What caused the left to become anti-intellectual?

[beam me up scottie]

salvorhardin and Caution have brought up good points recently, we used to be the champions of science and reason.

But now skeptics and scientists are vilified for harshing people's buzz.

People have been attacked here and elsewhere for simply suggesting that others think, many posters have complained about the way NASA and other scientific endeavors are viewed with paranoia and suspicion.

What the hell happened?

Anybody have any theories?


And yes, I welcome conspiracy theories if they're good ones.:)

[PinkUnicorn]

1. Random speculation

Just shooting from the bottom of a glass of vodka while waiting for a download to complete so caveat emptor. There are several causes I suspect.

A largish one has to do with the insipid state of mass media today. You can't switch on the TV without some empty talking head spouting how "Blah will lead to a cure for cancer" or "Wooga will produce clean free energy" and the like. Even the 'science' programs are pitiful having gone from seeing what is actually done to "Ooo, ain't this cool" level crap. The 'heads barely have any qualifications in journalism let alone science. This leads to people expecting that they simply say "we want a cure for cancer" and science pulls it out of its arse on demand. No mention is made of years of hard work, false leads, potential cures which turn out not to work, etc. And when scientists say "this does not work we shall have to start again", people think its either a big conspiracy or view scientists as liars. Which opens fertile ground for the woos and their snake oil - "those stinky scientists are liars, we actually have a cure made of an ancient recipe of dog turd".

Next up you have science being expensive. The days where someone could produce a discovery by slapping a few lenses and tubes together are long past. Complicated and costly equipment is required, which means that in this day of instant gratification, money for something which is not guaranteed to produce a desired result is looked upon badly - the concept of long term investment is ignored for a quick fix. People are quite happy to piss away billions of dollars patching up a problem, where they could possibly spend a few million fixing the root cause over a longer period of time. A classic one is satellites - people whine and whine that 'space is a waste' while at the same time sitting their obese lard butts in front of satellite TV. They cry and whine about wasting money on weather satellites, until they have a hurricane changing down their throats and then want instant updates.

And the big one is that proper science is coldy impartial. It rips away delusions and bashes you over the head with cold facts no matter how unpleasant they are. No one wants their fluffy toys taken away, and in the current "culture of fear" people cling to their blankies all the harder. Anything which tries to take this security away is obviously "evil". This also permits the breeding of a sense of superiority - "Oh I know the secret of zero point energy, whereas those stupid scientists don't". A sort of defense mechanism against reality - you are one of the 'chosen' as opposed to just another plebe. The 'buzz' you mention is the sole source false comfort they have in their lives.

An offshoot of this is that science - while open to anyone - has a rigidly defined structure. Science is not a democracy, accepting whatever feels good - but is a tyranny of facts. This rigid structure of accepting only factual information possibly alienates it to those who think "help help I'm being oppressed" by any hierarchy system no matter how ridiculous it is. It becomes 'cool' to rebel against 'the system', and science having a rigidly defined system makes easy pickings, while at the same time science doesn't have the time, money or resources to fight back. While they think they are James Dean, they are really 'Rebels without a clue' looking to give themselves 15 mins of fame against an easy target.

Hmm, drinkie all gone. I'll leave it here and get a refill (and see if anyone is interested in more idly intoxicated ramblings later ) ;)

[beam me up scottie]

6. Good points all, but I especially agree with the fourth.

"No one wants their fluffy toys taken away, and in the current "culture of fear" people cling to their blankies all the harder. Anything which tries to take this security away is obviously "evil"."

Thats exactly what I see all too often.

They turn to science to confirm their beliefs and it lets them down. I had a conversation with someone in the R/T forum who blamed science because it didn't support his belief in ghosts. He actually made the claim that science tried to disprove the existence of ghosts. He "converted" to science when he lost his faith in God. So science was doomed from the start. How many people try to replace religion with science? And how many willingly accept both, but expect the same results from science that they know are guaranteed by belief in gods?

[Random_Australian]

8. Grar! That reminds me of the other thing that people have been doing that

is REALLY annoying - using science as an argument from authority. Like that poster to which you referred - 'converted' to science, as in had faith in it. When the whole meaning of science is to be without faith in your little explanations.

And then that leads to woowoo's using words like 'scientifically proven' as exactly the same argument from authority, and convincing people because of it. :(

[beam me up scottie]

14. Scientifically Proven =

I saw it on Oprah.

[salvorhardin]

15. I don't know

Ellen has presented some pretty convincing evidence to the contrary and let's not forget about Star Jones' work in the field. ;)

[Random_Australian]

17. And people who see ads on the tv, and repeat the claims they make.

Except they preface it with "I heard".

There was one funny time though, when our equivalent of the weekly daily show was talking to people on the street, and at the same time there was a smear campaign out about how the left wing candidate will cause everything to collapse financially, and included the specific words "so then how will he manage Australia's (xxx) Billion dollar economy?"

And so they are out on the street, and some random goes "I heard that (Mark Latham, the candidate in question) didn't go well when he was in local government, so then how will he manage Australias (xxx) million dollar economy?" -then just gets the look when they realise that 'million' isn't right....


... and at that moment the show pauses, and a big red stamp hits the screen, saying: "This person votes"

:)

Stupid people.

