American distrust of scholarship

[Fallen Prophet]

It is not that easy.
Let me try to explain. Take an issue like politic rights, say property rights. Now the moment you are going to explain that you end up with the problem of that includes meta-ethics. What is good and bad?

And now we are off to the races, because doing that includes one position using counterarguments on the other side and in reverse. And then you have to explain how to compare different arguments using different methods for that. In the end you end with a "bias" if you go fully honest. You end with limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.
You end teaching the students that sorry to say reason, logic, evidence, truth and faith are all social constructs to a certain degree and in the end we all have different subjective belief systems.

But I doubt you want your children to learn that. But that is what it means to teach without bias.

It's like deciding to continue to drink from a well that has recently been poisoned because it's just what you and yours have always done.

I don't like the politically driven social environment at these colleges and universities. I'm going to avoid it and try to convince everyone I care about to avoid it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But we're talking of scholarship's reputation among Americans not scholarship as a standalone (ideal) concept. Americans approve of the concept. That's not the problem.

I have to add just one thing I thought of ... if footballers are being given the scholarships , isn't that actually more egalitarian ? It gives brawn a chance at brain ..

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think universities have a monopoly on ethics and critical thinking.

No, but they have the lecturers who understand the major theories of ethics and how they are applied to particular problems. You can read the philosophers and papers on your own, but having a lecturer saves time.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have to add just one thing I thought of ... if footballers are being given the scholarships , isn't that actually more egalitarian ? It gives brawn a chance at brain ..

Maybe, but the way universities implement it, to the harm of the players, hurts the reputation of scholarship. Some players win though. True.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No, but they have the lecturers who understand the major theories of ethics and how they are applied to particular problems. You can read the philosophers and papers on your own, but having a lecturer saves time.

Not worth it if you have to absorb their political narrative along the way.

I'm going to avoid. God bless.

 

[Sunstone]

Let me mention to you the distrust of scholarship in this country and why I think it exists so strongly. Scholarship has a reputation for betraying us. We don't trust scholarship, because while it seems ideal it is often used against the uneducated and poor. Its used as an excuse to take away property rights, used to swindle west virginians out of their land, destroy ways of life. Scholars make arguments to destroy God with. They blame religion for everything. They make better weapons, excuses to make us work harder, reasons to doubt ourselves. They invent things like scientific management. They try to take away the children to re-educate them in foreign ways and claim it will be better.

Since 1800 in relative isolation a nation of poor farmers (USA) has of necessity grown its own bible interpretations and its own seminaries. Meanwhile our standard high end professional seminaries have gradually become critical of our bibles, critical of our lowborn opinions. Snooty universities for the wealthy classes. We are criticized continually, but what comes of the wisdom of scholars? More junk, more wars, more theft, more trouble. Now everything is scientific, and the rules change so fast you can hardly recognize yesterday. In news usually the poor are to blame for everything evil such as crime, and scholarship is the highlight of humanity!

We read this in our bibles: "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20) To a farmer and a poor man this message resounds. It says "My bible is written to me and is meant to confound the scholars."

Yes this completely misconstrues the true context of the scripture, but added to this are the contrivances and the machines of the scholars which provoke every poor man.

I'm speaking in general terms of how this seems to us as a whole, but I value scholarship. I understand the importance of having people dedicated to study. I'm not saying its evil, nor am I saying Americans are right to distrust scholarship. I'm saying why we don't trust scholars.

********************

What do you think? Why do Americans in particular distrust scholarship, or do you think it is more widespread?

Have you ever seen an Evangelical pastor quote obscure Biblical passages in order to persuade less learned Evangelicals they are God's rules or laws for everyone, including non-Evangelicals? What about better known passages quoted in ways suggesting those pastors are privy to especially authoritative interpretations? Ever seen that?

Does that in any way tie into your insights regarding the misuses of scholarship as propaganda?

Do you have any thoughts about how most scholars do not want people to make propaganda out of their dedication to expanding human knowledge? Do you personally know any scholars you like, Brick? Do they come across in person as your enemies?

If and when you ever get interested in looking into the things involved in the origin and history of America's attack on scholarship, expertise, and well-ground knowledge, Brick, it's probably in your favor to try to understand how anti-intellectualism in America rose as a tool to alienated people from their best sources for accurate information and analysis about any topic someone or someone else didn't want those people to have the advantage of knowing what they were talking about.

You won't take my advice, will you?

A few years after she began watching the Fox Network years into her old age, but still when she could pass an annual driving test and keep her record of never having been the cause of an accident, my mom was surprised when I told her something so obvious as that I had had intellectually honest professors.

