Click Here ">
« July 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Counterfactuals
defl@tionism
GENERAL LOGIC
HUMAN SEMANTICS
Interconnections
PARACONSISTENCY
Polemics
SCIENCE & NEWS
Cognition & Epistemology
Notes on Pirah?
Ontology&possible worlds
PRAGMATICS
PROPAEDEUTICS
Syn-Sem Interface
Temporal Logic
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Translate this
INTO JAPANESE
BROTHER BLOG
MAIEUTIKOS
LINGUISTIX&LOGIK, Tony Marmo's blog
Thursday, 15 July 2004

Brian Leiter has a very important and interesting post on expertise and knowledge, which is both a defence of scientists against ignorance and a starting point to discuss what kind of attitude is really 'arrogance' and whetherit is or is not something natural of academic life. Although I do not agree with one line of his text, where he says that 'science is not a democracy', his paper in its entirety seems correct and highly relevant to other issues of this blog:

Arrogance and Knowledge


by Brian Leiter, July the 13th, 2004

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative religious organization, delivers what could be the signature line for our backwards times in America:

There's an arrogance in the scientific community that they know better than the average American.[Source the NYT]


In fact, of course, scientists do know quite a bit better than the average American about the matters for which their scientific expertise equips them. Those with knowledge, surprisingly, know more than those who are ignorant. Is that arrogance?

As Chris Mooney remarked , science is not a democracy,
[sic] and in a democratic culture, that inevitably becomes a cause of resentment, as Ms. Lafferty's comment attests. This resentment of competence was first made vivid to me when I appeared on CNN more than a year ago to discuss the textbook selection process in Texas. When I dismissed the argument that the textbook selection process should be democratic (which it isn't, though it pretends to be) on the grounds that competent educators should vet textbooks, not political and religious groups, the CNN host, Anderson Cooper, cut me rather short: that reply clearly made him uncomfortable, and he changed the topic to how the selection process wasn't really democratic anyway.

Resentment of competence was also a motif suggested by my exchange with Professor Eastman --one of the ignorant law professors shilling for teaching creationist lies to schoolchildren--who used that favorite rhetorical device of the anti-Darwin crowd by referring to its tyrannical orthodoxy. Unfortunately, as I noted on that occasion, views that are correct ought to be orthodox, and they ought to exercise the tyranny appropriate to truth, namely, a tyranny over falsehood and dishonesty.

But when truth and knowledge clash with deep-seated prejudices--especially those reinforced from the pulpit and in the public culture--resentment towards the arrogance of those with knowledge and competence grows.

Unfortunately, I don't see much room for compromise in this domain. Knowledge and competence can not become meek and abashed merely to avoid offending the vanity of the undereducated, the parochial, and the unworldly. The Enlightenment dream was to extend the blessings of reason and knowledge as widely as possible. In the United States, that Enlightenment project has been stymied: at the highest echelons of the culture, the material and institutional support for the pursuit of knowledge and competence is unparalleled, yet the fruits of these labors are often either regarded with suspicion and resentment in the public culture at large--or simply go unrecognized and unnoted altogether.

Could there be a greater failure of the Enlightenment project than that a huge majority of U.S. citizens actually believe there is an intellectual competition between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and intelligent design creationism? Or that the President of the country publically affirms their skepticism, without being held up for ridicule in the media and the public culture?

These are, for various reasons, scary times in [the United States of] America, but the increasingly brazen haughtiness of the purveyors of ignorance and lies--who cloak their backwardness in the judgmental rhetorc of "arrogance" and a none-too-subtle appeal to the "ordinary" person's sense of democratic equality--may be the most worrisome development of all. That the empire of ignorance spreads its domain portends calamities from which it could take centuries to heal.


Permanent link

Posted by Tony Marmo at 00:35 BST
Updated: Thursday, 15 July 2004 01:00 BST

Thursday, 15 July 2004 - 01:04 BST

Name: mallarme
Home Page: http://blog.monkeymask.net

Oh man. I had about three paragraphs worth of comment written and I accidentally closed the window. So *sigh*... here's a condensed form:

Yes, anti-intellectuals and those who refuse to accept scientific truths that conflict with their beliefs are exasperating, but likewise many who oppose them present their arguments in an overly haughty, dismissive way. That's a mistake as it allows those in the wrong to continue ignoring the truth through their handy, internalized ad hominem fallacy. More flies with honey and all that, you know.

Of course, that's dealing with the matter on an individual basis. The culture of anti-intellectualism in this nation astounds me. I wonder to what extent it's a result of resentment towards scientists and academics for their smugness and what is a result of simple feelings inadequacy. There's so much knowledge out there now that it's easy to feel bewildered. Perhaps it's a reaction against that, a retreat into simpler beliefs. Plus, our education system is abysmal, which doesn't help.

Saturday, 17 July 2004 - 02:53 BST

Name: Tony Marmo
Home Page: https://tonymarmo.tripod.com/linguistix-logik

Let me pick one sub-topic of Leiter's analysis:

The interesting thing about Darwin's theory and its public debate is that it is just a theory and an old one. People studying evolution now know much more and have many more questions than Darwin at his time. But the 'debate' goes on as if there was not a considerable amount of new information and ideas to deal with. In other words, it goes on as if anyone had enough expertise to argue in favour or against such position.

Notice that, however, the aforesaid 'debate' reveals us some curious things, as some people have already said. The fanatic groups claim that Darwin's evolution theory is demoniac. But why don't they say that Einstein's relativity is also a heresy? Perhaps because they think they can understand and discuss Darwinism, but have not the slightest idea of what 'Einsteinism' could mean. And I am not the first person to make this kind of remark, I guess.

Tuesday, 20 July 2004 - 16:53 BST

Name: Tony Marmo
Home Page: https://tonymarmo.tripod.com/linguistix-logik

Brian Leiter's article on arrogance and knowledge may be understood in (at least) two different ways. The first way is purely local: the reader restricts its meaning to the academic reality of the US and discusses what is happening there. The second way is more universal: the reader discusses the implications of Leiter's claim to the scientific community, which is by definition of international nature. I hereby choose the second alternative:

Science must be both democratic in essence and independent from religion and political factions, and academic institutions must host diversity. These principles must remain for ever. Competence and quality can only obtain in environments where there is freedom of thought and diversity of interacting ideas. But what irritates Leiter and causes his revolt is indeed a form of totalitarianism against these democratic principles. It is not the place of persons out of the scientific community to pre-impose their own pre-conceived ideas upon scientists. And it is not the place of members of the very scientific community to impose the same pre-conceived non-scientific ideas to establish an inquisitorial system to patrol the ideology of the other members via the most efficient method of discrimination: labelling people and restraining them within rigid quotas. Even if such quotas are mosty symbolic.

View Latest Entries