Everywhere.

All your base are belong to us.

[beam me up scottie]

18. sNort! All your base are belong to us is right.

[Random_Australian]

20. And then there is the infamous "All your smurf" as well.

That was even weirder.

(Did you see the original 'all your base'?)

[beam me up scottie]

22. I saw the original but not the Smurf version.

You have to remember, I live in an area where no one has ever heard of Talk Like a Pirate Day.

[Random_Australian]

23. It's... unusual.

That is how I will word it.

[salvorhardin]

24. Yarr! Have a smurfy day matey!

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/19369

You'll also want to check out Zero Wing Rhapsody
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/222458

[beam me up scottie]

25. uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Not sure what to say about that.

I think I'll stick with Pirate speak.

:D

[salvorhardin]

30. Smurfy pirates

Yeah that's a little scary.

[Random_Australian]

2. Because of ordinary, non-scientist people.

The story begins like this:

Science enables people to do whatever the fuck they want.

People chose to tear up the forests. (Real clever, whoever said "when the last tree is cut down, and the last fish is caught, and the last river is poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money" was obviously some kind of doofus :eyes: )

And then ends like this:

Other people decided that they did not want the trees cut down. They went to look and stop it, and what did they see? All the damn machines and chemicals doing all the hacking.

So they associated machines/ synthetic chemicals with 'bad'.

Fast forward a generation, and vicarious learning will have multiplied it up proper. Kids see their parents react to 'natural' as if it meant good and 'chemical' as if it meant 'bad' and learn that that is how the world works.


The end.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Another excellent point.

I am about as green (green as in tree-hugging whack job environmentalist - not as in the party) as you can get, but I frequently disagree with people in my group who blame science for the wanton destruction committed in the name of the holy dollar. Humans are responsible, not science.

Just like in the comic books, science is either a tool or a weapon, it can be used to save the world or doom it.
It all depends who wields it.


And the saying you posted is a Cree Indian prophecy, and one of my favorites. I used to have it on a t-shirt, here is the full text;


Only after the last tree has been cut down;

Only after the last fish has been caught;

Only after the last river has been poisoned;

Only then will man realize that he cannot eat his money.

~ Cree Indian Prophecy

[salvorhardin]

3. I'm not sure this country was ever really a champion of science or reason

Especially when one looks at how quickly the founding fathers descended into the sort of political mud-flinging and appeal to the lowest common denominator that has characterized American politics since, well, the beginning.

This country was always anti-intellectual owing to several factors, most notably the rapid spread of evangelical religion (after all, those prim and proper Protestant Ministers weren't going to get themselves dirty out on the frontier), and the emphasis on the practical (this also a result of being a frontier nation). As for the left, they were no better. In the 1930s labor and the intellectuals were closely aligned but both grew quickly frustrated with each other for instance. And in the 1950s there was a bizarre offshoot of Dewey's ideas about education called Life Adjustment Education which held that it was not important to make sure every kid could read or do math or science but that they be properly adjusted to live in society, so you got "educational" films like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nvivEqxjsI

I think perhaps in the 1950s though there was greater overall respect for authority and by association, scientists and intellectuals. And maybe, just maybe, from about October of 1957 to November of 1963* the U.S. as a country might have been said to champion science and reason. Certainly during that time science, science education and math education were funded and supported in a way they haven't been since. But then with the deepening imbroglio in Vietnam, the rise of the New Left in the late 1960s, the sputtering out of the space program in the mid-1970s, the corruption of labor unions and long term recession I think the scene was set for anti-intellectualism to return en force. Except this time everybody hated the intellectuals and scientists. The far right hated them because they saw them as amoral, incomprehensible puppets of the NWO and the far left hated them because they saw them as amoral, incomprehensible puppets of big business.

*arbitrary dates I know, and they don't correspond perfectly but they're as fine a set of bookends as I can think of.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Well, I was talking about the left, not the country,

although you gave a great summary of the history of anti-intellectualism.

The left as a group seems to be pro-education and pro-science, but individuals on the left appear to distrust and fear intellectuals. Your point about how everybody hated intellectuals and scientists for the reasons stated probably has a lot to do with it.

[salvorhardin]

10. I just think it's a deeply embedded attitude in this country

And even a lot of those who say they are pro-science and pro-education aren't really, or they don't really know what that means. But if you're looking strictly at the left I think you need to take a hard look at the rise of the New Left. And that's not to paint the New Left as being the root of all our problems. I just think that because of the peculiar social forces that shaped the New Left in the 1960s and early 1970s they ended up generally anti-science and anti-intellectual. On DU we have a lot of people who tend to idolize leftists from this period too so they might pick up those biases without realizing it. And can I mention post-modernism? And counter-enlightenment thinking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

[beam me up scottie]

16. Of course you can.

I remember you talking about this before, your idea that social forces shaped the New Left is something I've been thinking about ever since.

If the children of liberal baby boomers were raised to distrust authority, they could have developed a distrust of ALL authority, which could very easily turn into paranoia.

Hence HAARP, chemtrails, manufactured tsunamis etc.

[moggie]

26. Interesting bookends

Reason began with a beep and ended with a bang?