Yeah, I'm on the political left these days because I was subjected to indoctrination and brainwashing by my professors. They had to wait years past my university days, though. I only started moving left around age 40, when I began taking a sincere interest in politics for the first time. I was a moderate Republican back then, getting concerned with the Party's trot to the right that was leaving behind moderate policies and views.

I'm not even going to begin to tell what I think your OP might help to do screwing up people's understanding of things that might be important to helping them get what they want out of their lives.

I'm just so disgusted with BS from all sides these days. It's not going to kill anyone to now and then check their facts and sources, is it? Maybe realign their ideas according to what they find?

Do you think you will be looking into things to see if you need to correct something for the sake of your friends anytime soon?

 

[Orbit]

I don't think any educator should speak out about any issues. Just educate.

In the social sciences, we have to talk about what is going on in society. It's not indoctrination, it's teaching students about current events and critical thinking. I have been a university professor since 1994, and only twice in my life have I seen an ideological professor, and both were ideologically conservative. The whole idea that liberals indoctrinate students is conservative propaganda.

 

[Orbit]

To reiterate the OP question is: "What do you think? Why do Americans in particular distrust scholarship, or do you think it is more widespread?"

If someone thinks there isn't a problem and that Americans trust scholarship then feel free to say so. As for pulling my OP apart and wrestling I'm only interested in the topic and am not looking for an endless battle. Nor will I respond to misrepresentations of my position.

Because Republicans tell them to, through Fox News, in order to have a public that isn't educated enough to see past Republicans trying to get working people to vote against their own interests. An educated mind is a dangerous thing to authoritarians and trickle-down economists.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If and when you ever get interested in looking into the things involved in the origin and history of America's attack on scholarship, expertise, and well-ground knowledge, Brick, it's probably in your favor to try to understand how anti-intellectualism in America rose as a tool to alienated people from their best sources for accurate information and analysis about any topic someone or someone else didn't want those people to have the advantage of knowing what they were talking about.

So you're saying its arisen for the purpose of alienating people from information, and that I have no idea about it?

You won't take my advice, will you?

I can try.

A few years after she began watching the Fox Network years into her old age, but still when she could pass an annual driving test and keep her record of never having been the cause of an accident, my mom was surprised when I told her something so obvious as that I had had intellectually honest professors.

Yeah, I'm on the political left these days because I was subjected to indoctrination and brainwashing by my professors. They had to wait years past my university days, though. I only started moving left around age 40, when I began taking a sincere interest in politics for the first time. I was a moderate Republican back then, getting concerned with Party's trot to the right that was leaving behind moderate policies and views.

I'm not even going to begin to tell what I think your OP might help to do screwing up people's understanding of things that might be important to helping them get what they want out of their lives.

I'm just so disgusted with BS from all sides these days.

Do you think you will be looking into things to see if you need to correct something for the sake of your friends anytime soon?

My OP is I think not meant as an attack on scholars or scholarship. Its not intended to screw up anyone's understanding. There are deep self destructive problems in the university system which is run like a ponzi scheme, but Americans barely even notice that. Disagree with me about that if you like, but in harmony with something you say its not why Americans don't trust universities and scholarship. They distrust for other reasons such as religious reasons and because of the things I mention. Perhaps, too, because of what you have mentioned -- an attempt to keep people separate from enabling information.

Have you ever seen an Evangelical pastor quote obscure Biblical passages in order to persuade less learned Evangelicals they are God's rules or laws for everyone, including non-Evangelicals? What about better known passages quoted in ways suggesting those pastors are privy to especially authoritative interpretations? Ever seen that?

Does that in any way tie into your insights regarding the misuses of scholarship as propaganda?

Do you have any thoughts about how most scholars do not want people to make propaganda out of their dedication to expanding human knowledge?

I hear what you're saying about evangelicals. I don't know how much you know about them. I'm not attempting to say that scholarship is propaganda, and I don't believe that it is.

 

[blü 2]

To reiterate the OP question is: "What do you think? Why do Americans in particular distrust scholarship, or do you think it is more widespread?"

If someone thinks there isn't a problem and that Americans trust scholarship then feel free to say so. As for pulling my OP apart and wrestling I'm only interested in the topic and am not looking for an endless battle. Nor will I respond to misrepresentations of my position.

I didn't misrepresent your position, I asked for illumination of it.

Let me ask you this in the alternative: higher learning ─ which is what I assume you mean by 'scholarship' ─ makes all the professions possible, underpins your car, your net, your phone, your medicine, your hospitals, your legal system, your traffic engineering, your town plumbing, your manufactured goods, clothes, the growing and preparation of your food, a huge list.

What part of higher learning do you specifically object to?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't think any educator should speak out about any issues. Just educate.

