Commenter Kantian Naturalist leveled the following charge against TSZ earlier today:
Folks here would rather persist in their confusion over basic issues than risk the realization that they don’t really understand what they assume they understand.
If you haven’t figured out that there’s a fundamentally anti-intellectual bias to TSZ and there’s really nothing you can do to change it, you’re going to have nothing but frustration in your interactions here.
That is an absurdly sweeping statement. Do some people here persist in their confusions, ignoring opposing arguments? Sure. Do some people express anti-intellectual opinions here? Sure, including KN himself on occasion, amusingly enough. Does this mean that TSZ suffers from “a fundamentally anti-intellectual bias” and that those seeking intelligent discussions are doomed to experience “nothing but frustration” here?
No. KN’s charge is ridiculous and way overblown.
It’s a big reach given the subject matter here. If he’d argued we’re all dogmatic perhaps that could be argued.
All generalisations are suspect.
LOL!
Yo mama is the suspect.
You needed an entire new thread just to say this? You quote his comment. Then you ask three questions and answer each one. It’s like the entire OP is one absurdly sweeping exercise in asking rhetorical questions. No actual intent to engage seriously the charge.
Anti-intellectual bias? Indeed.
I took KN as meaning an anti “academic philosophy” bias.
I don’t know, and I don’t care.
Glen Davidson
That definitely places you in the running for Anti Intellectual of the Year.
Guilty, mostly. I admit I dislike it because I don’t usually see the point. and it’s likely that I don see the point because I don’t understand it, and likely that I don’t understand it because I don’t put in the effort, and I don’t put in the effort because I don’t see the point.
Where that stops being circular is that I don’t really understand quantum physics, but I do see the point of it. There are many things in science that I don’t really understand, but I see the point of them. I understand why it makes a difference if they are wrong.
Skepticism, perhaps?
That’s how I read it as well, but only because I have read enough of KN’s comments. I must be honest and admit that I no longer read any of his/her comments. I am sure that philosophy has its importance, but I have yet to see any. What I have seen is it being used as a crutch by people trying to support a view that can’t be supported by the evidence. Things like objective vs subjective morality, free will, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ID, etc.
Folks here would rather persist in their confusion over basic issues than risk the realization that they don’t really understand what they assume they understand.
If you haven’t figured out that there’s a fundamentally anti-intellectual bias to TSZ and there’s really nothing you can do to change it, you’re going to have nothing but frustration in your interactions here.
The bias is not anti-intellectual…as long as it suits the beliefs of those who run the show at TSZ, which means only one thing…
Can you figure it out what it could be keiths? I’m sure you can’t… well officially.. because you have prior commitments… That’s just too bad… because unlike you, scientists have no such commitments… or I should have said they shouldn’t have if they would like to remain unbiased in the real world of science which I’m afraid is disappearing or it has disappeared in one or more of the “sciences” mainly….
Ah, I wasn’t quite sure what keiths was talking about, but this does help to clear it up. We have a population of contributors for whom intellectual MEANS a common set of evidence-free a priori beliefs. I suspect keiths is equating intellectual with secular, while many here equate it with intractable religious convictions. And for both sides, “evidence” is whatever strokes their ideology, with only KN looking for some more profound and open-ended approach.
Flint,
I’m sorry to disappoint you but the “keiths” are trying the distraction strategy when their faith is exposed… Don’t buy into it, if you are not keiths…
Flint,
Oh, not at all. That’s why I’ll happily engage with philosophical arguments such as Plantinga’s free will defense.
Remember, it’s KN who is claiming that there is “a fundamentally anti-intellectual bias” at TSZ. I don’t agree.
J-Mac,
Read the OP again, paying attention this time.
If you want to argue against KN’s claim of “anti-intellectual bias”, take it up with KN.
Neil:
Except that he was responding to a discussion among walto, Pedant, and me, and none of us were expressing “an anti ‘academic philosophy’ bias”.
In fact, Pedant’s (accurate) criticism of walto was for trivializing subjective morality by likening it to a food preference:
There’s nothing “anti-intellectual” or “anti-academic-philosophy” about Pedant’s criticism.
I’m not here that often, because I’m more interested in matters of biology than matters of faith, and even nominally scientific threads seem to veer off into arguments about whether “faith” in Jesus is compatible with “faith” in evolution. And the former crowd seems to view biology entirely through faith-colored glasses, to the point where both science and the effort to advance science are interpreted as indications of a competing (and inferior) faith.
Maybe you are an exception, but I myself see continuous and strictly religious disputes going on here all the time, and I don’t regard such disputes as all that intellectually profound. For many here, you yourself can be fully contained by the epithet “atheist”, and for those many, nuff said, nothing to discuss here, mock and move on. And if that’s what KN means by anti-intellectual, then I agree.
walto,
The OP is about KN’s sweeping characterization of TSZ, not about whether morality is subjective versus objective,
You’re trivializing KN’s post, I think.
What is intellectual? Is wrong answeres on conclusions by definition anti-intellectual?!
Are people tryimng to be anti-intellectual? would they recognize themselves even if true? to correct ones anti-intellectualism WOULD NOT one need to be intellectual or in the boundaries and so not really anti-intellectual (on a curve of the graph).
I see this throughout history and now all the time.
people frustrated in persuading other people start to think/say the others are anti-intellectual(dumb etc).
Possibly rules of logic are disobeyed but we all do that.
The guys who are right are most likely living in a curve of being the smarter guys/demographics. So the wrong side is not just wrong but most likely in a curve of inferior intellectual ability.
Error really does skew to the dumber side. It seems that way.
just like in politics the rEpublican side is mostly the original yankee/southern peoples while the democratic side is foreign/ethnic folks.
Politics is not just right/wrong but about intelligence of identities.
Everyone on these forums is above average intellectual relative to the average North american/Brit.
this because we have applied our thoughts , long enough, to more complicated issues in biology or the universe laws.
Make a better case GUYS who are right and persuade thev wrong guys and be patient.
In such serious articulated contention somebody has got to lose finally and change their conclusion(s).
its not like regular people occasionally thinking about these matters.
The stakes are risen on timelines fopr eror on this forum.
its a intellectual contact sport.
walto,
How so? I agreed that there is anti-intellectualism here. I just disagreed with KN’s ridiculous overstatement of the problem:
J-Mac,
What is it … with overuse of … ellipsis … ? I know it’s not all the same person ‘cos I’ve got a mate on Facebook who does it and I’m sure you’re not him… But it does seem particularly prevalent on the ‘anti’ side in these discussions.
I see philosophy as valuble. The problem I have with it is that there is little grounding and no cross-check with reality. Philosophers have been building ideas on ideas for millennia. Any slight flaw in logic at each step will propagate until what we have in the end is worthless, but theres no way to definitively know.
As evidence of this I’d point the productions of some philosophers, especially theologians ( who I assume work within standard academic philosophy)
I see philosophers as voluble.
Allan,
For verisimilitude, just read each “…” as “goddidit”.
From wiki:
keiths,
If you have a problem with one’s claim you call him or take it outside. Don’t make it a universal issue if you have too much time on your hands…
J-Mac knows he’s angry with me. He just needs a reason.