[salvorhardin]

31. Something like that

I picked Sputnik because of the massive uptick in federal spending on the National Science Foundation and science and math education*, as well as stimulating space exploration. Coupled with the post WWII optimism, which I think many believed that science and technology were deciding factors in the way, and I really do think we (the U.S.) were on the edge of a transformative age. And it seems like with Kennedy's assasination marked the beginning of the end for all of that. The emphasis shifted from butter to bombs.

*Even while New Math was widely derided, I think the idea was a good one that was perhaps based on incomplete knowledge of childhood development. Some of us benefited from it. I'm pretty sure I did, but I do think it delayed skills mastery in some areas while accelerating them in others. I think because of New Math's emphasis on set theory and abstraction of mathematical operations I was able to pick up programming and technical knowledge of computing very early. On the other hand, to this day I have to use my fingers to some basic arithmetic skills. And as a bonus I can do binary arithmetic on my fingers too.
http://www.cs.iupui.edu/~aharris/chis/chis.html

[Dead_Parrot]

4. There might be quite a few swing voters...

...who are simply "anti-government", and align themselves with whichever political party isn't in power at the moment: Take this eye-bulging snippet, for instance:

What’s dominating the front page? Not the war in Yugoslavia, not the Steele trial, but the twisters in the Midwest. Clinton has at his disposal a weapon called HAARP, which has the ability to send enormously powerful pulses and waves into the atmosphere, and therefore, Clinton can conduct weather control and create storms. Did Clinton order HAARP to be directed at Kansas and Oklahoma? Is he demonic enough to do such a thing to keep the Steele trial from American eyes?

More end-times gibberish at http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/steffanlaw/tornado.html.

There's probably a few of these characters lurking around the 9-11 forum at this very moment: Rest assured, they'll start dissapearing once there's a Dem in the whitehouse again. I wouldn't say they are left-wing or right-wing, though - Wings are no use when live under a rock.

[salvorhardin]

5. There's a handful of Larouchies hanging about too

And probably a few Newmanites.

[AZCat]

11. What's a "Newmanite"? n/t

[salvorhardin]

13. An offshoot of the followers of Larouche

Have you heard of Lenora Fulani? She and Fred Newman were psychotherapists that formed the New Alliance Party. They are often described as cult-like. Hang on a sec and I'll try to grab something a little more informative than the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Alliance_Party

Also see Social Therapy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Therapy

Ah, here you go...
Clouds Blur the Rainbow:
How Fred Newman & Lenora Fulani Use Totalitarian Deception to Manipulate Social and Political Activists
http://www.publiceye.org/newman/cloudsblur.html

[AZCat]

19. Lots of reading to do, I see.

How could I have missed all this? Am I just too young to have caught all the coverage during what seems to have been the Larouch/Newman heyday?

[salvorhardin]

21. I don't know

Fulani was pretty well known because of her 1988 Presidential bid but I think these days she and Newman are not so well known except maybe in the NYC area where they seem to have developed a strong political base. I may be underestimating the extent of their power though. Dennis King is an investigative journalist who has perhaps reported on Fulani and Newman the most.
http://dennisking.org
http://denniskingblog.typepad.com


I don't know about this blogger (he seems pretty far left) but he has no love for Larouche or Fulani.
FILIBUSTERING FRANK MORALES,LES JAMIESON, AND THE LAROUCHE-ING OF THE “9/11 TRUTH” MOVEMENT
http://tomsupfrontnews.blogspot.com/2006/08/filibustering-frank-moralesles.html

He is a Democrat running for the Senate (against Clinton I suppose)
http://tomweissdemocratforussenate.blogspot.com/2006/02/bio-five-borough-man.html

[beam me up scottie]

12. Oh good grief.

Where the heck did you stumble upon that little gem? I think my IQ dropped 20 points just reading it.

If Clinton did not order the Midwestern storms through HAARP, and if Russia did not turn her HAARP on us to cause them, then we are witnessing something else, something out of this world. The skeptics will say, the storms are but a coincidence. Few who have delved into spiritual matters believe in coincidences, but, for the skeptics, all the "natural" disasters will ever be are random events with no causes and for nopurposes. The skeptics don’t even believe in God. Let them wallow in their ignorance.

For those who are beyond the skeptical belief in only things of the physical, for those who understand on some level that there are forces much greater than what men can see, feel, hear, touch or taste, there is something else to consider. Of the group that is beyond skepticism, there is a very large percentage of them that openly rejects the possibility of external Evil, that refuses to consider that there is an Evil Mind running this world, that denies the war between Good and Evil. These people are now facing the maddening realization that if all is off God and God is Good, and there is no Evil, then why is God being so disruptive to their spiritual ascent by causing wars on the planet, by causing massive destruction, by murdering all the plants, animals and people? These people are a step above the skeptics who know not God, but are woefully deluded by the illusions and tricks of the banker’s master, Mammon, because they actually believe that there is no Evil, and if there is no Evil, there can be no war. Hence, to them, the war is an illusion.

