# Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2007, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014 "2007-09-21T18:12:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/101 "2007-09-27T19:34:10Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] What Popper was talking about was truth in the logical sense. He certainly didn’t mean that we couldn’t take a well confirmed theory as true in the practical sense. The theories of, say, evolution or relativity are so well confirmed now that we may as well take them as true. This doesn’t mean they aren’t open to falsifying evidence, it’s just that we can confidently state such evidence isn’t ever going to show up. [/QUOTE] What he was saying was a very practical caution to all who place far too much faith in ‘Science’. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/102 "2007-09-27T23:55:07Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] What he was saying was a very practical caution to all who place far too much faith in ‘Science’. [/QUOTE] And it would be put to even _better_ use if used by persons who put far too much faith in religion, pseudosciences, and other flights of fancy, to examine their own beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/103 "2007-09-28T01:56:51Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] What he was saying was a very practical caution to all who place far too much faith in ‘Science’. [/QUOTE] That is simply not true. That’s not at all what Popper meant. I would really like to see a quote that supports this interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/104 "2007-09-28T07:44:06Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] That is simply not true. That’s not at all what Popper meant. I would really like to see a quote that supports this interpretation. [/QUOTE] I have no quote. You, however, can use my post as a quote if you wish to take advantage of my insight. Be sure to spell my name correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/105 "2007-09-28T16:47:55Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] I have no quote. You, however, can use my post as a quote if you wish to take advantage of my insight. Be sure to spell my name correctly. [/QUOTE] My god you’re full of yourself. I’m done here. ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/106 "2007-09-28T17:21:15Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] My god you’re full of yourself. I’m done here. [/QUOTE] Don’t go away mad, this is just getting interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/107 "2007-09-28T17:47:33Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] Don’t go away mad, this is just getting interesting. [/QUOTE] Very well. Popper’s ideas had nothing to do with “faith” in science. His whole argument was to establish a criteria for determining whether or not a theory was scientific. That criteria was falsifiability: A theory is scientific to the extent it is open to falsifying evidence. If there’s something out there that can test your theory and possibly prove your theory wrong, then your theory is scientific. Faith doesn’t come into it at all. He didn’t say we place too much faith in science, he didn’t say we place too little faith in science, he said absolutely nothing about faith. ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/108 "2007-09-28T18:20:09Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] Very well. Popper’s ideas had nothing to do with “faith” in science. His whole argument was to establish a criteria for determining whether or not a theory was scientific. That criteria was falsifiability: A theory is scientific to the extent it is open to falsifying evidence. If there’s something out there that can test your theory and possibly prove your theory wrong, then your theory is scientific. Faith doesn’t come into it at all. He didn’t say we place too much faith in science, he didn’t say we place too little faith in science, he said absolutely nothing about faith. [/QUOTE] You are correct. Faith is not the right word. I should have said confidence in science rather than faith. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/109 "2007-09-28T18:22:55Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] You are correct. Faith is not the right word. I should have said confidence in science rather than faith. [/QUOTE] But he doesn’t discuss conficence in science either. His book is simply an attempt to _define_ science. If anything, it should increase confidence in science, since it explains–at least partly–why science is succesful. (Note: Obviously Popper isn’t the last word, and I’m ignoring many objections and criticsms of his theory here.) ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/110 "2007-09-28T18:31:09Z")
Larry I am a bit confused. The OP is about anti-intellectualism. How did we get onto Popper and this bit about faith. People come out like bees from a hive and hurl multiple non-sequiturs and I do not quite remember how we managed to get Popper into this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/111 "2007-09-28T18:32:29Z")
See post #95 ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/112 "2007-09-28T19:09:31Z")
Larry OK I see now. I was thinking about another Popper book “The Open Society” I think when I wrote the bit about faith in Science. In the Open Society book we get into the problem of absolutes and how they interfer with open societies. When I used the word faith I did not mean religion stuff I meant that people tended to place Science on the altar for adoration in a kind of metaphor sense. People placed too much confidence in science. When we get into trouble Science will bail us out so bring on the punch bowl. I assume we both agree about the bit about falsifiability. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/113 "2007-09-28T19:58:31Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] I have no quote. You, however, can use my post as a quote if you wish to take advantage of my insight. Be sure to spell my name correctly. [/QUOTE] Your post is your cite? That sounds vaguely familiar. