dheddle
Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
I disagree with the general charge of anti-intellectualism.
Like many here, I work among the smartest people on the planet—in my case in a national lab. I don’t want any of them governing me. Or, like WFB quipped, I’d take my chances with the first 200 names of the Boston phonebook over the Harvard faculty.
But this is not necessarily anti-intellectualism. It can be recognition that neither high IQ (especially) or an encyclopedic command of facts has a significant positive correlation with the ability to lead or govern. That is based on evidence: to first order everyone I work with has high IQ—but they all have different political opinions. Everyone on the SCOTUS has a high IQ and is legal expert, and yet we have many 5-4 decisions. Politics always, or almost always, comes down to the dreaded world-view. Intellectuals may be able to toss a prettier word salad, but that’s about it.
For further evidence go over to the brainiac of blogs and the bastion of rationality (Pharyngula) and start a debate about libertarianism, animal testing, or gun rights. Now imagine those smart, highly educated people are our congress, and what do you get? Name calling, nasty insults, apoplectic rants, and, most telling, no consensus. In other words, nothing different from any other group discussing politics.
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