A few understand the waging battle between the Divine Forces and the demonic rulers who have temporarily controlled this planet by lies, by fraud and by murder. They see something very different happening to the tornado bombings and the tornado twisters than the rest of the population. Despite the gravity of the carnage in the Midwest and the terror it has caused, those who understand the war of Good and Evil, those who realize that America has become the part of the First Beast of Daniel, those who havepatiently awaited Divine Judgment, those who Love God, will see these storms as a sign of the Most Glorious of Times on this Planet if they look into their hearts. That message is within for those who are somewhat awakened to this time, and comprehend at some level what is happening. Those with eyes and ears might well discern it is time for all who Love the True God to come out of the Harlot, time to stop serving evil and money and fraud, Time to Rejoice because Liberation from Evil is at hand.

The worst thing about that little spittle-flecked diatribe is that if you changed a few of the names, you're absolutely right, it could have come from one of our own resident geniuses.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. Google is your friend...

...sometimes. Other times it creeps up in the middle of the night and whispers things in your ear that would make Lovecraft reach for the Xanax.

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

36. "that would make Lovecraft reach for the Xanax."

:rofl:

As a life long H.P. fan, I concur. These people make Cthulu look like ... well, like Hello Kitty.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. I agree. I think that these people wander all over the political spectrum

Freeperville has its own history of woo-wooism.
"Global Warming is a lie - left-wing conspiracy"
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been accused of all sorts, orchestrating the Oklahoma bombing, killing and raping young women in Arkansas, surrendering the U.S. to the secret U.N. world government and so on.

Had a 9/11 style attack occurred under a Gore presidency we would have seen a 9/11 Truth (sic) movement directed by right-wing ideologues with a following of woo-woos that we're familiar with.

These people seem to go wherever they think there is an audience for them. As the neoconservatives are such hate figures, attributing further outrageous conspiracies to them is attractive to those who already hold them in low regard. Attributing such powers (Tsunami machines, 9/11 MIHOP) enables a Good v Evil viewpoint to be easy to hold and perhaps it is comforting to avoid complex analysis.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. Personally, I blame the Queen of the World.

(Yeah, that thread. Here for the uninitiated with spare sanity)

[WoodrowFan]

52. OMG!

The crazy is thick as molassas in January in that thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[beam me up scottie]

37. You nailed it, AS, they have no allegiance.

Whoever whispers sweet nothings in their ears will be their master.

I am quite positive the career MIHOPers will be making the same spectacle of themselves 20, 30 even 50 years from now.

They've invented their own religion, completely unfalsifiable.

[WoodrowFan]

27. I'm not sure I agree with your premise

I'm not sure I agree with your premise BMUS. (hey, that rhymes!) I agree that the left* has long been a shelter for free thinkers and for the rational among us. However, I think there has always been a woo-woo brigade on the left as well as on the right. I suspect we notice it more because discussion boards like the DU can amplify extreme or fringe beliefs. When someone you agree with on other issues says something outrageous, you’re less likely to dismiss it than if someone who disagreed with on everything said the same thing. You can see the same thing on both the left and the right. If Gore had been in office on 9-11 then the Freepers would be MIHOPers and most of the MIHOP crew on the DU would be poo-pooing it (a few hard core tinfoil head will buy into any theory so the DU would not be totally MIHOP free)

I think the question we need to ask is not “how did this come about” but “how do we stop it from spreading.” How can we contain the spread of the irrational not only on the left, but in American life in general?





* FYI: I don’t like using “left” and “right” as political terms for periods before the 19th Century so I’m referring basically for post 1800 politics in a broad way.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Good points.

I guess I just never noticed how anti-science some lefties are.

I expect more from liberals, no wonder I'm such a pessimist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I think it's because of whom the current benefits of science seem to go to

As WoodrowFan points out above, there have been some anti-science, or at least anti-technology, parts of the left for as long as 'the left' has existed - think of the literal saboteurs of the Jacquard looms, or the Luddites, who feared their jobs and skills would be destroyed by automation.

If scientific advances seem to go mainly towards increasing company profits (eg Genetic Modification), then many on the left will be against them. Meanwhile, the right is busy being anti-science, when the science is climatology, and it's telling them big business is destroying the climate and must stop. With less big government projects around now, the general impression of science is not of something that works for the good of everyone, but for a financial advantage - so many people first think "someone's making money off this, somehow. How can I trust them?", and build their view of it from there.

[beam me up scottie]

39. argh.

And science is caught in the middle.

Not to mention the poor hapless scientists. One trip to the dungeon or the old Meeting Room and you'll be convinced they are all "in on it". The "it" being whatever the conspiracy du jour is, HAARP, chemtrails, fluoride, mercury amalgam, science-based medicine, blah blah blah...
:banghead:

[mhatrw]

83. So what do you think of HAARP?

How about fluoride and mercury amalgams? All good stuff?

Few think scientists are all "in on it." We perhaps simply have a more realistic understanding of how science actually works in the real world -- you know, with "tobacco science" and "asbestos science" serving as outlying (but still illustrative) examples.

I am good friends with a highly trained and well-respected water treatment engineer. She is as well-meaning as any individual can be. Because of overblown concerns about chlorine, our water district has now switched over to chloramine. 90% of the people in our community still use Brita (or similar) filters, but now filtration removes less than 5% of the chloramine when it used to remove 99% of the chlorine. So why did she go along with it? Well, all the other water districts were doing it, and it was recommended by various national agencies, and, gosh darn it, they all wouldn't have been advocating for it and switching over unless it was a better solution. Right?

