John McCain thinks he’s hit on a good strategy for the upcoming Presidential campaign: make fun of scientists.
WEST GLACIER, Mont. — If you’ve heard Sen. John McCain’s stump speech, you’ve surely heard him talk about grizzly bears. The federal government, he declares with horror and astonishment, has spent $3 million to study grizzly bear DNA. “I don’t know if it was a paternity issue or criminal,” he jokes, “but it was a waste of money.”
A McCain campaign commercial also tweaks the bear research: “Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable.”
Three million whole dollars! Just think what we could do with so much money.
The Washington Post article goes on to note, what should come as no surprise to anyone reading here, that the grizzly bear study is actually very interesting and worthwhile science. The researchers, led by Katherine Kendall of the U.S. Geological Survey, performed the first accurate survey of grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem. They discovered the happy news that this formerly endangered species had substantially rebounded, thanks in part to three decades of conservation efforts. The kind of thing that you actually have to go out and collect data to discover.
Completely beside the point of course. John McCain doesn’t care about grizzly bears one way or the other, and to him 3 million dollars is chump change. What he cares about his the symbolism — enough to highlight it in his stump speech and TV commercials.
McCain is tapping into a deep strain of anti-intellectualism among American voters. Some of us tend to take for granted that questions about the workings of the natural world should be addressed by scientists using scientific methods, and that attacks on science must be motivated by external forces such as economic or religious interests. What scientists tend to underestimate is the extent to which many people react viscerally against science just because it is science. Or, more generally, because it is seen as part of an effort on the part of elites to force their worldview on folks who are getting along just fine without all these fancy ideas, thank you very much.
In the old-time (1980’s) controversies about teaching creationism in schools, pre-Intelligent-Design, one of the most common arguments was that school boards should have “local control” over the curriculum. Defenders of evolution replied that this was clearly a ruse to disguise a religious anti-science agenda. Which may have been true for some of the national organizations behind the movement; but for many school boards and communities, it really was about local control. They didn’t want to be told what to teach their kids by some group of coastal elitists with Ph.D.s, and creationism was a way to fight back.
Don’t believe me? They are happy to tell you so to your face. Consider the case of John Derbyshire, columnist for the National Review Online. Derbyshire is admittedly a complicated case, on the one hand writing books about the Riemann hypothesis and on the other proudly proclaiming that he reads Blondie and Hagar the Horrible for “insights into the human condition.” And he is also generally pro-science and pro-evolution in particular. But nevertheless — despite the fact that he is smart and educated enough to understand that evolution is “right” in the old-fashioned sense of right and wrong — he will state explicitly (and quote himself later in case you missed it) that
I couldn’t care less whether my president believes in the theory of evolution. In fact, reflecting on some recent experiences, I’m not sure that I wouldn’t prefer a president who didn’t. [Emphasis in original.]
And why is that? I wrote a whole blog post explaining why it is important that the President understand and accept the workings of the natural world, but obviously Derbyshire disagrees. The reason why is that scientific understanding is too often the bailiwick of elite leftist snobs.
Possibly as a result of having grown up in the lower classes of provincial England, I detest snobbery. I mean, I really, viscerally, loathe it. This is one reason I hate the Left so much…
Invited to choose between having my kids educated, my car fixed, or my elderly relatives cared for by (a) people of character, spirit, and dedication who believe in pseudoscience, or (b) unionized, time-serving drudges who believe in real science, which would I choose? Invited to choose between a president who is (a) a patriotic family man of character and ability who believes the universe was created on a Friday afternoon in 4,004 B.C. with all biological species instantly represented, or (b) an amoral hedonist and philanderer who “loathes the military” but who believes in the evolution of species via natural selection across hundreds of millions of years, which would I choose? Are you kidding?
The real point is not who you would choose in such a situation — it’s that Derbyshire sincerely believes that these are the kinds of choices one typically needs to make. One the one hand: character, spirit, dedication, and pseudoscience. On the other: amoral, hedonistic drudges (sic) who believe in real science.
