We live in an anti-intellectual society in which having an opinion is treasured, but having the intellect or background to defend it is not. (this was in no way targeted at the previous post!!!!). Snootiness can sometimes be a personality trait, but if someone else really is smarter or really does know what they are talking about, or actually is more grounded than us, it is easy to blow off the superior status as someone who believes they are superior.
I truly believe that the promotion of news entertainment channels and programs over actual news reporting stirs the pot and promotes others to voice senseless opinions based on any notion that passes through their ears. Whether you talk about economic growth, endangered species, human rights, political candidates, or murder suspects, the news of today makes yellow journalism look like strait-laced, objective reporting. When I read posts on ecolog and other listservs, it is always pretty obvious who gets their primary information from FAUX News, CNBEND, and MiSsed NBC and who actually looks things up and investigates how much is crap and how much is real. We all have a right to voice an opinion, however, we all have a responsibility to ourselves and society to form opinions that are well grounded in reality by doing the footwork to educate ourselves about who is and is not a valid source of news. Many of the people on TV that appear to be reporting news are actually voicing opinion sandwiched between news items thus providing the impression that they are reporting news instead of some groundless opinion they invented in a back room or during their preparation for airing. If we do not take these responsibilities seriously and take the time to ensure that our opinions are based on something other than an emotional tirade, then we are not only sacrificing our own credibility but also placing societal needs at risk. Unfortunately, this responsibility is an expectation for most scientists, but generally ignored by the average joe today. We can't all be smart, wise, or educated. However, all of us can seek out the people who have these attributes when we need too. Too bad more people didn't go talk to an economist when they hear something they don't understand about economics. Too bad more people didn't go talk to an ecologist when they didn't understand something related to the environment. And, its too bad that some people didn't talk to a political scientist when they hear political misinformation disguised as truth. The world might be a better place. It always amazes me that when we need an opinion on our car's performance, we go to a mechanic (very appropriately). Why? Because they are an expert. However, when we need information on critical issues such as environment, human rights, and politics....we often listen to the same mechanic. On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Wayne Tyson<[email protected]> wrote: > Y'all: > > I confess to not being quite up to the task of following all the convolutions > of all the threads and strands of discussion about "growth," for example, so > I'll cast this before the multitudes of my betters for analysis. > > "Intellectual" has gotten a bad rap over the years. I suspect that one of the > primary causes is the snooty way those who think of themselves as > intellectuals claim superiority over the more plain-spoken "folk." It is a > natural reaction to this kind of snobbery to oppose it intuitively, and it > seems that the logical and reason the baby gets thrown out with the > bathwater--for example, all academics get tarred with the same brush when > some hayseed emerges from the shrubbery in full anti-intellectual cry. Then > the pendulum sways backwards as the "intellectuals" who feel gored by such > cries or who seize upon any fragment, large or small, of the > anti-intellectual rant and discredit all hayseeds, regardless of the > meritorious part(s) imbedded within their outraged or even self-deprecating > rhetoric. > > In both the "hayseed" camp and the "intellectual" camp there are solid > thinkers and irrational poseurs who use diversionary tactics to "win," rather > than find common ground and pick carefully through the thickets in a > disciplined exchange. All the sound and fury may be insignificant to > reasonable minds, but when penetration of the semantic foggery is attempted > by such minorities, they are quickly shrouded by the smoke of indignation and > they back off in frustration. > > Is this dichotomy real? If so, what is the cure? > > I hope that the best intellects in academia will step forward (perhaps in > this forum, perhaps elsewhere) and set an example for us all. No doubt they > will have to pick carefully through the aborted seedcoats and chaff for a few > viable hayseeds, but the dialogue, one would hope, would pave the way toward > removing the causes of anti-intellectualism at its root, much of it right > under their feet. Noblesse Oblige? > > One of the first signs of this might be to look for merit in the statements > of the inferior and build upon that/those point(s) rather than coyly > suggesting the inferiority of the anti-intellectual (hayseed, academic, or ?) > or outright putting him or her in his or her place. From that higher road, I > wonder if error might then fall away and be replaced by reason? Might the > kind of mutual respect often expressed on Ecolog be magnified and catch on > across society? > > Just an idea . . . > > WT > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40 General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm
