Encountering anti-intellectualism

[dibblywibbles]

haha you people live in weird places...the only time someone gets made fun of for having a degree is when they do nothing with it. that's really making fun of someone who's ambitionless and stupid, not the fact they went to school. I encourage people not to waste their degree

 

[GaryH]

Anti-intellectualism and public schools go hand in hand in the UK. Smart people get picked on and laughed at for succeeding (and also failure if they ever get something wrong), largely because the vast majority of children in those schools are made to look bad by the intellectual ones. Enjoying learning is grounds to be laughed at, reading for fun or being good at maths is tantamount to heresy. A part of me dies whenever I do or say something vaguely intellectual and a person asks me "HOW DO YOU DO THAT?!" as if I had just performed a magic trick. It happens more often than you'd think, and not for doing anything terribly impressive either. (Though that's a bit off topic as it's not "anti-intellectualism", just a frightening lack of intelligence). It's depressing that intelligence is seen as "odd", geniuses are always portrayed as mentally unstable or anti-social.

It's easy to understand why a person of lower intelligence would be an "anti-intellectual" though. If you do not understand what is being explained to you then it is easy to assume that the person is wilfully using vague, complicated language to mislead you. People distrust things that they do not understand, just look at how the media demonises things like chemical names (or even the word "chemicals", despite EVERYTHING being made up of chemicals.) and it isn't helped by companies using faux-scientific terminology to sell their products. How can we expect these people to know what to trust and what not to? They're getting conflicting messages, and the false ones are easier to understand.

Slightly Off-Topic: Does anyone find themselves subconsciously "dumbing down" their speech/behaviour depending on the people they are talking to for the above reasons? I do it sometimes, but I was wondering if it was more common than that.

 

[Duffeknol]

I am one. I quit university because of the snobbish attitude of absolutely everyone.

 

[subfield]

Science does produce results, If you'll indulge me, take an object of your choice from your desk, and drop it. Do this a million times, and every time it will fall. The 'theory' of gravity states this. Now, as a matter of faith,

[edited for length]

Drop the same object a million times keeping this passage in mind, ask, pray , believe the object won't fall. I'd bet it still does.

Simple, repeatable, observable evidence. JUst Because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean there has to be a mystical explanation.

Quite right - now you're talking sense. Almost. But you are not careful enough with your words.

You guarantee to me: "every time it will fall". I contest this assertion in the strongest possible terms. This is not logic, where a result once proved holds forever. It is not a first order system where true things are provable and vice-versa.

This is science, where a result once guessed, by that virtue alone, does not guarantee its truth. Laws are the basis of science, and good or bad, we must accept that they are simply guesses. It makes no matter if they are guesses that so far appear to be correct, or if these guesses have been correct in 100% of so-far observed cases.

It is my contention that because of this weakness, science is closer to religion than, say, first order logic. In fact, science becomes a religion when people are careless with their words in the way above.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

Science does produce results, If you'll indulge me, take an object of your choice from your desk, and drop it. Do this a million times, and every time it will fall. The 'theory' of gravity states this. Now, as a matter of faith,

[edited for length]

Drop the same object a million times keeping this passage in mind, ask, pray , believe the object won't fall. I'd bet it still does.

Simple, repeatable, observable evidence. JUst Because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean there has to be a mystical explanation.

Quite right - now you're talking sense. Almost. But you are not careful enough with your words.

You guarantee to me: "every time it will fall". I contest this assertion in the strongest possible terms. This is not logic, where a result once proved holds forever. It is not a first order system where true things are provable and vice-versa.

This is science, where a result once guessed, by that virtue alone, does not guarantee its truth. Laws are the basis of science, and good or bad, we must accept that they are simply guesses. It makes no matter if they are guesses that so far appear to be correct, or if these guesses have been correct in 100% of so-far observed cases.

It is my contention that because of this weakness, science is closer to religion than, say, first order logic. In fact, science becomes a religion when people are careless with their words in the way above.

Sorry, I didn't guarantee anything, I just pointed out that were I a betting man i'd favour the result that has been proven to be true in over 99% of cases. (Where the <1% can often be found to have serious outside influences.)

To say that science only uses guesswork is ridiculous, and to say that when we've decided something is true that it's true forever more is also nonsense. If tommorrow science were to find a flaw in the laws of gravity, it would be ammended to reflect this change, and the mistake would go down as with the thousand others as a mark of how we have improved our knowledge of the world over time. And scientists the world over will embrace this new information and adapt their theroies to them, learning more, and allowing for more advances in their feilds as this process continues. An idea is only held to be 'true' after it has been rigorously tested; as the mentioned theory of gravity has, since it was found to be consistant in the 16th-17th century. Since then the theory has been proven to hold true, if it hadn't then we wouldn't still use it.

