Culture Intelligent Design Science You're a Nazi/fascist/racist/fundy/creationist etc

Michael Egnor asks: Is Joe Blow really anti-intellectual?

Spread the love

A prominent neurologist, Steven Novella, seems to think so:

To Novella’s chagrin, the rubes don’t fall in line with science experts nearly as often as scientific experts think they ought to. Why so?

Consider Joe Blow. Joe has no scientific education. He’s a truck driver. He works a couple of jobs to support his family, he pays his taxes, coaches his son’s little league team, and goes to church on Sundays. He is anything but a scientific expert, but he does know a few things.

Joe has been told since the 1980s that the world is going to end due to global warming. It sounds like those crazy guys with the placards who say the world is gonna end tomorrow. The earth’s sell-by-date keeps getting pushed forward — polar ice caps were supposed to melt, but didn’t, polar bears were supposed to go extinct, but didn’t, sea levels were supposed to inundate coastal cities, but didn’t, and tens of millions of climate refugees were supposed to perish fleeing the catastrophic heat. Joe’s still waiting. He is also still waiting for the apocalyptic global cooling he was told about in the 1970s (Joe ain’t no scientist, but he has a good memory). He remembers watching Paul Ehrlich on TV in the late 1960s warning that overpopulation was going to cause billions of people to die of starvation and cause nations to disintegrate over the next couple of decades. Joe wonders how a scientist could be so wrong and still keep his job and even get elected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.

Joe knows that if he screwed up his own job like that, he’d be fired before the day was out. But those rules don’t apply to scientists.

Michael Egnor, “Is Joe Blow “Anti-Intellectual”?” at Evolution News and Science Today

One reason for many recent political upheavals in a variety of jurisdictions is that Joe has begun to wonder if he’s really the one with the problem.

5 Replies to “Michael Egnor asks: Is Joe Blow really anti-intellectual?

  1. 1
  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    “As science-communicators and skeptics we are trying to understand the phenomenon of rejection of evidence, logic, and the consensus of expert scientific opinion. “

    This comment right here is the problem, it shows how out of touch these human beings really are with anybody else, they declared a narrative that they can’t be wrong so why doesn’t everyone just fall inline

    Problem number one the belief that science is not wrong and consensus is always right

    Problem number two the elite attitude of I know better

    Problem number three acting like science can solve this problem

    Problem number four the scientists I forgot that they are human too no different then the Joe blow that they can’t convinced that they are right

    Problem number five the view everybody else other than themselves as objects for study with science

    They don’t know how to communicate with normal people because they believe them selves to be above normal people

    Communication is the key and if you wish to communicate with people you have to learn their language and stop pretending it’s beneath you to speak it

    Scientist have become yesteryears Nobles and Joe blow are nothing more than a bunch of country mean

    Mix that up with all the counterintuitive consensus reports and there really is no question for why Joe blow rejects it out of hand

    Remember we were told for 50 years that we had no free will in science said so

    novella is so out of touch that he cannot see that he and his ilk are the cause of the problem

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    Mrs Joe also recognizes that the same scientists have been giving her URGENT nutritional advice which changes diametrically every year. You must eat butter! You can’t eat butter! You must eat more carbs! You must avoid carbs! Drink more wine! Never drink wine!

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    Haha. These evo-atheists are indeed strange creatures.
    They say we are stupid brains and, at the same time, they expect those stupid brains to magically become omniscient.
    Yes, they rely on the tool they deprecate: the human brain, a kluge that was never meant to know reality.
    What a bunch of loons.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    News:

    I went to the source, by way of a search. Money shot clip:

    As science-communicators and skeptics we are trying to understand the phenomenon of rejection of evidence, logic, and the consensus of expert scientific opinion. There is, of course, no one explanation – complex psychological phenomena are likely to be multifactorial. Decades ago the blame was placed mostly on scientific illiteracy, a knowledge deficit problem, and the prescription was science education. Many studies over the last 20 years or so have found a host of factors – including moral purity, religious identity, ideology, political identity, intuitive (as opposed to analytical) thinking style, and a tendency toward conspiratorial thinking. And yes, knowledge deficit also plays a role. These many factors contribute to varying degrees on different issues and with different groups. They are also not independent variables, as they interact with each other. Religious and political identity, for example, may be partially linked, and may contribute to a desire for moral purity.

    Lessee, step by step:

    >>As science-communicators>>

    1: Aka publicists for evolutionary materialistic scientism, a self-referentially incoherent ideology that is multiply, necessarily, demonstrably, false.

    >> and skeptics>>

    2: Selective hyperskeptics, more precisely, and that is a fallacy. Double standards in warrant that imply ideologically motivated question-begging.

    >> we are trying to understand the phenomenon of rejection of evidence, logic,>>

    3: First, ground a credible, morally governed, rational mind with inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice on evo mat scientism and we will have a first basis to discuss. Here’s a handy blank: _______

    4: Prediction, you or those who come here to follow up on such ideologies, cannot do so.

    >> and the consensus of expert scientific opinion.>>

    5: Appeal to modesty in the face of collective authorities, constituting the new ideological magisterium. See above for why this is already a non-starter on logical and epistemological grounds. Let me clip just one case, from Reppert:

    . . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

    6: Further, no authority is better than his or her facts, reasoning and underlying assumptions. Kindly explain these, and the track record noted on some common topics in the OP.

    >> There is, of course, no one explanation>>

    7: Our selective hyperskepticism and ideology good, your questions on facts, logic, assumptions and track record are so bad that we are not looking at the merits, just your psychology of error. See the basic problem here?

    >> – complex psychological phenomena are likely to be multifactorial.>>

    8: Any human behaviour is a highly complex phenomenon of a self-moved responsible ratrional agent or groups of such. Come with something new.

    >> Decades ago the blame was placed mostly on scientific illiteracy, a knowledge deficit problem,>>

    9: See above on the root issues. Where, if you dare disagree with us you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked does not pass the smell test.

    >> and the prescription was science education.>>

    10: For cause, indoctrination in evo mat scientism failed. Why should we cling to something that is manifestly self falsifying through multiple incoherence?

    >>Many studies over the last 20 years or so have found a host of factors – including moral purity, religious identity, ideology, political identity, intuitive (as opposed to analytical) thinking style, and a tendency toward conspiratorial thinking. >>

    11: All boiling down to Dawkins’ failed quadrilemma.

    >>And yes, knowledge deficit also plays a role. >>

    12: Ignorant . . .

    >>These many factors contribute to varying degrees on different issues and with different groups. >>

    13: It’s us vs hoi polloi.

    >>They are also not independent variables, as they interact with each other. Religious and political identity, for example, may be partially linked, and may contribute to a desire for moral purity.>>

    14: Oh, its those ignoramus fundies again. I think a look in the mirror might just surface issues a lot closer to home.

    Time to think again.

    KF

Leave a Reply