I wrote a few posts ago that what made me disheartened
with this recent election is the apparent willingness of voters to embrace stupidity and lack of critical thinking, even to the point of making ignorance an asset rather than a liability. I simply cannot understand that.
I’ve written that facts just are. They are not open to opinion, interpretation or “that’s just your way of seeing things,” they are the foundation of thinking. While we may not like where they lead, that’s too bad. Of course, one’s interpretation of facts can be incorrect, but the facts themselves are what they are. My sister Kathleen tells of a play she saw where a set of facts are used to build a picture of a historical event, which turns out to be completely inaccurate when compared to the actual events. She uses this to illustrate that it’s possible to misinterpret facts and come to wrong conclusions, which is of course something to be considered when building a story around observations. One good example of that (which may seem trivial but it is illustrative nonetheless) is the observation that college entry test scores are strongly correlated to shoe size. That sounds like the bigger the person the more intelligent they are (good news for me; I’m 6’5” tall and weigh in at 260 pounds, with size 12 shoes. But one important additional fact changes things: when age is also factored in the correlation disappears (kids are smaller and obviously don’t do so well on college entry exams; when their scores are included it creates a false correlation between shoe size and test scores). But scientists are very much aware of the potential for these false correlations; the very term “coincidental” used in scientific studies means that two separate points share a relationship but that doesn’t establish cause and effect.
So while we can argue about what facts mean, there should be no argument about the facts themselves. Scientists are in agreement that our planet is getting warmer, and that the primary contributing factor is human activity. Yet Trump is allowed to say that global warming is a “hoax perpetrated by the Chinese for their own economic advantage.” How can rational people allow him to get away with such a ridiculous statement?
Sarah Palin has spent a lot of time railing against “elites” since she came to national attention as McCain’s choice for VP. I’m not sure what she meant specifically by that, but historically “elite” has meant above average or superior in ability or intellect. Think of “elite athletes” or “elite scholars.” The best of the best. For Palin (and the Republican Party at large) to make this into a pejorative is a travesty. Now to call somewhat elite is the same as calling them a snob. While I can see why if one calls themselves elite it would carry a connotation of snobbery, but for someone to refer to another as elite should be an honor. I want people leading this country who are above average. I want those providing advice to our government to be the best of the best. I want elites making policy decisions.
So how did we get to the place where we don’t trust experts in their field? Where we think that facts can be made to mean whatever we want?
It’s tempting to say this all started with the mantra I heard as a kid in the 60’s to “question authority.” But I don’t think that’s correct; I think that attitude was to encourage skepticism, not to honor ignorance. Skepticism is at the heart of critical thinking skills; just because someone in a position of some authority says something doesn’t in and of itself make it so; the whole point is to critically evaluate what you hear, even (especially?) if it’s from an accepted “authority figure.” That is a very different attitude than to take pride in being ignorant, which is what I hear from Palin’s diatribe against “the elites. I think when the Republican party realized after the 1964 election that they had to reinvent themselves to stay relevant and went after the religious vote, part of that was to position themselves as relatable to the common man. Of course there’s nothing wrong with that, unless it means trying to be something you are not. Having been the party of the privileged class, becoming relatable to the common man meant downplaying a big part of who they were. I think they went too far, to the point that a significant majority of the Republican party now views facts with disdain and intelligence with distrust. Maybe it’s because they’ve been so successful at convincing people that they’ve been duped by “the other side,” combined with a general lack of critical thinking, that now simply being smart is a negative.
Whatever the cause, it sure seems like we should be trying to be smarter, not dumber.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
I’m with Stupid
I wrote a few posts ago that what made me disheartened
with this recent election is the apparent willingness of voters to embrace stupidity and lack of critical thinking, even to the point of making ignorance an asset rather than a liability. I simply cannot understand that.
I’ve written that facts just are. They are not open to opinion, interpretation or “that’s just your way of seeing things,” they are the foundation of thinking. While we may not like where they lead, that’s too bad. Of course, one’s interpretation of facts can be incorrect, but the facts themselves are what they are. My sister Kathleen tells of a play she saw where a set of facts are used to build a picture of a historical event, which turns out to be completely inaccurate when compared to the actual events. She uses this to illustrate that it’s possible to misinterpret facts and come to wrong conclusions, which is of course something to be considered when building a story around observations. One good example of that (which may seem trivial but it is illustrative nonetheless) is the observation that college entry test scores are strongly correlated to shoe size. That sounds like the bigger the person the more intelligent they are (good news for me; I’m 6’5” tall and weigh in at 260 pounds, with size 12 shoes. But one important additional fact changes things: when age is also factored in the correlation disappears (kids are smaller and obviously don’t do so well on college entry exams; when their scores are included it creates a false correlation between shoe size and test scores). But scientists are very much aware of the potential for these false correlations; the very term “coincidental” used in scientific studies means that two separate points share a relationship but that doesn’t establish cause and effect.
So while we can argue about what facts mean, there should be no argument about the facts themselves. Scientists are in agreement that our planet is getting warmer, and that the primary contributing factor is human activity. Yet Trump is allowed to say that global warming is a “hoax perpetrated by the Chinese for their own economic advantage.” How can rational people allow him to get away with such a ridiculous statement?
Sarah Palin has spent a lot of time railing against “elites” since she came to national attention as McCain’s choice for VP. I’m not sure what she meant specifically by that, but historically “elite” has meant above average or superior in ability or intellect. Think of “elite athletes” or “elite scholars.” The best of the best. For Palin (and the Republican Party at large) to make this into a pejorative is a travesty. Now to call somewhat elite is the same as calling them a snob. While I can see why if one calls themselves elite it would carry a connotation of snobbery, but for someone to refer to another as elite should be an honor. I want people leading this country who are above average. I want those providing advice to our government to be the best of the best. I want elites making policy decisions.
So how did we get to the place where we don’t trust experts in their field? Where we think that facts can be made to mean whatever we want?
It’s tempting to say this all started with the mantra I heard as a kid in the 60’s to “question authority.” But I don’t think that’s correct; I think that attitude was to encourage skepticism, not to honor ignorance. Skepticism is at the heart of critical thinking skills; just because someone in a position of some authority says something doesn’t in and of itself make it so; the whole point is to critically evaluate what you hear, even (especially?) if it’s from an accepted “authority figure.” That is a very different attitude than to take pride in being ignorant, which is what I hear from Palin’s diatribe against “the elites. I think when the Republican party realized after the 1964 election that they had to reinvent themselves to stay relevant and went after the religious vote, part of that was to position themselves as relatable to the common man. Of course there’s nothing wrong with that, unless it means trying to be something you are not. Having been the party of the privileged class, becoming relatable to the common man meant downplaying a big part of who they were. I think they went too far, to the point that a significant majority of the Republican party now views facts with disdain and intelligence with distrust. Maybe it’s because they’ve been so successful at convincing people that they’ve been duped by “the other side,” combined with a general lack of critical thinking, that now simply being smart is a negative.
Whatever the cause, it sure seems like we should be trying to be smarter, not dumber.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.