Religion holds on stubbornly to it's beliefs and doctrines as change is often shunned and ostracised. With groups of (basically) the same people worshiping the same Gods being so polarly divised that people wage war over the 'true' interpritation of the [insert holy tome of preference here].

I'm sorry but could you, for my benifit, point out exactly what I said that was not "not careful enough with your words." That made you think that a belief in observable, repeatable results was akin to blind faith?

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I've yet to encounter something like that.
But who says anyone who attends a post secondary institution is an intellectual?
I've found myself disillusioned with the university experience. I have a feeling I'm going to hate these next two years.

 

[subfield]

Sorry, I didn't guarantee anything, I just pointed out that were I a betting man i'd favour the result that has been proven to be true in over 99% of cases. (Where the <1% can often be found to have serious outside influences.)

To say that science only uses guesswork is ridiculous, and to say that when we've decided something is true that it's true forever more is also nonsense. If tommorrow science were to find a flaw in the laws of gravity, it would be ammended to reflect this change, and the mistake would go down as with the thousand others as a mark of how we have improved our knowledge of the world over time.

[edited for length]

I'm sorry but could you, for my benifit, point out exactly what I said that was not "not careful enough with your words." That made you think that a belief in observable, repeatable results was akin to blind faith?

Thank you for your response.

I would like to write three things:

First: I object to the sentence - "Do this a million times, and every time it will fall.", and the phrase "you can cite fact after method after theorum after report of provable, repeatable, observable, recordable evidence". The first has no basis in fact. The second claims provability of something that has no deduction (in any recognized calculus, from any consistent set) and whose truth is therefore not established.

Second: it is not the belief that I hold akin to blind faith - it is the assertion of this belief. To say that the rock will fall in 99% of the cases is not the same as saying that the rock will fall. In one, you make a prediction (loosely, a guess) - in the other, you tell us what will be, when you cannot rightly do so.

Third: there are fields where truth, once shown, holds now and for all time. Take for example, again, first order logic. I am afraid that saying the demonstrations from that field are nonsense is a dangerous path to go down. Nonsense by what metric? I'll leave you to ponder that.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

I'm quite enjoying this back and forth, so to address your 3 points.

Thank you for your response.

I would like to write three things:

First: I object to the sentence - "Do this a million times, and every time it will fall.", and the phrase "you can cite fact after method after theorum after report of provable, repeatable, observable, recordable evidence". The first has no basis in fact. The second claims provability of something that has no deduction (in any recognized calculus, from any consistent set) and whose truth is therefore not established.

If i had said 'should' rather than 'will' would you object? Also you can object all you like, but that statement has been proven to be true over the centuries, with rare (often explainable) exceptions any object you choose to drop will fall towards the ground as expected. Also science is almost exclusively deductive logic, as for our gravity example read ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential for the calculus. Anyway my second statement actually stated very little, to say it claims provability is not correct. I simply intened to highlight how science cites numerous, varied examples to make a claim wher religion makes use of (almost exclusively) one.

Second: it is not the belief that I hold akin to blind faith - it is the assertion of this belief. To say that the rock will fall in 99% of the cases is not the same as saying that the rock will fall. In one, you make a prediction (loosely, a guess) - in the other, you tell us what will be, when you cannot rightly do so.

You are correct, it's not the same as saying the rock 'will' fall, but i can as good as guarantee it will. If we never made assertions we couldn't guarantee were true no one COULD ever make a claim. Our entire world veiw is based off of learning from experience, and to disregard information that has so far been correct almost every time (I say almost only to cover my bases, i have trouble finding examples of the theory of gravity being countered without some manner of trickery). As a different example, sticking your bare hand in a fire, the first thing you notice is heat, then pain. After this experience would you put your hand in a fire again? If you were to put your hand near another fire you should feel the heat, anyone with a functional brain would expect further contact to result in pain, and they would be a fool to expect otherwise. I can safely make this prediction as every recorded incident of flesh + fire ends the same way, millions of steaks, chickens, hams and burn victims every year reinforce this fact.

Third: there are fields where truth, once shown, holds now and for all time. Take for example, again, first order logic. I am afraid that saying the demonstrations from that field are nonsense is a dangerous path to go down. Nonsense by what metric? I'll leave you to ponder that.

