I would define an intellectual as one who loves the life of the mind.
This person need not be particularly intelligent, but merely derive pleasure
from pondering issues in theology, art, history, philosophy, science, etc.
If this same person also loves, say, team sports, his/her appreciation is
likely to include not just common athletic participation and boosterism, but
also theoretical topics like competitive strategies, exercise physiology,
the sociological role of athletics, etc.
An intellectual society, I posit, is one that respects such
individuals and their values, and elevates them to leadership roles.
Why is intellectualism under attack in our society? I can suggest
many possible contributory factors:
1. The tendency of some intellectuals and institutions to discredit
themselves
A. Arrogance. Some professors, academics, professionals, etc. speak
and act like they think they are better than other people. Not just
intellectually superior, but also superior in morals and taste.
B. Whoring. Some scientists and academics will take money from anyone
to support their research, without regard to who will benefit from the
research or what its consequences will be. Does gene modified corn increase
the power of agri-business companies over small farmers? Hey, that's not a
SCIENTIFIC issue. Will the government use my technology to sow cluster
bombs in playgrounds? Hey, I can't control how people USE my stuff!
C. Failures. Many of the fruits of science (as one representative of
intellectual pursuits) have caused harm, or are perceived to have caused
harm. For instance, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, thalidomide babies.
D. Esoterica. While specialized disciplines do require specialized
vocabulary, too often this is used to excess and creates unnecessary
barriers to non-specialists.
2. Fundamentalist religions.
A. To fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise, science and learning are
direct threats to their orthodoxy and the power of their "priesthood." If
you believe that the Bible or the Koran is to be understood literally,
science (and almost any form of learning) is your enemy. The priesthood
sees its power threatened, and it fights back with its tools of fear,
ridicule, money, public relations, and the ballot.
B. I believe it is fairly well established that the more educated a
person is (in the modern era), the less likely he/she is to be religious,
especially religious in a fundamental way. Again, science is the enemy.
3. Material Greed.
A. Although the technology that derives from science can make people
wealthy, it also threatens people's wealth. Science says that CO2 emissions
are causing climate change, but addressing this problem threatens those with
vested interests in burning fossil fuels.
B. The vested interests, in trying to attack the specific science that
threatens them, raise the obfuscation levels above even what scientists
themselves are able to do.
C. When attacking the specific science fails, they attack science in
general. Even if this is not intended, it is a consequence of B, above,
giving science a bad name for those who don't understand the process.
4. Laziness
A. I think our society has truly embraced instant gratification. We
flip a switch and light comes on, we turn a faucet and water squirts out.
Compare that to lighting a whale oil lamp or breaking ice to haul water from
a well. People complain if their flight from New York to California takes
an extra hour, and never think about doing it an ox-drawn wagon over many
months with perhaps a 5 or 10% mortality rate.
B. Relating to A, above, science is HARD WORK. There is no royal road
(a phrase which proves that the desire for easy entry is not new). Think
how much vocabulary (anatomical terms, species names, etc.) one must learn
to function in biology. Consider the difficult math needed to understand
Mendelian genetics, population genetics, and ecological modelling (as
exemplified by an on-going thread on this listserv).
C. Despite the trend we are decrying, not all respect for science has
been lost from our society. Thus the people with deficient in scientific
exposure may feel inferior, and it is an easier defence mechanism to
denigrate science rather than embrace it.
What is the best way to counter these factors? I surely don't have the
answers, but I do point out that the scientific community can directly
address Item 1, above. We have met the enemy, and he is us. We don't have
to repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot. Presumably, members of this
listserv have ideas for addressing the political, financial, and
public-relations issues implied by other points I enumerate above.
With regard to Item 4, laziness, I make this observation: I have seen
how hard kids work to master such difficult skills as skateboarding, how
many hours they lavish mastering computer games, and the ridiculous lengths
they go to to appeal to the opposite sex. If we can make learning as fun as
skateboarding, if we can make getting an A in biology as sexy as a new
sweater, the younger generation will rise up and flood the halls of academia
with their boundless enthusiasm, energy, openness, and daring.
Martin M. Meiss
2010/12/7 Joel Abraham <kwam...@mit.edu>
> It is interesting, then, that so many ecologists feel confident that they
> know the causes of anti-intellectualism in our society. Surely a background
> in ecology does not provide a solid foundation for evaluation of K-12
> education or media influences on society.
