OK. On topic of anti-intellectualism.
I have noticed lately, that there is a consensus on both sides of the political divide, that there seem to be a HUGE problem with people refusing to reason. Anti-intellectualism seems to be the name of this trend.
Well, the problem isn't exactly with the people refusing to learn, as much as with people adopting completely different view on what tools of learning seems to be valid.
People on the left do believe in institutional construct of academic science. They LOVE posting names of old dudes who agreed with their current belief, as well as pointing to a definition, that was changed 1 week ago. When we raise to them the fact, that all of these institutions are bending the knee in fear of their wrath, I am not exactly surprised, that they see that as dishonest unprovable hypothesis. (So, no matter what scientific paper I bring, you will just say, that people making it were afraid to disagree with the mob? Ain't that convinient)
On the other hand, the right does LOVE to use the common logical shortcuts. Rules like "No medication can be called 100% safe and effective by definition" are not written in any science jurnal, but their application does lead to an ability to form a solid world view long before information can go through a peer review, and are also completely free of any need for an authority to confirm them. Yet, when we come to a leftie with a 6 step logical chain, they look at us as loonies, since not a single one of these steps is formalized in an academic style. (Do you have a paper, saying that castrating kids will lead to a worse luck in finding a life partner????)
So, that means, that maybe, the time for constructive debate might be completely over. We no longer live in the same world, and no way of communication can bridge these two worlds.
Rightoids don't bring scientific papers. I don't remember seeing any here, that despite contending a few times over whether race is a concept that exists.
Strawman, nobody thinks trans people have an easier time finding partners.
@latein
> Rightoids don't bring scientific papers. I don't remember seeing any here, that despite contending a few times over whether race is a concept that exists.
So, tell me. Were you too lazy to read my post, or did your head reach so deep up your ass, that you couldn't smell the premise correctly?
The premise that rightoids bring scientific papers that get rejected for frivolous reasons is bullshit.
@latein
I wrote, that the right does not care for some jew approved paperwork. So, thanks for confirming, that it was the 2nd option.
Where's this "but they're just as anti-intellectual as us!" coming from? The source of the problem is obvious, hence why I went from chud to socialist.
Any concrete examples?
Also sounds like projection, this kind of stuff is daily here https://youtube.com/watch?v=ewXqB7g7t1A&t=3495
Any concrete examples?
There is a whole scientific literature on the systematic failures of the peer review process colloquially known as The Replication Crisis.
I think it's fair to say people smugly clapping back with "trust the science, bro" who lack sufficient epistemic depth to even be aware of the replication crisis, much less have a cogent response to its salient critiques are just engaged in vapid sloaganeering, not intellectual discourse.
I think Luke's point is that for some of us, the replication crisis papers merely confirmed (and to be fair, quantified) what was already clearly true just from applying Feynman's Cargo Cult Science model.
I don't think this is the defining cleft between right and left, I find Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory to be persuasive. But it is undeniably the case that broad swaths of 'the left' are actively out-grouping anyone who strays from strict ideological conformity. So people like dave rubin and barri weiss who were firmly on the left until they used an independent mental model to go "Now hold on, that doesn't really make sense..." got completely exercised from 'the left' and painted as "far right" despite having 90+% policy alignment with the median 2012 Obama voter.
@nicholas @latein @LukeAlmighty @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired There's also a simpler rationalist issue: there's a chain of trust that starts at you, you have to decide who and what to trust and if you can't use your own head to make judgements you can't reasonably conclude that the experts are worth trusting
if you can't use your own head to make judgements you can't reasonably conclude that the experts are worth trusting
True, but in fact it's even simpler than that:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
— Richard Feynman
http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/