment.

If your measure of "dumbness" is "anyone who doesn't unreservedly believe in
evolution and the bing bang" then you're turning science into just another
brand of religion.

I'd much prefer to interact with people who aren't too sure about either
religion or about the current scientific viewpoint, rather than zealots on
either side.

You see, the currently accepted scientific point tends to change over time
(one of the benefits of science over religion I suppose). It was not long ago
when black holes were described as having infinite density and zero volume.
Few discoveries and math formulas later, turns out they far more likely stop
collapsing at the size of their Schwarzschild radius.

So who is dumb now. The one who "believed" in zero volume black holes, the one
who "believed" in _no_ black holes, or the one who had the courage to doubt
and seek answers?

Talking about zealots:

"Has the _most powerful nation on Earth_ lost its mind?"

Emphasis mine. Give me a fucking break. The author may need a bit of smarting
up on their own, it seems.

~~~
pdonis
_> It was not long ago when black holes were described as having infinite
density and zero volume. Few discoveries and math formulas later, turns out
they far more likely stop collapsing at the size of their Schwarzschild
radius._

Reference please? This does not sound like a good description of the current
best scientific theory on black holes.