Derbyshire is not alone. Conservative commentator Tom Bethell has published a Politically Incorrect Guide to Science in which he takes down such Leftist conspiracies as evolution, global warming, AIDS research, and (um) relativity. At Tech Central Station, Lee Harris pens a passionate defense of being stupid more generally:
Today, no self-respecting conservative wants to be thought stupid, not even by the lunatics on the far left. Yet there are far worse things than looking stupid to others—and one of them is being conned by those who are far cleverer than we are. Indeed, in certain cases, the desire to appear intelligent at all costs can be downright suicidal…
In a world that absurdly overrates the advantage of sheer brain power, no one wants to be seen as a member in good standing of the stupid party. Yet stupidity has been and will always remain the best defense mechanism against the ordinary conman and the intellectual dreamer, just as Odysseus found that stuffing cotton in his ears was his best defense against beguiling but fatal song of the sirens.
Again: most sensible conservative commentators are quick to say “of course, all things being equal, it’s better to be correct/intelligent/scientific than otherwise.” But they truly don’t believe that all things are equal. The real fight isn’t against science, it’s a much broader culture war. Science is being used as a stand-in for a constellation of things against which many Americans react viscerally — elitism, paternalism, snobbery. Presenting better science and more transparent evidence isn’t going to change this attitude all by itself. We need to address the underlying cause: the relic anti-intellectual attitude that still animates so many people in this country.
The grizzly bears will thank you.
“Yet stupidity has been and will always remain the best defense mechanism against the ordinary conman” – is this meant to be a joke? yup, i’m not too smart to get tricked by a conman, i’m too stupid.
Matt, based on my bitter experiences I don’t think it’s a joke. One thing I really can’t stand is people griping about snobbery and all that. If you have reason to be rather sure, it should be OK to confidently explain your point. One big reason I think the lower-right hates intellect: the lower right considers guile and simplemindedness in defense of their interests to be OK. They don’t put verity and logical fitness first. They really don’t want people slicing through straw men and various canards and fallacies. To oppose the success of such rubbish, we really need “logic training” for students. I mean, the formal subject directly (about fallacies and quality reasoning etc.), not as mere rub-off from other subjects like math and science.
As the president is bent on proving, stupidity is the worst of crimes, because it is so often harshly punished. When the bill finally comes due, insight will make a comeback.
Or, as Forrst Gump’s mother put it, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
“McCain is tapping into a deep strain of anti-intellectualism among American voters”
But you Sir didn’t mention that this is only the third strain on his list of strains he is tapping into.
First, he’s tapping into a deep strain of anti-bridging among American voters – with his opposition to building The Bridge to Nowhere. It is obvious where he is coming from – everybody knows that dems will build bridges, not churches!
Next, he is tapping into deep strain of anti-rockandrollism among American voters (by refusing to fund Woodstock museum) – well, we all know what he is trying to do here, don’t we?
I had a conversation over the weekend with an acquaintance who is by most accounts articulate and intelligent, however, I was somewhat aghast as his total disregard for fact. You know one of those conversations where evolution is just a theory, how could one possibly not see design in the world implying a designer, Earth is getting warmer not due to increased CO2 but the sun is just getting hotter, and so on. I was struck by the constant use of the word “believe”. For example, “I believe in relativity but I don’t believe in evolution”. There is something most telling here, people just don’t understand the scientific method and somehow think that belief is required. Ultimately, I think it reduces down to one of our most fundamental responses to the world – fear. The other side of fear is uncertainty, both pandering to our instincts for survival. As long as science is viewed as threatening, I “fear” we will make little progress as a species.
Some anti intellectualism may be due to people just having bad experiences in school. They couldn’t compete in their academic environment, and they’re resentful. You may be looking at it from a winner’s perspective, but they’re not, and you’re vastly outnumbered. Others may simply be intellectual luddites to varying degrees – they don’t see any tangible benefit to intellectualism or even technology, and some may look at urban sprawl and the mind-numbing mediocrity of their lives and wonder if it all was worth it. In both cases, the common factor is that intellectualism just doesn’t give them or promise them anything. But religion does.
Typical English attitude.
If you don’t hide your intelligence you are considered pretentious, middle class is a dirty word, and “lad” has acquired the status of “culture”.
