Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I meant to say they believed in God. A theory means it can't be proven. There are several problems with the global warming is caused by man thinking. 1) Global warming is happening on other planets. 2) Global warming and cooling have happened thoughout the history of the earth. 3) The temperature has risen less than one degree C in the last 100 years and the method of measuring has changed greatly over that time (over 10 percent of the thermometers have recently been removed or not included, many of the thermometers' surroundings have changed i.e. urban development). 4) Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. 5) The oceans' core temperature has not gone up. 6) "New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting."
This is just some of the scientific facts not allowed to be discussed. The "intellectuals" don't want any ideas considered but thier own so they shut down the debate and say it's over when true science isn't afraid of being re-examined. I could come up with a ton of fraudulent cases that have furthered the theory of evolution, but the fact is there is no real evidence for macro-evolution, only for micro-evolution. Let's not forget scientists once said spontaneous generation was a proven fact. I'm starting to feel like I'm hijacking this thread since our discussion is a tangent so I'll stop now since I think my point is made.
It doesn't become a theory unless it can be proven.
I don't understand the hostility and animosity towards people who are educated and intellectual. Many on the right have this contempt for anyone that immerses themselves in academic endeavors. You hear it from prominent conservatives like Sarah Palin taking jabs at "college professors" or people who went to "Ivy league schools" As though as geeting an education is something to be scourned.
It's also manifiested in a general distrust of science, from theories of global warming to evolution. I don't know how many times I've heard use the Bible as an explanation for evolution or other theories. It's not just limited to science but to other areas. I've actually heard people say they don't want their kids being taught a second language. WTF??!!! Are they willfullly ignorant or is this a manifestation of some sort of insecurity?
Actually, communism as an ideal has always been an intellectual movement. Communism as a practice has not. Mao's implementation of communism has no connection with intellectualism. Stalin's implementation of communism has no connection with intellectualism. And in both cases, persecution of intellectuals was a feature of how Communism was practiced. But persecution of intellectuals was never a feature of how Communism was envisioned. Not by Marx, not by Engles, not by Lenin, and not even by Mao. There is a distinction between the ideal and reality. And the flaw is human nature. In that sense, one can, indeed, argue that intellectualism itself could become exclusionary, but only as a function of its practice by flawed human beings. Not as a function of the ideal.
I don’t disagree with you but I would say that the practice of communism (say Stalin) was intellectualism taken to the natural extreme.
Stalin wasn’t one. He was however the byproduct of the intellectual communists who preceded him.
My argument is to suggest that being an intellectual is wrong. That intellectualism doesn’t have its proper place. Nor am I suggesting that oppressive regimes don’t persecute the intellectuals.
My argument here is that there is a line that one can cross. Intellectualism that drives all other views from the field is as oppressive as any fascist who ever lived. We are seeing some of that in American Academia.
Laurence Summers simply suggested that there might be a physiological bases for men dominating science and he was forced out of Harvard. He simply posited a theory that at the very least has some measurable evidence to support it. However, the intelligence rejected him personally and he was removed.
Must have little to say with your off base attack. Lets see how ridiculous your post is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
As I opined earlier, this whole political denigration of intellectualism is rooted in the Republican Parties attempts to use populism to reinvigorate their party after the debacle of the Roosevelt era.
What I find hysterical is that the Republican Party has relied on the every elite intellectuals that it derides from the podium to craft not only its political message but its policy prescriptions. The right never shrinks away from lauding such elite intellectuals as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Gary Becker, or the other mavens of right wing think tanks from the Hoover Institute to American Enterprise. And, god only knows that there wasn't a more elitist intellectual than William H. Buckley Jr to ever grace the planet.
Ahhh. The old "I know you are but what am I". This post is turning out to really enlighten us all and contribute greatly to this conversation.
Apparently you didn't like what I had to say, because thus far in your post you have:
1. Provided a slanderous attack on the validity of what I said stating that it is unfounded and "hysterical".
2. Took the position that the right is funny because they hold their intellectuals superior to those on the left. This is simply stated when confronted with the basis of my theory. Redirect... typical.
Lets see how else you fall directly into my theory on left wing intellects typical elitist mentality...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The problem confronting the right is that the anti-intellectual populism spawned by the very eastern, ivy league education conservative elite has, like Frankenstein's monster, grown out of control and is now threatening intellectualism in general but the very group that gave it birth.