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/114 "2007-09-28T21:16:08Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] Larry OK I see now. I was thinking about another Popper book “The Open Society” I think when I wrote the bit about faith in Science. In the Open Society book we get into the problem of absolutes and how they interfer with open societies. When I used the word faith I did not mean religion stuff I meant that people tended to place Science on the altar for adoration in a kind of metaphor sense. People placed too much confidence in science. When we get into trouble Science will bail us out so bring on the punch bowl. I assume we both agree about the bit about falsifiability. [/QUOTE] I think it was pretty clear what you meant by faith. Now, do you have any reason to believe that most persons, or even a significant minority of persons who accept the conclusions of science do it out of ‘adoration’, or really any form un unjustified confidence? Or might it be because, well, science does indeed tend to produce useful results? Everyone who has partaken of the many benefits of science in this modern world is strongly justified in giving science a great deal of credit for accuracy and usefulness. And is there ANY reason to think that science tends to lead people to their doom, as you imply with your ‘punchbowl’ crack? ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/115 "2007-09-29T05:12:59Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] I think it was pretty clear what you meant by faith. Now, do you have any reason to believe that most persons, or even a significant minority of persons who accept the conclusions of science do it out of ‘adoration’, or really any form un unjustified confidence? Or might it be because, well, science does indeed tend to produce useful results? Everyone who has partaken of the many benefits of science in this modern world is strongly justified in giving science a great deal of credit for accuracy and usefulness. And is there ANY reason to think that science tends to lead people to their doom, as you imply with your ‘punchbowl’ crack? [/QUOTE] I think that very few individuals have any idea of what the natural sciences are about. The word “science” is generally acquainted with technology, i.e. with the electronic gadgets what fill our modern world. I think that many people believe that their science will solve what ever problems arise, thus freeing us from a critical analysis and appropriate action of our behavior. People also fail to recognize that while the scientific method has proven quite useful in many ways it is not suitable for solving problems regarding human relationships. There is good reason to suggest that technology might very well be the instrument for the extinction of the human species. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/116 "2007-09-29T05:56:54Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] People also fail to recognize that while the scientific method has proven quite useful in many ways it is not suitable for solving problems regarding human relationships. [/quote] :dubious: Even the most scientifically minded people are not proposing solving human relation problems with science, science can only help, it is not a panacea. > **[Richard Dawkins | Speaker | TED](https://www.ted.com/speakers/richard_dawkins)** > [@](#): > > Most scientists today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We’re the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are, our hormones are the way they are. We’d be different—our characters would be different—if our neuro-anatomy and our physiological chemistry were different. > > But we scientists are inconsistent. If we were consistent, our response to a misbehaving person like a child murderer should be something like, “This unit has a faulty component; it needs repairing.” That’s not what we say. What we say—and I include the most austerely mechanistic among us, which is probably me—what we say is, “Vile monster, prison is too good for you.” Or worse, we seek revenge, in all probability thereby triggering the next phase in an escalating cycle of counter-revenge, which we see of course all over the world today. > > In short, when we’re thinking like academics, we regard people as elaborate and complicated machines, like computers or cars. But when we revert to being human, we behave more like Basil Fawlty, who you remember thrashed his car to teach it a lesson when it wouldn’t start on gourmet night. - Richard Dawkins - “On our “queer” universe”. [QUOTE=coberst] There is good reason to suggest that technology might very well be the instrument for the extinction of the human species. [/QUOTE] It could, but the evidence so far is that science and technology are also working to prevent disasters like preventing the starvation of millions and contributing to world peace. > **[Norman Borlaug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug)** > > Norman Ernest Borlaug (/ˈbɔːrlɔːɡ/; March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009) was an American agronomist who led initiatives worldwide that contributed to the extensive increases in agricultural production termed the Green Revolution. Borlaug was awarded multiple honors for his work, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal, one of only seven people to have received all three awards.ForMemRS (1987) Borlaug received his B.S. in forestry in 1... > [@](#): > > During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.[2] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/117 "2007-09-29T06:54:45Z")
[QUOTE=coberst] There is good reason to suggest that technology might very well be the instrument for the extinction of the human species. [/QUOTE] If the universe tries to kill us (asteroid, etc.) then technology might save us. If we kill ourselves, then we’ll do it through technology - since we’re not efficient enough to do it without that help. ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/118 "2007-09-29T11:39:12Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] If the universe tries to kill us (asteroid, etc.) then technology might save us. If we kill ourselves, then we’ll do it through technology - since we’re not efficient enough to do it without that help. [/QUOTE] Amen ---
**Author:** ![suncrafter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@suncrafter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suncrafter)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/119 "2007-10-01T08:24:26Z")
Where did you get the 90% part from? ---
**Author:** ![coberst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@coberst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coberst)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014/120 "2007-10-01T10:57:46Z")
[QUOTE=suncrafter] Where did you get the 90% part from? [/QUOTE] Which of my posts are you refering to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-intellectualism-inhibits-learning/420014.md?page=7)