>
> I would still like to have a more specific definition of intellectual
> society. Knowing something, and knowing how to know something, are
> different things. Historically, humans have known many things, but it seems
> to be relatively recent that we began to, as a whole, understand how it is
> we can distinguish between approximate truth and opinion. If the US is not
> an intellectual society, in which nation can we find one?
>
> Interesting thread...
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 2:42 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote:
>
> An intellectual society values those who know something, and value
>> knowing things.
>> An anti-intellectual society does not value these kinds of things, at
>> least not publicly.
>>
>> Some politicians and networks have a virtual all-out war on intellectuals.
>> I am sorry, but even though I do believe everyone is entitled to their
>> own OPINION,
>> not everyone's opinion has equal merit.
>>
>> When you want your car fixed, you go to a mechanic.
>> When you want your air conditioner serviced, you go to a skilled air
>> conditioner serviceperson.
>> When you want to inquire about intricacies in a particular religion,
>> you go to that denomination's minister.
>> Likewise, entertainers, janitors, and news reporters (including
>> pundits) are seldom good sources of information on science.
>>
>> Unfortunately, as a lazy, anti-intellectual society we take it for
>> granted that the local pundit, comedian, or politician is telling the
>> truth instead of investigating the information to verify their
>> validity. We don't read, we don't inquire, and we don't care.
>>
>> I can understand the mistake with the pundit, or even the
>> comedian.....but a truthful politician? Come on!
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Malcolm
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Elizabeth Burnett <eabur...@mtu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone please explain what exactly is meant by an intellectual
>>> society? This idea seems fairly ambiguous and abstract.
>>>
>>>
>>> EAB
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "malcolm McCallum" <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>
>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:32:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intellectual and anti-intellectual society
>>>
>>> There is an intellectual society somewhere? Please tell me where!
>>> Our society is so anti-intellectual it is scary. I blame this on the
>>> dumbing down of the American curriculum (K-College).
>>>
>>> Malcolm McCallum
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Honorable Forum:
>>>>
>>>> In a recent post, the author expressed concern about our
>>>> anti-intellectual society--". . . our anti-intellectual society would find
>>>> it very difficult to appreciate . . ."
>>>>
>>>> There can be little doubt that our society is replete with
>>>> anti-intellectualism. Ecology and ecologists (ecology, in particular, has
>>>> gotten pretty bad treatment from popular culture, as "eco-" has become a
>>>> prefix for almost everthing, from selling soap to weight-loss nostrums and
>>>> cosmetics, ad nauseam) as well as other scientists, not to mention other
>>>> academicians, scholars, and those who dare to advance questions about
>>>> cultural norms or differ from common presumption, are derided by those who
>>>> consider anyone who ventures beyond the bounds of "popular culture,"
>>>> whatever that is, to be effete intellectual snobs. This phenomenon affects
>>>> elections, and ultimately, funding for intellectual activity. To paraphrase
>>>> Rodney What's-his-name, "I[ntellectuals] don't get no [appreciation]."
>>>>
>>>> In difficult times especially, competition increases for scarcer and
>>>> scarcer funds, and support for intellectuals, scientists in particular,
>>>> seems to decline, even in relative terms, as the pork gets sliced thinner
>>>> and thinner. Beyond howling in the wilderness, is there anything anyone can
>>>> do about this?
>>>>
>>>> Anti-intellectuals, by definition, are not only unlikely to do anything
>>>> except make the situation worse. That leaves, I suggest, intellectuals. If
>>>> that's the case, the choices are to take action or to take no action. If
>>>> ecologists want to take action, what should that action be?
>>>>
>>>> I have a suggestion as to form. If every concerned intellectual on this
>>>> list--say 10,000--met with four other intellectuals and listed five
>>>> actions,
>>>> and each of those five met with an additional four, the list would grow
>>>> impressively large very quickly. A list of potential actions could then be
>>>> assembled and prioritized by frequency.
>>>>
>>>> Or any more efficient alternative?
>>>>
>>>> WT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Malcolm L. McCallum
>>> Managing Editor,
>>> Herpetological Conservation and Biology
>>> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
>>> Allan Nation
>>>
>>> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
>>> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
>>> and pollution.
>>> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
>>> MAY help restore populations.
>>> 2022: Soylent Green is People!
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
>>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
>>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
>>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm L. McCallum
>> Managing Editor,
>> Herpetological Conservation and Biology
>> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
>> Allan Nation
>>
>> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
>> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
>> and pollution.
>> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
>> MAY help restore populations.
>> 2022: Soylent Green is People!
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>