To make a long story short, my water treatment engineer friend's family now drinks bottled water. Just another example of scientific progress!

[eridani]

32. There has always been an anti-reason faction of the left

In the mid-70s, I remember being criticized by the granola faction of lesbian feminists about how being a chemist was "male-identified."

[beam me up scottie]

35. "granola faction of lesbian feminists"? Why not just call them feminazis?

Issues much?

:eyes:

[eridani]

43. Because I refuse to spread Rethug memes

Besides which, the crystal wearing crowd in no way resembles Nazis. If they weren't so anti-rational, I'd appreciate their many other redeeming features.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Well, guess what? "granola faction of lesbian feminists" IS a Rethug meme

There is no correlation between rationality and gender, sexual orientation or diet.

[eridani]

46. No, it isn't

It's a self-identifier. Feminists readily recognize distinctions between the spiritual/organic types, the glass ceiling types, the socialist types, "cultural" feminists, etc. and often joke about it.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Are you a granola faction lesbian feminist?

The only people I know who use gender and sexual orientation based slurs to insult women are misogynists.

If you want to refer to yourself that way, go for it, but calling women you disagree with that name says a lot more about you than it does about them.

[eridani]

48. Partly

I came out in the earth shoe/granny dress mid 70s, looked the type, but was actually a hyper-rational nerd under all that.

[Ediacara]

40. I don't think the left is anti-logical

Well... anymore than the right. Actually on the whole I think the right is far far more anti-logic and anti-science than the left. As to your question though... I have no idea. I see a lot of anti-science and anti-logic thinking as grossly misapplied skepticism that has its roots in poor explanations of the scientific method (taught by people that don't actually know what the scientific method is) to kids in kindergarten.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Yeah, I'm thinking I just resent it more when it comes from the left.

I feel the same way when I see blatant bigotry, I expect better from liberals.

Since woowooism can now travel at the speed of light, I'm noticing it more often than I did before.

[salvorhardin]

42. I know I resent it more

We like to think that our gang is smarter than their gang and shouldn't be susceptible to that. If it's going to get any better it has to be a culture wide change though. Just teaching kids about science, reason and critical thinking in school doesn't help when the entire culture is steeped in woowooism and anti-intellectualism.

[beam me up scottie]

45. It's a losing battle.

[PinkUnicorn]

49. Idle though duex

With the standard characterisations - 'Left/Liberal' is meant to be open minded and progressive. This can be taken to far as in the saying "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out".

A possibility is that people think because they define themselves as Liberals they have to swallow any quackery that someone presents, as not to do so is seen as 'Conservative/Freeper' and 'Close minded'. The social stigma permits a great deal of garbage to go unchallenged and hence recieve taict acceptance.

[Ediacara]

51. I agree, it bothers me a lot more when our team says stupid things

I think the problems, culture wide, have to do with a poor understanding of science, a poor grasp of what critical thinking actually is, and misapplied skepticism. I think falsification and the philosophical basis for the scientific method can and should (at least rudimentily) be taught to kindergarteners.

[salvorhardin]

53. Again, I agree

And I do think you can teach, if not the actual scientific method, a scientific worldview (which may be more important in the long run considering how many crackpot academics there are) to children as young as that. And at least my personal experience tells me they *love* that. It's a big game for them. Actually, vaguely recalling ed. psych. I read so long ago, the problems in the schools seem to start at about the 4th grade level. Kids almost universally seem to enjoy and do well with schooling until about 4th grade and then something changes. By 8th grade it's like any joy of learning has been completely quashed.

A note on what you've termed misapplied skepticism... I'm not sure that's the best term. The American culture has deeply embedded in it a great suspicion of authority I think, and this seems logical give our origins. But for the majority of people that suspicion of authority never actually develops into critical thinking. Now I happen to think that SOA as a rule is a good thing, but one must temper it with the sorts of critical thinking that comes from a scientific worldview (scientific skepticism as opposed to philosophical skepticism). I think unfettered SOA is one of the avenues to adopting a conspiracist worldview, and in so far as people may act based on conspiracist delusions (and they have) we should do everything possible to counter that. But the solution isn't to stamp out SOA rather to guide people into becoming critical thinkers. As long as we can do that then I think that even though many people will adopt some sort of conspiratorial belief (some will even be justified), they won't adopt a conspiracist worldview.

Again, I think often it is not necessarily what people believe so much as how they believe in it. That's not to say I think it's OK when someone believes that holograms attacked the WTC towers but rather as humans we all have a tendency toward unevidenced leaps and conclusions simply due to how our brains work. Logic and deductive reasoning are not inborn skills but have to be learned. And it's likely that at one point or another all of us have had and will have again certain beliefs that aren't reasonable but as long as we maintain a scientific worldview we're able to move on from those beliefs.

Pardon my excessive verbage.

[Ediacara]

55. I think falsification could be taught pretty easily to young kids

As something of a detective game where things that have been shown to be false are eliminated, but showing that the non-eliminated option isn't necessarily true. Additionally, I think they can be taught that skepticism is healthy for everyone to have, and the best application of skepticism is toward ideas and not toward people, and that skepticism for skepticism's sake can be irrational.