I defy you to produce an example of something that is true and can NEVER UNDER ANY CURCUMSTANCES be proven false. Science is flexable, as new discoveries are made we constantly are learning, adapting and improving our understanding of the world. With science eventally we may disprove gravity, halt ageing, make 1+1= something other than 2, and if you fall for my trap and produce an example of this point then you are a hypocrite, as you cannot claim to "know" that your 'proofs' will never be disproved. Whereas I simply am making informed predictions based on the information we currently find to be 'true'. For again, if we disregarded experience of the past in our expectations of the future we would never expect anything to behave, at all, without this rationale it would be as reasonable to expect the computer you currently sit at to spontaneously take flight and start producing muffins from its ventilation.

And i'd bet it's not done that lately.

 

[subfield]

[edited for length]

I defy you to produce an example of something that is true and can NEVER UNDER ANY CURCUMSTANCES be proven false.

[edited for length]

I accept your answers to the first two. I cannot in good conscience walk away from part of the answer to the third.

Your challenge is accepted.

Let L be the first order language. Let S be the usual semantics for L. Let D be the usual deductive calculus for L. Let Gamma be a set of well formed formulas expressed using the language L. Let phi be a well formed formula expressed using the language L. Let a "proof" be a deduction using D. Let phi be a logical consequence of Gamma if and only if for every universe M in the language L and every truth function s into M such that M satisfies every member of Gamma using s, M also satisfies phi using s.

Then Gamma proves phi under D if and only if phi is a logical consequence of Gamma under S.

I accept the title of "hypocrite", and wear it proudly.

Whoever wants to challenge that - bring it on.

 

[triggrhappy94]

YOU ARE SO LUCKY YOU DON'T LIVE IN AMERICA.

We have whole demographics committed to being stupid. Unfortunately, they're the majority in many places here.

 

[Kiltguy]

Have I encountered anti-intellectualism? No.
Have I encountered low-intelligence? Yes.

Lets get this straight, is there not a difference in "being intelligent", and "being a intellect"? Anyone can be intelligent, it doesn't require training, okey, maybe it does require some training, but it doesn't require education.

You can pursue intelligence on your own, you can however, not become an intellect on your own. Am I making any sense at all here? An intellect is one that have pursued knowledge, in one, or many, fields of, so called, "higher education".

I'm not by definition not an intellect, nor a part of an intellectual community, but it doesn't exclude me from being intelligent individual.

--lost in trail of thoughts--


By definition, there's a difference, one doesn't exclude other, but I guess it's difficult to be an intellectual, without being intelligent. Hm... I may have encountered a language barrier here.

 

[DragonBorn96]

People just say stop using big words. But I enjoy confusing people, I find it amusing. Other though do just take the piss and say I haven't done this or have never had that so on, so on.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

[edited for length]

I defy you to produce an example of something that is true and can NEVER UNDER ANY CURCUMSTANCES be proven false.

[edited for length]

I accept your answers to the first two. I cannot in good conscience walk away from part of the answer to the third.

Your challenge is accepted.

Let L be the first order language. Let S be the usual semantics for L. Let D be the usual deductive calculus for L. Let Gamma be a set of well formed formulas expressed using the language L. Let phi be a well formed formula expressed using the language L. Let a "proof" be a deduction using D. Let phi be a logical consequence of Gamma if and only if for every universe M in the language L and every truth function s into M such that M satisfies every member of Gamma using s, M also satisfies phi using s.

Then Gamma proves phi under D if and only if phi is a logical consequence of Gamma under S.

I accept the title of "hypocrite", and wear it proudly.

Whoever wants to challenge that - bring it on.

Let me tl;dr that for you.

A set of formulas prove a single formula in 'normal' calculus if and only if a single formula naturally follows a set of formulas in expected language.

While this seems like a legitimately 'true' statement can you honestly claim that this will never change? Whats to say that in 1,10,100,1000,10000 years this way of thinking won't be thought to be on par with the idea that the Earth was flat, or that the sun rotates around the Earth? Both ideas seemed perfectly logical at the time because people had no way of knowing any different. The 'truth' hadn't yet been found. Are you claiming that in this case you are right and there is no chance however slim that any of those varibles might one day, using technology or theories beyond current human understanding, be found to work better or more efficiantly were they changed, altered or swapped with something else completely?

That sounds a lot like blind faith to me.