No - not the fallacy "argument to ignorance" but an increasing and worrying trend in the woo-perception of science.
One common argument from woo's boils down to arguing against science, scientists and indeed education! :o Apparently too much education, or indeed any at all, can be a bad thing. Apparently it leads to closed-mindedness.
As Shermer and others note, it borders on the celebration of ignorance.
I find this argument to be the most ridiculous of all the woo arguments - and lets face it, its up against some pretty stiff competition.
How can one argue that the lack of knowledge and understanding is a good thing? Of course the woo-woo argues that those of us fortunate enough to have gone to university have all been brain-washed and taught what to think. :D These comments usually come from people that have struggled to be mediocre in school.
University does not teach what to think - beyond that of what the accepted wisdom is. However, you are never taught to accept this wisdom yourself (uncritically) and you are positively trained to investigate and test it. However, you cannot test something you do not understand - so we have to all get to a level where we understand what is being proposed, then we can tackle and challenge the issue head on.
Why oh why do woo-woos argue for being thick over being educated? What possible justifiable stance can they take. It probably boils down to "educated people can see right through my arguments - so i would rather you were all uneducated" - but i am interested in your considered thoughts on the matter.
J
It tends only to apply to ignorance of science, though. Many of the same people who appear to be proud of their ignorance of science would describe anyone with a similar ignorance of literature or art as a philistine.Originally Posted by Dr B
One common argument from woo's boils down to arguing against science, scientists and indeed education! :o Apparently too much education, or indeed any at all, can be a bad thing. Apparently it leads to closed-mindedness.
As Shermer and others note, it borders on the celebration of ignorance.
I think that this line of argument has a different flavour, depending if it comes from woos who are themselves (or consider themselves) well-educated; or woos who for whatever reason lack a high degree of education.Why oh why do woo-woos argue for being thick over being educated? What possible justifiable stance can they take. It probably boils down to "educated people can see right through my arguments - so i would rather you were all uneducated"
From the former, it often seems to arise from a persecution complex - a tendancy to perceive criticism of their ideas arising from rigorous peer review and lively debate as if they were personal insults. This seems to lead to an assumption that institutionalised science must be out to get them, and it is therefore rejected as malign and untrustworthy. These types often assign bizarre alterior motives to scientists, assuming that there is some gigantic CT designed to prevent the masses being told The Real Truth.
From the latter, I have often heard lines of argument which seem to imply that they actually enjoy their ignorance, and are unable to understand how anyone could savour life without imagining delicious mysteries lurking around every corner. More than once, I've been told (apparently seriously) that if I don't accept the reality of spirits or ghosts or whatever, then how could I possibly appreciate the beauty of a sunrise or the grandeur of the elements. In essence, they reject evidence-based Science just because it seems too dull, but they lack the insight to realise that reality cannot be redefined just to suit their tastes.
Infuriating, innit?
I have also encountered the 'all academics are sheep and just follow the status quo'
Do these people know anything about science? It also raises the question as to where such perverse ideas come from and why?
I think it just arises from the "follower" mentality -- woos derive their beliefs from authority, and they cannot imagine scientist being any different.
Thats a very good point. It always interests me where these ideas come from. Would you say these ideas negatively correlate with experience of real science? That is to say, as the confused opinions increase, experience of real science decreases?
Anti-intellectualism and anti-scientism seem to be quite popular with both woo-woos and with the humanities/arty types.
It’s hard to come up with their motivations as they seem so many and they’re so varied.
Obviously, for some people the joy of believing is far preferable to the burden of knowing: the credophiles.
Many people do use the Argument to Ignorance in their quest for, well, ignorance! It’s all about possibilities, what could be true if only we used our imaginations and ‘open minds’. Rather than bothering to discover the wonders of science, the natural world, etc. they’re happier contemplating what wonders might be. It’s a sort of fantasy world that exists because it hasn’t been proved definitively false. Typical of most woos.
Then there’s the snobby attitude of those who think that an education in English literature or the arts is culturally far superior to an education in science. This leads to pride in the ignorance of science. It’s as if it’s shameful to know that the earth orbits the sun.
Laughably, it’s this sort of person who would pay 10 times the market value for gold jewellery because it’s ‘Welsh gold’. Culturally important you see; but gold is gold…..
Anyway, more of a quick rant than a well-argued case but I’ve come across this anti-intellectualism, anti-knowledge attitude from all levels of people’s intelligence.
What to do about it, I’m not sure. I tend to mock and laugh but that’s probably not the best way forward. Or is it?
.
I would go further -- I don't think it is even possible to hold the opinion that "scientists follow the status quo" if they have knowledge of real science.
The problem is, that from the perspective of an ignorant outsider, the two situations are indistinguishable. The observation that scientific theories corroborate each other could be explained by (1) independent valid analysis leading to a correct conclusion or (2) groupthink and a "follow-the-leader" mentality adopted by the scientists themselves.
For an actual scientist, (2) is clearly ridiculous, but for a woo, whose entire philosophy is at some level based on believing what they are told, it is the more natural explanation.
Araneus
If UKS ran a 'great post of the month' award I would nominate you for your comments, not because i totally agree with you (which I do) but because you very clearly have highlighted what I think are major points of concern
But Welsh gold is clearly much better because it comes from such an awesome country. :PLaughably, it’s this sort of person who would pay 10 times the market value for gold jewellery because it’s ‘Welsh gold’. Culturally important you see; but gold is gold…..
I'm not so sure. I would have agreed with this, but recent experience with some people, especially on the JREF boards, has changed my mind. There are some people who, no matter how much knowledge they have of science, simply refuse to change their opinion of it. One poster who typifies this is John Hewitt, who has a PhD and worked in biological science for at least a few years, and yet he firmly believes that all scientists (except him of course) are actively involved in fraud in order to perpetuate the status quo. It seems that no matter how much knowledge one has of science, one can still have no understanding whatsoever of how it actually works.
Well he just sounds paranoid and delusional, meaning that any "knowledge" he possesses should be treated as untrustworthy from the start (even though some of it is no doubt correct).
I guess I should have said "understanding" of science rather than "knowledge" of it, since it is possible to learn facts by rote without developing a firm grip on the scientific method or its relation to the objective world.
Bertrand Russell would have a field dayand yet he firmly believes that all scientists (except him of course) are actively involved in fraud in order to perpetuate the status quo.
A scientist presumably included in the set of 'scientist' arguing against scientists.
Liar paradox, anyone? ???
I've never won a grant or got a paper published that pulls the status quo..... ??? I dont know anyone who has.
It always has to be novel - a new contribution. These can be controverisal as well as confirmatory.
Scientists love a good argument..... 8)
a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks