Thank you for saying this. For a while now I’ve been trying to articulate this same idea, but you explained it perfectly.
I’m in large agreement with this, but not completely.
In many cases it is quite clear that academics largely take one side, while funny men (*) like Beck and Limbaugh are on the other side. It takes wilfull ignorance to then side with Beck and Limbaugh.
(* - If you question a Beck-Limbaughist who pretends to be intellectual why he listens to them, the usual answer is: “I just listen to them becuase they amuse me.”)
You seem to assume that, because Beck and Limbaugh are fools, that academics that hold different positions are ipso facto correct. From what I can see academic positions are no more reasoned that what you hear on Fox. They are simply repeating whatever is fashionable in their academic departments. In the case of academe, you not only have social pressure, but you have the fact that academics that express strong, unfashionable opinions are probably not going to get tenure.
The truth is that there is a infinite variety of stupid opinions and from I can see the opinions held in academe are no more defensible than the ones discussed in barber shops.
I should mention, that I know very little about Beck and Limbaugh opinions, since I don’t watch any televised news or opinion shows, unless you count Jon Stewart.
Really? “No more defensible”? Might this be an example of false equivalence?
There’s a difference between certainty and “the percentage play.” I’m personally aware of areas were academia’s own sense of certainty is inflated (
). But on matters where I know little, I would consider the opinion of the appropriate professor more likely than that of a clown, wouldn’t you? 
Your claim that “barber shop” opinions are as defensible as those of academia seems odd, but I suppose your “truth” could save a lot of taxpayer dollars. Lay off FRB officials and just let Americans vote to set interest rates! (Or are only those getting haircuts eligible to vote? 
) Who needs professors to write textbooks anyway?, let the barbershop people write them! Etc. etc.
I’m sorry if I’m misrepresenting you but you did write
“opinions held in academe are no more defensible than the ones discussed in barber shops”
Frankly I find that opinion less defensible that the ones in barber shops!
Keep in mind that the specific example I was responding to were Beck and Limbaugh. These are people who express **political **opinions. In fields of knowledge that actually deal with falsifiable or testable information, such as physics or engineering, I would certainly accept expert opinions over that of the barber shop.
Once you get into social sciences or liberal arts and other areas that don’t deal with testable theories then there is little reason to prefer academic opinions over common sense opinions.
When you get to political opinions, it gets even worse. Academic political theory seems almost impervious to any inconvenient facts.
There is an interesting book on this topic by Thomas Sowell titled “Intellectuals and Society”.
BTW, the mention of interest rates seems badly chosen. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus among economists about how interest rates should be set or even if they they should be controlled instead of being set by the market.
Or, perhaps, climate change?
Or economics. Or biology. Or structural engineering.
What about Hawaii’s Registry of Births? That’s not a “hard science”; is the barber’s opinion just as valid as Hawaii’s ranking civil servant?
Although there are many exceptions, there is a strong positive correlation between wrong opinions on hard science, and anti-academic opinions in “softer” sciences and belief in political fictions. Joel’s hypothesis (barbershop opinion as good as academia’s) doesn’t pass my sniff test.
I don’t think it would be appropriate to hijack this thread with a discussion of climate change.
Also, you have to keep in mind that almost 50% of people are below average intelligence.
I’m not sure where you found this correlation at. Have you ever compared the opinions on nuclear power of members of the Physics Department with the English Department? How about the opinions of the Genetics Department on GM crops with the Women’s Studies department?
When you come down to it, unless you are inclined to skeptical thinking, all the education in the world won’t protect you from believing in silly things.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/SmartPeople.htm
For instance, on the topic of Obama’s birth, how many of you actually checked it out as opposed to accepting someone’s assertion that is was BS? When I heard the rumors about it in 2008, I did my own checking. The result was that once I established that nobody was really contending that his mother wasn’t a native born American citizen, I stopped caring if he born in Hawaii. The same thing about John McCain and the canal zone.
A similar thing happened when the rumors started circulating recently about the influence Obama’s Kenyan father had on him. It only took me 10 minutes to figure out that Obama was just a baby when his father moved away. Okay what about his Indonesian Stepfather? I read his Stepfather’s bio and he didn’t sound like a radical Islamistist right up to the point where he enrolls Obama in Catholic school in Indonesia. Busted. Move on.
Oh, goodness…that’s the last thing I want to do. No, recall your words:
My purpose in posting thus far has been twofold:
(1) The clowns you claim to be specifically discussing do NOT limit themselves to “political opinions”. In fact, I don’t see any substantive demarcation from them concerning politics, science, opinions, facts, and lies.
(2) Your expressed opinion on academia is ridiculous. As a general class (heh), their entire bread and butter is making defensible arguments. Yet you say “From what I can see academic positions are no more reasoned that what you hear on Fox”.
Both of those things are end results of the OP. Both need to be pointed out (and hopefully slapped down) when recognized.
Frankly, I have no idea what Beck and Limbaugh opinions are. I don’t watch any news channels. I’m willing to stipulate that most of their expressed opinions are silly.
My point is most political opinions in academe as just as knee jerk and unreasoning as what common opinions are. I provided references to support my position and provided examples where I actually did my own research and reached my own conclusions on political topics.
You have provided nothing but repeated assertions that my position is ridiculous and that your position is correct. Unless you can bring something to the table beside you own opinions, there is no reason to discuss it with you further.
Right. So you (self-admittedly) have no grounds on which to assess them, their opinions, nor what others say about them. And yet you go merrily along to do just that. Aces! Prime fodder for this thread. :smack: But, before you react to that, let me try to take this down a notch or two.
First, in line with: “I’m willing to stipulate that most of their [Limbaugh, Beck, etc] expressed opinions are silly.”, let me say that I’m willing to stipulate that [some|many|most] “smart” people hold [some|many] poorly thought out positions. I’m not arguing that.
Second, I’ll volunteer a general sort of agreement with the idea behind your first post in the thread – yes, society is so complex as to be beyond the ken of any single person; yes, specialists out of their discipline are not better informed than laypeople (by definition, even!); yes, Congress is tasked with (and asked to) legislate on topics that they cannot, taken as a single entity, possibly be expert. I’m not arguing any of that.
Third, I’d ask that you respond to what I write, as I try to be very careful in what I post. Ask if you’re not sure of my meaning, 'cuz here’s what I am arguing:
This is neither what you said earlier (“academic positions” are not the same as “political opinions in academe”), nor is it an accurate reflection of what septimus was saying (assuming I understood his point). As I said just above, an academic talking about a topic that is not in their field is expressing a “common opinion”. But clearly, when an academic is cited or referenced in relation to some topic as an authority, it is because it’s within their discipline. And, just as clearly, the aforementioned “clowns” express opinions on academic topics with which they have no expertise. These things are not equivalent.
Furthermore, even when an academic is expressing an opinion not in their field, they have at least been trained in arguing – that’s what they do. While pundits have also been trained in arguing – perhaps not formally, but it is, again, what they do – an arbitrary person “in a barbershop” has not. It’s ridiculous to say that an arbitrary person’s opinion “is as defensible as” an academic’s (or a pundit’s, or a lawyer’s, or…). These things are not equivalent.
Those are the two things on which I commented; very little actual content. Do you really disagree?
While your claim of provided “references” is a bit weak, you are to be lauded for doing so. With no snarkiness intended, that’s great. I applaud any such efforts.
Hmm, OK. Bye now.