The idea that education, science and rationality would benefit the so called lower class plays no role here. In fact it’s easy to be a highly successful millionaire business owner and consider yourself lower class (and behave according to a Victorian era stereotype of what that means).
Also, doesn’t real snobbery derive from just being sure, because of a sense of correctness, rather than relying on an external standard of objectivity? In that case, the left/science snobs aren’t really snobs, and the conservative/faith-based are snobs. Note also the obvious vanity and self-righteousness of right-wing radio commentators, and the ironic complaint that “leftists” are too “wishy-washy” and accommodating. The complaints can’t both be right.
Is McCain acting as a proxy for William Proxmire? Will he reinstate the Golden Fleece awards? Inquiring Argonauts want to know.
Some anti-intellectualism comes about when non-specialists ponder the difference between the multiverse/landscape and ID/creationism and suspect it’s that one generates taxpayer dollars for indolent physicists while the other doesn’t. At that point they feel conned and want their money back. Or, failing that, they take it out on the poor “Grizzly” folks. Blame them?
One way of addressing their admittedly philistine complaints is to adopt the 3 step program sketched out by R.P. Feynman in the Character of Physical Law Lectures: 1.) propose a theory, 2.) make predictions implied by your theory, 3.) experimentally verify your predictions. Indeed, successful theories often sell themselves. (Eddington’s astronomical verification of GR turned Einstein into a rock star overnight.)
On the other hand, snarky comments about 50+/- % of the taxpaying public may not be the best approach to securing research funding. Sometimes people just conclude you’re a snob and spend their money elsewhere. It turns out people don’t like to be insulted. Go figure.
Sean is right – this isn’t a true/false thing. It’s about attitudes. Unfortunately, the idea of the arrogant intellectual is more than just a stereotype. Over the past few years, it has become commonplace in the genetics talks I go to for a speaker to include some kind of scornful mockery of intelligent design. With evidence on our side, we ought to take the high road instead of mocking people’s beliefs (especially the cherished beliefs we may not share). If a scientist mocks me, my gut reaction is going to be “Oh, and what has your dark matter done for me lately?” Of course, it is probably a few eggs spoiling the basket, which means we just have to try all the harder to be understanding and considerate. Most people respect when they feel respected.
Just looking at these comments, you can see quite a bit of arrogance. Oh, they are just resentful of our intelligence, they’re just stupid, what a bunch of cavemen, etc. These are the types of comments that drive people to hate intellectualism.
It is certainly true that intellectuals don’t have a monopoly on arrogance, but the fact that Rush Limbaugh is proud shouldn’t excuse the same attitude in me.
Perhaps John Derbyshire should return to England, where “people of character, spirit, and dedication who believe in pseudoscience” are fundamentalist Islamists who would like to kill him.
Like everybody else, anti-intellectual right wingers devise theories to explain anomalies. It appears that scientists put a huge personal effort into gathering objective information about the world, including picky details like the genetic diversity of grizzly bears. But nobody could really be interested in doing something like that. Ergo, the real motives of the scientists are something different such as seeking political power or making fun of rubes, just as people who evince sincere interest in the arts must actually be social climbers or some other sort of fraud.
Given Derbyshire’s long record of, well, sh*t, it’s more likely that he’s simply a liar. If the politics of his position (remember, his job is propagandist) requires a certain line of BS, then he’ll probably deliver. Not always, of course, but likely.
I can’t tell you how much I’m enjoying the association of Derbyshire’s nonsense with him being English. If I wasn’t so afraid of Muslims, or of appearing pretentious, and if I didn’t want to be seen as just one of the lads, I’d present a detailed intellectual argument why such comments are complete bollocks.
But I’d better keep my mouth shut. After all, those of us who grew up “in the lower classes of provincial England” must all think the same way.
I get your point, Sean, but I think you can generalize this conflict even further. The way I see it, while we see aspects of this struggle in the culture war, there’s actually an anti-science bent in all of us Americans, whether liberal or conservative. Because Americans as a whole are suspicious of authority. We’re descended from rebels, people who put there lives on the line against the oligarchy. Post modernism has done a lot to loosen the grip of one authority, the Church, on many of us, but I think there’s an knee jerk instinct in the average american layman not to wholeheartedly accept Science as its replacement, a new unchallengeable authority. I recognize that I’m painting with a wide brush here and ignoring the very obvious anti-elitism bent to, say, McCain’s attacks, but the reality is that people are picking and choosing their own personal preferred authority to buck. Based on discussions here, it appears to me that your beef with the anti-science right is no different than your beef with the pro-woo-woo/ESP crowd (who I suspect would tend to fall onto the left side of the culture war spectrum).