Which brings us to misapplied skepticism :-) What I mean by that term is the common practice of being skeptical of all science because it's done by scientists who have all sorts of supposed ulterior motivations ($$$$), which is in a sense, an ad hominem attack. There certainly are instances where the science can and should be questioned based solely on the reputation of the scientist (big tobacco doctors, right wing anti-global warming scientists, the discovery institute, etc), but that doesn't mean people should automatically assume everything that those people say is bullshit.

As an aside, my boss is a complete woo-woo. He's somewhat conservative politically, and I haven't had any chance to see if he's a creationist, but he hates professors because they're rich (HA!) and they do nothing (double HA!). He's recently told me all about this great doctor who wrote a book that's his new medical Bible. It turns out, he was talking about someone who isn't a doctor at all, but Kevin "The Cures They Don't Want You To Know About" Trudeau. I just about died. I told him that Trudeau was a quack that was barred from ever appearing on TV by the FCC because he's a total liar and he should just throw the book away. He told me that, "Oh no, those doctors, they don't know what the hell they're doing, but this book, it works." He's a prime example of misapplied skepticism.

His wife, who has bad psoriasis, frequently visits an abandoned Uranium mine which is a quackery cure-all for everyone and everything. It's also full of Radon. He claims it cured her psoriasis when those fancy doctors in Seattle couldn't. I simply told him that she should never go back because she'll probably develop lung cancer and die from that. His response? "Oh, there's radiation all over the place all the time, it's no different in that mine."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Random_Australian]

56. Wow! That reminded me of the coolest thing!

There is a silica compound in tobacco that can attack Radon! (This came up in my chemistry lectures, the only other source of Polonium in the natural world is... get this: squid stomachs) So the Radon sticks, decays into Polonium, and makes ciggaretes mildly radioactive. :)

Pretty cool huh? (For those who don't remember the place of Radon on the periodic table, attacking Radon is not exactly common)

[Random_Australian]

65. You mean this mine?

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9610/msg00166.html

[mhatrw]

84. So basically, SOA is OK when you think it is OK and not OK

when you don't?

Are there any examples of unproven suspicions of corporate, regulatory or governmental malfeasance that you endorse? If so, could you name a few?

[progressoid]

50. I blame the X-Files. Well, sort of.

I've wondered if the X-Files helped spawn the latest wave of CTists and woowooos or just fed off of an already growing movement. Probably a little of both.

Regardless. I see the mentality of a lot of what is written to be strikingly similar to the X-Files genre of fiction. Shadow gov'ts, secret societies, double & triple agents, all tied together with pseudo-science.

They WANT to believe:

[salvorhardin]

59. Michael Barkun thinks so

Specifically he thinks that there has been a progressive destigmatization of these sorts of beliefs in recent years based on their positive portrayal in the media. The X-Files, especially the X-Files movie with its' near perfect synthesis of far right wing NWO paranoid fantasies and UFO mythology, have helped pave the way for the a similar synthesis happening in real world conspiracy culture where UFOlogists are adopting the rhetoric of the far right and the far right is adopting some of the beliefs of the UFOlogists. This is why Barkun sees the rise of what he terms super conspiracies in recent years.

Here's an interview with Michael Barkun for an Australian radio program:

Rachael Kohn: Well for the past few years, I must say I’ve had an eerie feeling that more and more films and television series were based on conspiracy theories, and of course The X Files is the most notorious of this kind. Does the pop culture phenomenon reflect an actual growing belief that we are the victims of conspiracies perpetrated by governments and evil cabals?

Michael Barkun: It’s hard to know what comes first, whether the conspiracy theories generate the pop culture programs, or whether the pop culture programs generate belief in conspiracy theories. I think it’s certainly partly both. I don’t think, for example, that a major motion picture like the picture ‘Conspiracy Theory’ with Mel Gibson, would have been made, had there not been a belief that there was an audience out there for it.

Rachael Kohn: And what’s interesting about that film is how it ends, when all the time you think Mel Gibson is a loony, he turns out to be right in the end. There really are people out to get him.

Michael Barkun: Yes, that I think is the most striking thing, and the element in the film that I found quite astonishing when I saw it the first time, because as you say, he gives every indication of being delusional. Up until that final scene when the camera pulls back and you see a sky filled with black helicopters which of course in a sense have become emblematic of contemporary conspiracy theories.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1045973.htm

[sufrommich]

54. If you embrace dogma,

ideological or religious,you have no choice but to become anti intellectual.Dogma resents logic and will not tolerate doubt.I think it's as simple as that.I find no difference between strident ideologues(left and right)and religious fundamentalist.Both have chosen their path and damn reason to hell.Every time I see someone on DU try to angrily shut down a poster who will not bow to whoever the idol of the week is with "FILL IN THE BLANK SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER!!"I imagine their topsy turvy twin in freeperville angrily typing "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS IT'S SO".Anti intellectualism is the sign of a frozen brain and they are everywhere.

Thank you Beam Me Up Scottie for directing me here,it's like a little island of sanity.Love it!

