i often see arrogance tossed around as some sort of defense in an argument. i think this piece could lead to an interesting conversation here.

Intellectual arrogance

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... gance.html

Since my recent post on VP nominee Sarah Palin (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... onist.html) I have been struck by a number of intemperate comments posted on this blog, on “Uncommon Descent” (the Discovery Institute blog, which reprinted a few lines of my original post), and even via private emails. Now, you might say, what do you expect? You decided to enter the blogosphere, so vitriolic attacks on what you write are to be expected as part and parcel of the “job” (for which, of course, I’m not paid).

Right, but my issue is not with the personal attacks on me. My skin is think enough, I assure you, or I wouldn’t have been able to survive for a quarter century in academia. (Before you laugh, think of how much rejection is built into the job: most of your job applications will be turned down, most of your papers will be harshly criticized by at least some anonymous reviewer, and most of your grant proposals will be returned unfunded, again anonymously and often rather harshly. If you don’t have an ego big enough to sustain the bruises year after year, you better get out of the game.)

No, my problem is with the all too common accusation of intellectual arrogance being hurled at myself and most of my colleagues who defend science from pseudoscience, be that creationism, intelligent design, UFO claims, psychic powers, astrology or “alternative” medicine. The reasoning, such as it is, goes like this: how dare you, Dr. X (put here any name of any scientist who dares to write for the public), claim that so many people are wrong and you and a small number of other egg-headed intellectuals are right? Who are you to declare the truth of evolution and the falsity of intelligent design? What makes you the arbiter in deciding what is science and what is bunk?

The answer is simple: I am an expert. You shouldn’t trust me on car mechanics, or on civil engineering, or on market analysis. But what I have to say about science counts more than what most people have to say about it because I am a scientist and they are not. The reason I don’t feel any qualms declaring evolution a sound scientific theory and intelligent design as not even junk science is because I am a professional organismal biologist, and pretty much everyone who accepts ID is not. By comparison, imagine how foolishl you would feel if a thousand car mechanics tell you that you need to change the carburetor in your car and you keep insisting that they don’t know what they are talking about, elitist auto-experts that they are, because carburetors obviously don’t exist!

Intellectual arrogance, in the utmost degree, is being displayed by those who dismiss out of hand the considerate opinion of someone who has studied a field for 25 years only because they cherish a particular religious worldview that has no independent foundation in reality. Arrogance, according to my dictionary, is “having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities,” and it seems to me to fit perfectly someone who has no technical background in a given field and yet pontificates endlessly about what is True and what is not.

The idea that someone who has not bothered to study a highly technical area of knowledge turns around and accuses experts in those areas of being arrogant is both ridiculous and a common strategy in certain political quarters. Consider the Obama-McCain contrast of this electoral cycle, or the Kerry-Bush of the last cycle. I don’t know whether Obama or Kerry are “elitist” in any meaningful sense of the word, although as Jon Stewart aptly put it, I want the guy who is running for the most powerful job on the planet to be better than me! But the idea that McCain -- who is so rich that he doesn’t know how many houses he owns, or Bush -- with a degree from ivy league Yale and a career propelled by his father’s money and connections, are “common folks” who really feel the pain of the people is astoundingly ludicrous. And yet millions of people buy straight into it without a second thought (thought, or lack thereof, being the key word here).

Our national discourse has gotten so bad that demagogues can get away with throwing any amount of mud at their opponents while claiming to have their hands as clean as snow, just like people who have no knowledge or understanding of the matters at hand can gingerly accuse serious professionals of being intellectually arrogant -- and feel very much self-righteous about it too. Al Gore, in his most recent book, put it in terms of an assault on reason. To reason, again going by the dictionary, is the ability to “think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.” The right wing-fundamentalist axis that has gained so much prominence and political power in the United States over the past several years has truly thrown reason out the window. Now they would like to finish the job by accusing intellectuals of being un-reasonable, obtuse, and conceited.

It is time to reverse the tide and take a stand. If you reject the theory of evolution, or think that there is such a thing as alternative (as opposed to evidence-based) medicine, or claim without evidence that aliens are visiting the planet, or think that the stars influence human destiny, and so on, you are anti-science and live in a dream world with no connection to reality. More damning, you are engaging in the ultimate act of arrogance: to declare something true or untrue not because you have reason or evidence, but only because it makes you feel better. May I suggest that you need a good dose of humility, and that one way to get it is to admit that the universe is not about you, and that some people out there really know more than you do, as unpleasant a thought as this may be?

Good for him.

It seems like lately, being a scientist is akin to being a conspiracy theorist.

Really, though, the key step is to having ideologically funded institutions that can release research to back you up. That way, you can wave your research (feel free to put quotes around that one) in the air and say "See? The other side is intellectually arrogant! They think their research is better than ours!"

en Anglais s'il vous plait?

