Let me say at once I do not mean here people who reject just one particular scientific theory or set of facts. The motives of the man or woman who objects only to evolutionary theory or to vaccines can often enough be easily guessed at.
But I'm curious about what I take as both a relatively recent phenomena and a somewhat more difficult one to figure out the causes of. That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".
About the phenomena being recent. I readily grant there have always been people who rejected the sciences, but I think that up until relatively recent times their number and influence was less significant than it is today. For instance, a half century ago, the notion they might influence government policies or how well the sciences were funded and taught in the public schools was easily dismissed. Beyond that, the sciences were on an order of magnitude more respected than they are today. I think that is a fact.
So what causes or motivates the anti-scientists?
I would point first and foremost to the long history in America of deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. But surely, there's more to it than that. That anti-intellectualism is so much stronger today. Why?
Many people point to the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s that seem so closely associated with the rise of the Baby Boomers. Among other things, they dramatically boosted the popularity of the notion that "truth is relative", sometimes expressed as, "truth is personal" As I understand it, that notion was once more or less confined to fringe intellectuals, but the Baby Boomers mainstreamed it, made it -- if not actually respectable -- then fashionable.
A third often mentioned cause is religious based antagonism to the sciences. But that strikes me as superficial. When you look more closely, you first discover it's not all Christian denominations at fault. The old mainstream denominations have mostly remained pro-science. The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.
But I would not stop there. No matter how deeply ingrained is the reflex to "blame the Christians", I think the truth is deeper than "the Christians". Again, looking closely, it becomes undeniable that those Christian groups most opposed to the sciences originate in the culture of the South, which has been the longest and most virulently anti-intellectual section of the country.
And if you really wanted to understand it, you could trace Southern anti-intellectualism back to the South's earliest English settlers, who predominantly came from the Cavalier class of England, a class that favored only educating elites, and then only minimally. So, the notion "it's a Christian thing" strikes me as superficial and poorly informed. It would be more accurate to say Southern Christianity only gave Southern anti-intellectualism its main focus: Evolution.
One last point about the South: Even if what I said is true, the question remains, "Why did Southern anti-intellectualism pick only recently to become so virulent? Any answer to that should mention air conditioning. After WWII, air conditioning made the South more attractive to migrants from other parts of the country such that today four in ten Americans live there. Such a large chunk of people will inevitably have an influence.
However! Least you think it's all nicely decided now, consider this: Is Southern Culture broadly anti-scientific, or only narrowly anti-evolution? I myself think the former, but I believe the latter is still arguable.
Is that enough to explain it? American anti-intellectualism (especially Southern anti-intellectualism) combined with the mainstreaming of thoughtless trash like "truth is relative" by the Baby Boomers?
What do you think?
And beyond that, is there any good chance anti-science will wane in the future? Last puzzle of the day: What caused the Baby Boomers to embrace such a hollow, gutless notion as, "Truth is relative"?