"If we're capable of conjuring up terrifying monsters in childhood, why shouldn't some of us, at least on occasion, be able to fantasize something similar, something truly horrifying, a shared delusion, as adults? "Carl Sagan from The Demon haunted World

Edited to qoute

[beam me up scottie]

67. You're welcome!

And welcome to the Skeptic Group, I think you fit right in. :)

[leftofthedial]

57. the left is anti-intellectual?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:wtf:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Orrex]

58. Well...

Trying hanging out in the Health forum. And then try suggesting that evidence is required before we can issue conclusions about the efficacy of a given treatment.

You'll quickly see how well-prized rationalism is among fans of "alternative" "medicine," and rationalism is a fair proxy for intellectualism IMO.

[varkam]

60. Why do you need evidence...

...when you just know something works? Come on Orrex, open your mind! I know that drinking magnesium diluted 1000X in a glass of water is a cure for Schizophrenia, and so I encourage all people with schizophrenia to go off of their evil big pill poisons (which most certainly don't work - I know that for a fact) and start with the magnesium treatments.

Oh, yeah - :sarcasm:

[Random_Australian]

61. Right sentiment, bad example.

While the drugs for schizophrenia do way more than anything else, people are fucking around with the studies on them in ways they shouldn't.

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=276x3454

Fuckers.

[varkam]

62. Maybe it was a bad example, given that bit of news.

But I take it that you will agree with antipsychotic drugs usually help and not hurt - right?

[Random_Australian]

63. Yes. As I stated in that post.

Edit: Stated unclearly. I meant "The drugs for schizophrenia do way more than anything else available to help schizophrenia"

[Ediacara]

64. Screw the magnesium

You just need to hang out at the uranium mine and inhale radon (see above). It cures EVERYTHING!

[politicat]

74. How about trying to get them to accept evidence when they don't

want to do something that is scientifically sound? (Like... oh... vaccination.) Evidence is only useful over there when it confirms their beliefs; when there is evidence that fails to prop up their belief systems, then they revert to anecdote and accuse the evidence of being tampered with.

On the larger point, I think one of our cultural issues is that we apply democracy to ideas, possibly because in the pursuit of tolerance, we bend over backwards not to step on anyone's emotional needs. When people conflate their emotional needs with things that are not emotional (such as conflating the emotional need for a Deux ex Machina to cure or explain a child's illness with the real need to find treatment for the condition) it becomes impossible to change the concrete needs with changing evidence because the emotional investment is so high. A lot of people can't break their emotions completely away from their intellectual abilities, and so culturally, we leave emotional areas alone. Now that people are mixing emotion and medicine, or bringing the visceral detestation of X to lay at science's doorstep, that emotional space is growing while the rational space is shrinking.

I should not try to write such sentences at midnight. I do so much better writing Buffy articles about monism and dualism at midnight....

[mhatrw]

80. How about using actual inert placebos in vaccination studies?

How about actually making a serious effort to carefully track and analyze all reported side effects?

How releasing the data from all the toxicity studies of all vaccine ingredients?

[mhatrw]

79. And what about fans of conventional treatments?

Don't they have their own biases?

My mother had brain surgery at the behest of her doctor to relieve her uncontrollable tremors. The doctors who performed the surgery chalked it up as a success because her WAIS score went down by less than half after surgery and she was able to lift her left and right arms when instructed to do so. Of course, her case was never followed up, and I never recognized her as my mother after that day. Once a dynamic woman, she basically sat in bed and watched TV without ever changing the channel until she died.

I don't fault the doctors. It's just how medicine works in our country. They were doing their best and they thought they were helping. But don't tell me that they didn't bring their own biases to that operating table. Don't tell that the write up that calls her surgery a success isn't a product of these biases.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Yes, thanks! MIHOPers and other truthiness believers are classic examples!

I neglected to mention the left's worse pctists.

Orrex is right about the Health forum, but the best evidence is in the Dungeon.

Non-radioactive mini-nukes, lasers, holograms, buildings collapsing faster than the speed of gravity, rabbit cages, cement blocks and kerosene, blah blah blah etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Every time someone tries to actually USE science or quote actual scientists in that forum, they're attacked and accused of collusion.


It's okay, don't take it personally, I realize that it's the duty of Truthiness Experts everywhere to adhere to the http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html">Woo Woo Credo, specifically #29 in this case:

29.) Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).

[jberryhill]

75. Rabbit Cages?

Hey, are you knocking experimental science:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6200565569456547648&hl=en

What's unscientific about that?

[mhatrw]

81. How about examining the actual hard physical evidence?

Why is that too much to ask? Why is it "anti-science" to ask for the physical evidence to be carefully and exhaustively examined and to have the results of these examinations publicly released?

Yes, a few people who "know" there is something fishy about 9/11 exhibit confirmation bias whenever they encounter any information that lends itself to their beliefs. But what about those who dismiss the physical evidence and instantly write off every anomaly simply because it doesn't jibe with their own beliefs that the 19 Arabs pulled off 9/11 with no help from anyone else?

[Odin2005]

68. The Left become infected by New Age woo woos and luddites in the 70s

This is a major reason why the average Joe equates "enviromentalist" with "wacko," enviromentalism became equated with eco-primitivism and "mother earth" mysticism in the public psyche, to the detriment of enviromentalism. I consider myself an enviromentalist, but other so-called "enviromentalists" call me the spawn of Satan because I support nuclear energy and GMOs.