He made sense when he kept the topic to science. He got completely derailed when he tried applying his thoughts to politics.

Science involves critical thinking. There is one right answer. All experts should have the same answer.

Politics involves analytical thinking. There is no one right answer. It is expected that experts will not have the same answer.

The writer's not being intellectually arrogant with this mistake, just stewpid.

using research from organizations that have a specific agenda to push in the research they carry out. Like a group interested in 'proving' intelligent design is a valid theory.

or maybe scientists should begin regarding science the way religious people regard religion

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

The OP is pretty much dead on. It's so good, that halfway through it I was like, "This is just like when they call Obama an elitist, and bang, right there in the next paragraph, he makes the same point. It's so dead on, I have little left to say about it.

PD - You're missing the big picture. In science there is the correct answer. Disputing it is stupid. In politics, the game Obama plays, there is no single correct answer. As such it is perfectly reasonable and to be expected to question Obama's take and spin. Obama and others are "elitists" when they act like there is a single correct answer to a political issue and that we'd all see "the truth" if only we were as smart and educated as they are. It is the bolded part that makes them "elitists" in my books. There's no code word being used. I don't care what skin tone the person has. When you adopt this attitude you are being "elitist" and shouldn't complain when people point it out and the folly of your stance.

I would say that Obama is of the set of politicians who would rather state exactly what they think rather than simplify and dumb down to create a soundbite, which is one of the things I like about him. The conservative version of this is generally to focus on why the other side is wrong instead of explaining the reasoning behind their ideas, which impresses me less.

I was just coming back to edit my post. I think quite often that Obama comes across as very sincere and intelligent. Sometimes he works so hard at defining a very gray picture and his take on it that he can seem "elitist". He also gets stuck with "elitist" tag a bit unfortunately because he seemingly does nothing to silence those on his team who truly and to the bone are "elitist". It may not be fair but great leaders do get stuck with the traits of their minions.

I admit I do that, but why do Obama's opponents always lump him in with the actions of his supporters? I don't think I've ever seen him do what you're describing. Dozens of people on this board? Of course.

It's exactly the same, and this reinforces the point. By pointing at me or ceeb or anyone else you may perceive as an elitist, and then translate that "elitism" onto a person they admire is not a reasonable idea. There is as much direct evidence of Obama being an elitist as there is of intelligent design, not to mention the glaring hypocrisy when the charges fly from people who support John McCain or George Bush, members of a true and discernible elite in this country.

So regardless of any racial implication in teh word, it's just plain false as a charge and has no factual backing like there is for a similar charge against Bush or McCain. If it's all a matter of perception and subjective thinking, then the charge of elitism, which apparently is completely in teh eye of teh beholder, is completely void of meaning or substance, revealing that all people exhibit some degree of "elitism" when it comes to themselves and their "group". Usually, it's known as the varying degrees of ethnocentrism. I am superior to "the other". We all do it.

Seriously, this piece could not have been better, on every level.



The other point in the piece above, and this has been one of my other favorite trends to watch this year, is the projection that is displayed in both cases. Rovian Politics 101, class. 1) Take your opponent's strengths and paint them as weaknesses; 2) Take your own weaknesses and project them onto your opponent.

Display intellectual arrogance by calling an expert in a field "arrogant and biased" for disagreeing with your irrational, religiously based theory. You've got the projection of oneself onto the opponent, as well as turning his strength (his expertise) into a liability (arrogance). Supporters of mulit-millionaire heirs of powerful families (Bush and McCain) who have had everything in their whole lives given to them by their families or friends of their families (a discernible and true "elite" political class) accuse a young Senator who went to school on scholarships and student loans and grew up in single-parent and/or mixed race homes, of being an elitist (projection), based on his intelligence, education, and oratorical abilities (his strengths made weaknesses).

Perfectly Rovian! You've learned your lessons well!

Unless you happen to do these things without realizing that you're doing them, and that's just really sad.

Great leaders lead their supporters actions.

Are you being sarcastic?

I'd just like to point out that the right has been particularly successful in turning the strengths of intelligence and education against the intelligent and educated. They are anti-intellectual populists and they know how to speak to the reptilian brain in people.

You decide, which ever makes you feel better about it.

You Rovian trickster you. You have been studying up on Rove's tricks without telling us.

You are trying to make the case that being able to communicate effectively with a large and diverse group of people with being "anti-intellectual populists". I see through your Rovian trick. I can only hope you knew you were intentionally doing it.

Well, I certainly respect the ability of someone to write successful popular songs and make a ton of money at it, but I don't measure the quality of a song by how many copies it sells or how often I hear it played at wedding receptions or public events.

BTW, the group may be large, but it's not diverse.