(Now I feel like some kind of cultural therapist, pointing out my own similarities with the despised enemy. Damn Obama and his politics of hope and inclusion. It seems to be working on me.)
Sean, Derb did not say that all people who believe in creationism are
have character, spirit and dedication, while evolutionists are amoral hedonists; Derb himself is an evolutionist. That’s a very uncharitable interpretation.
He is simply saying he prefers someone like Reagan, to Bill Clinton (to whom he is obviously referring) in spite of the former’s belief in creationism.
In fact, most people would put the creationism/evolution controversy way, way, way down on their list of voting priorities, even if some professor did “write a whole blog post” about it.
Mark, no offense, I don’t think anybody suggested that English are all the same, nor that these attitudes are in some way confined to this island, but my comments about current English culture aren’t random stereotypes, they are based on living here in England for a considerable fraction of my adult live.
There are many aspects about England I like, and then there are the ones noted above (and you don’t need to go very far to experience them).
Pingback: Why I’m not voting for McCain « Dark side of the mom
Very interesting issue here. I agree that the grizzly DNA statement from John McCain was tactless at best, and an indicator of stupidity at worst. What is objectionable about it is not only that it shows he cannot see any benefit in pursuing ideas he does not understand himself, which would prejudice him against science funding, but also his implicit appeal to some “right-thinking and normal”, bogus “people like me and you” majority. I don’t understand why this anti-intellectual attitude is so prevalent on the American right. I presume John Derbyshire was referring to the Clinton/Bush dichotomy, but it is interesting that the choice still more often than not seems to be between right wing, religion and stupidity on the one hand, and left wing, science, and impotent relativism on the other.
The snobs vs proles antagonism is not new – someone once said that against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain. The thing is that to be stupid is only human. But that is no excuse for complacency.
Wow, the snobbery here is amazing. Republicans hate intellectuals and science! Stereotype, much?
I’m sympathetic to their viewpoint, and neither Sean or any commenter understands their real objection. They don’t object to science. They want proof that the $3 million is well-spent money that taxpayers have provided. I’m not making statements about the rest of the government, so don’t change the subject.
Is a grizzly bear census and genetics study really a great way to spend $3 million? Sounds superfluous to me. I’m a scientist. I like science. But sometimes you gotta wonder: why do some people get so much cash to do stuff which very likely won’t have any practical use for anything? (And I say this in a cosmology den.)
Scientists need to to be extra thankful that they get to be scientists at taxpayer expense, when the taxpayers often get no benefit from what they do. So when some taxpayers show interest in what you do, it might be best to explain nicely how you are using their money instead of berating and ridiculing them mercilessly. I think that’s the problem here. The bear-ologists might want to contact the McCain campaign and justify the usefulness of their study. I’d like to hear it.
It’s not a “stereotype” when you are quoting people in their own words.
Sorry that you are unable, without making any effort, to understand the interest in the grizzly bear study. Did you click the link and read about it?
I hereby predict that the McCain campaign did not contact Katherine Kendall to ask what were the goals and prospects for her research, before running their ad. If they did, and they then spoke with other experts in the field, and came to a careful conclusion that this particular research was not the best use of Geological Survey funds, I’d be happy to post a full retraction.
If, on the other hand, they just wanted to make cheap jokes about DNA testing, then I’ll stand by the post.
Latest estimates about the total costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts 1.7 to 2.7 TRILLION Dollars.
I’m sure McCain has no problem spending that and then some.
e.
Pingback: Obama as Commander in Chief and McCain’s anti-intellectualism « blueollie
I’m not offended fh – I truly am amused. But just to be clear, you did say this was a typical English attitude, and I would take issue with that if I could just put down my can of Special Brew and put some pants on over these Union Jack boxer shorts.