[Caution]

73. You've got an interesting thesis there. I know a lot of wingnuts who associate

evironmentalism with the woo-woo fringe. It's pretty ironic that they actually think of their climate change denial as rational in contrast to their perception of tree-hugging woo-woo nutjobs.

[Taxloss]

69. Where is BMUS?

I miss her.

[Evoman]

70. I heard that she was checked into a "mental health" hospital, after spending

too much time in R/T. She'll be back out as soon as they stamp her with "NOT INSANE".

[Odin2005]

71. Please tell me your joking!

I hope BMUS is alright. :-(

[Evoman]

72. Of course I'm joking.

In reality, I have her locked up in my basement writing a play, so I can take credit for it.

[WoodrowFan]

77. I miss her too!

Come back BMUS! Come back!

[Odin2005]

76. Someone posted this bunch of New Age crap in Enviroment/Energy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x86013

The this kind of BS woo woo that give enviromentalism a bad name.

[mhatrw]

78. You are champions of conventional wisdom, not science or reason.

Where and when is the left anti-science?

Because some of us suspect corporations and the government they've bought us don't always have our best interests in mind?

[PVnRT]

82. Suspicion is fine

Making assertions without the evidence to back them up, or evidence that has been twisted to suit your ends, then it becomes anti-science.

As for your comment above about biases towards "conventional" healing, why don't you start presenting us some peer-reviewed research demonstrating the benefits of "non-conventional" healing?

[mhatrw]

85. Let's see. Because most hasn't been researched one way or the other?

Unlike you pretenders and protectors of conventional wisdom, I'm an actual skeptic. I'm skeptical of every claim I hear until I see some hard evidence, and I'm skeptical of all "peer reviewed research" until I examine the methodology.

[PVnRT]

86. Oh please

You're an expert in everything now? Amazing. I didn't know you were smarter than the entire scientific community.

Are you through trolling in this forum or are you still bored?

[mhatrw]

88. I'm trolling?

Nope. Just imitating my galloping neural idols a tad.

And I never claimed to be an expert in everything. I can evaluate most experimental designs outside of quantum physics, though. How about you?

[PVnRT]

90. OK, then

Explain the methods used to determine a shift in means, a test of independence/correlation and how to determine whether or not the experimental method is affecting the results of an experiment.

And, yes, I can do each of these things, as could any freshman in a Statistics course. Equations are not necessary, just give us the basics in your own words.

[salvorhardin]

91. Please don't feed the troll

He's feeling a little grouchy because he found out we said unfriendly things about him at my site.

[mhatrw]

92. I assume you are talking about social science or medical

experimentation. I used to be the head IT administrator of a cognitive psychology laboratory. I designed and coded numerous CBE (using computer algorithms to generate balanced, but randomly ordered character display sets), and I used SAS and SPSS extensively to analyze their results.

If you are looking for remedial statistical instruction for social experimentation, this is great resource:

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php

[PVnRT]

94. No...

Those methods apply to any kind of experiment design. How this went from general design of experiments (which was the basis of the comment I responded to) to accusing me of not knowing elementary statistics in regards to social science is beyond me.

[Orrex]

87. Frankly, I'm skeptical of your skepticism

I doubt that you subject every claim to the level of scrutiny that you allege. Additionally, your statement as formulated suggests that all claims are of equal merit or likelihood, and that's simply not the case.

Like everyone in this group, I welcome healthy skepticism, but an attitude of "it's all equally up for grabs" is simply untenable.

on edit: I'm also skeptical of my ability to type accurately.

[mhatrw]

89. OK. So whose claims should I simply take at face value without any

further investigation?

What rules should I use to differentiate between the claims I can "take to the bank" and those for which a little initial skepticism is healthy?

[Orrex]

93. No ironclad rules, to be sure

What rules should I use to differentiate between the claims I can "take to the bank" and those for which a little initial skepticism is healthy?

As a general rule of thumb, I would suggest that you can probably "take to the bank" most claims that are, based on precedent, experience, and prior evidence, vastly more likely to be predominantly true than false. That is, even if the claim isn't 100% accurate in all possible ways, if it is consistent with observed reality to a greater extent than contradictory claims, then you can probably rely on it. Sure, it's a gray area, but since you apparently grok everything other than quantum physics, you should be able to figure it out.

And let's not bore each other with the "what is observed reality" question in this context. If you're interested in exploring that, you should visit the Religion/Theology forum or the Philosophy Group.

Unlike you pretenders and protectors of conventional wisdom, I'm an actual skeptic. I'm skeptical of every claim I hear until I see some hard evidence, and I'm skeptical of all "peer reviewed research" until I examine the methodology.

Based on this assertion, I have to ask on what basis, specifically, do you conclude anything about anything? You've given yourself a sort of observatioal primacy bordering on solipsism, which you're welcome to do, but in that case you'd better buy a book on Solitaire or you're likely to get really, really bored.

[Taxloss]

95. If only this were all conventional wisdom!

Sadly, nowadays, it is not. The conventional wisdom is held by the great horoscope-reading bigfoot-believing evolution-distrusting majority out there. GPs fight a daily battle against "conventional wisdom": Old Wives' Tales, superstition and newspaper scares.