And then invalidation. My theories are invalid because you view the situation from an inverse perspective. The intellectual left holds an elistist mentality simply because that is what was created by the right, thus my theory fails.
You just demonstrated EXACTLY what I was talking about.
I don’t disagree with you but I would say that the practice of communism (say Stalin) was intellectualism taken to the natural extreme.
Stalin wasn’t one. He was however the byproduct of the intellectual communists who preceded him.
My argument is to suggest that being an intellectual is wrong. That intellectualism doesn’t have its proper place. Nor am I suggesting that oppressive regimes don’t persecute the intellectuals.
My argument here is that there is a line that one can cross. Intellectualism that drives all other views from the field is as oppressive as any fascist who ever lived. We are seeing some of that in American Academia.
Laurence Summers simply suggested that there might be a physiological bases for men dominating science and he was forced out of Harvard. He simply posited a theory that at the very least has some measurable evidence to support it. However, the intelligence rejected him personally and he was removed.
Oh, I don't see Stalin as being a byproduct of the intellectual communists who preceded him at all. He was an opportunist who seized the moment when Lenin's demise created a political vacuum. He was not an intellectual, and he was not an intellectual heir to Lenin's creation, or to Trotsky's mistakes. In fact, Stalin was seriously threatened by intellectualism. Intellectualism doesn't just advocate education, it advocates critical analysis, and that is the threat that it poses to totalitarianism. Totalitarianism does not permit critical analysis from within. It does not permit independent analysis at all, critical or not. Since intellectualism is not a political "ism", but a social "ism", it's quite vulnerable to political suppression.
While I understand your point about Laurence Summers, and agree that within intellectual communities certain perspectives tend to become dominant (which is what I am arguing as regards Ivy League perspectives becoming dominant in the higher courts in another thread), I think that it is a human failing. As humans, we make judgments about the credibility of certain information sources and other expertise, and as those judgments are validated, we begin to ascribe more value to those sources. As a way of not having to independently weigh the credibility of every piece of information, we place increasing value on the provenance of the information we receive, rather than on the merits of that information. And so we develop elitist systems. But, fortunately, we can challenge those elitist systems, but in order to give our challenges momentum, we have to use the standards within the system. Mr Summers doesn't always meet the standards of the science he is trying to use, and that discredits him within that community. Elitism is present, but on the other hand we don't want science to abandon its standards that are its very definition, either.
Oh, I don't see Stalin as being a byproduct of the intellectual communists who preceded him at all. He was an opportunist who seized the moment when Lenin's demise created a political vacuum. He was not an intellectual, and he was not an intellectual heir to Lenin's creation, or to Trotsky's mistakes. In fact, Stalin was seriously threatened by intellectualism. Intellectualism doesn't just advocate education, it advocates critical analysis, and that is the threat that it poses to totalitarianism. Totalitarianism does not permit critical analysis from within.
Stalin was not Marxist. One of the ultimate goals of Communism is to disolve the state. Whether or not you disagree with this or it's practicality is another issue, but it is a goal of Communism. Did Stalin hope to achieve that goal? I think not.
1. Provided a slanderous attack on the validity of what I said stating that it is unfounded and "hysterical".
Finding something hysterically funny is evidence of malicious? The hits just keep coming.
Quote:
Took the position that the right is funny because they hold their intellectuals superior to those on the left.
Ah, now I understand your confusion.
The point I was making has absolutely nothing to do with the superiority or not of right vs left intellectuals. Rather the fact that while claiming elite intellectualism is the sole purview of the left, the right has always, behind the scenes, relied on their own version of elite intellectuals.
I don't understand the hostility and animosity towards people who are educated and intellectual. Many on the right have this contempt for anyone that immerses themselves in academic endeavors. You hear it from prominent conservatives like Sarah Palin taking jabs at "college professors" or people who went to "Ivy league schools" As though as geeting an education is something to be scourned.
It's also manifiested in a general distrust of science, from theories of global warming to evolution. I don't know how many times I've heard use the Bible as an explanation for evolution or other theories. It's not just limited to science but to other areas. I've actually heard people say they don't want their kids being taught a second language. WTF??!!! Are they willfullly ignorant or is this a manifestation of some sort of insecurity?
Your entire premise is flawed. Fail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