That would likely depend on the subject at hand...

 

[Brickjectivity]

Because Republicans tell them to, through Fox News, in order to have a public that isn't educated enough to see past Republicans trying to get working people to vote against their own interests. An educated mind is a dangerous thing to authoritarians and trickle-down economists.

I agree. There is a long backstory though. I remember as a kid (40 years ago) people putting on bumper stickers that said "I don't believe the liberal media." That was at the beginning of Reagan's first administration; however the stated reasons that people chose not to believe the liberal media at that time were the hot issues of the time: ERA and Abortion preceded by the creationism/evolution discussion which had been been a hot issue for quite some time already. Before Reagan (though Reagan did much to divide Americans and divide media) there was this belief that scholarship was somehow counterpoised against the church...that both evolution and ERA and abortion were all part of some attempt to destroy people's faith. That continues today and is the only reason why people have listened to the Republican Party's claims. In my opinion. In my opinion if that had not been the case no one would have listened to the Republicans on this.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Education is the natural enemy of conservatism

Maybe not always.. I think of a conservative position as a freeze - framed portrait of any educational / cultural flow state. A culture just has to decide when to hit the brakes, and there you have it, a conservative position

 

[Sunstone]

This is such a goddamned crazy attempt to blame the lies of the Public Relations industry on the academic community, this is going to by itself change my views of some people's morals and standards.

Does anyone ever stop to think before they pump along a lie about scholars, scientists, and academics that it just might be something worth checking out? Or a lie about anyone or anything these days? Anyone concerned with maybe not being a liar?

This is the moral equivalent of passing out roadmaps that are dangerously inaccurate. I don't care who sees that besides myself I must act according to my best understanding regardless of outcome.

This thread demands an apology. It won't get one. And that's going to have consequences with me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's like deciding to continue to drink from a well that has recently been poisoned because it's just what you and yours have always done.

I don't like the politically driven social environment at these colleges and universities. I'm going to avoid it and try to convince everyone I care about to avoid it.

You apparently don't understand what I wrote. If you don't want your children to learn what without bias is, don't send them to university. But you want them to learn to understand without bias, right?

 

[Heyo]

Maybe not always.. I think of a conservative position as a freeze - framed portrait of any educational / cultural flow state. A culture just has to decide when to hit the brakes, and there you have it, a conservative position

Yes, though I wouldn't call that conservatism but correctly applied progressivism. We don't always know that things get better when they change. We only know that they have to change to get better. And when we see that the direction in which things changed was wrong, we do have to "hit the brakes" and go back to the drawing board to try another change.

 

[Heyo]

This is such a goddamned crazy attempt to blame the lies of the Public Relations industry on the academic community

Where do you see anyone putting blame on the academic community?
The only thing I see in the OP is the question why academia has such a bad rep in the US.

 

[Sunstone]

Where do you see anyone putting blame on the academic community?
The only thing I see in the OP is the question why academia has such a bad rep in the US.

After a few careful readings of the OP, I found it useful go through it again, and this time make a list of the words and terms used to reference scholars and scholarship that were claims or assertions. The list was useful in determining the facts that were being claimed and asserted as true.

That's a standard tool often used in analyzing texts. In cases like this you must be very careful to study a word or term within its entire semantic context to determine that it cannot be other than a claim or assertion. It's best you do this yourself. I do not wish to discuss this with anyone who has not done their homework.

 

[Debater Slayer]

True in many schools, but you can pick your school if you know ahead of time. I think it was Jordan Peterson who said that 25% of Sociology departments were Marxist. If true that means 75% are not.

Would a capitalist or libertarian sociology department be better than a Marxist one? What about a sociology department with a bias for, say, white supremacism or myopic, anti-Western bias?

I don't think it matters whether a sociology department has specific beliefs as long as it sticks to academic standards and critical thinking. That's what people should focus on instead of nitpicking which academic circle believes what.

Jordan Peterson likes to harp on the supposed "Marxist" evils as a fearmongering tactic. He's deeply hypocritical for criticizing any perceived bias in a given academic circle when he himself has very conspicuous prejudices that he doesn't hide as a well-known psychologist.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is a difference between the educated and the uneducated.
The educated have been taught to think, to analyse, to investigate and come to reasoned conclusions. While some of the uneducated may develop some of these abilities for them selves a majority of them do not.

There is a reason that so many educated people support liberal views, as that is where clear thinking and analysis of world situation leads them.

The less educated without these attributes. Tend to chose options that they believe will benefit Them selves or their affiliated group, but without consideration of society or the environment as a whole. They are more likely to think short term, selfishly, and believe leaders and those like themselves, who think little further than personal advantage and gain.