The anti-intellectual intellectuals

" Plato is my friend, but truth is my greater friend." - Aristotle

The following scene unfolded today on the bloodied digital arena for public discussion – Facebook.

The main characters are:

Professor A– a prominent mathematician, sociologist and respected intellectual in Bulgaria;

Professor B– political scientist, one of the most consistent conservative thinkers and a respected intellectual in Bulgaria;

Professor V– political scientist, lecturer at Sofia University, program director of one of the most influential think tanks in the Balkans and a respected intellectual in Bulgaria;

Me - an unbiased observer, a poor political science student writing my bachelor's thesis, striving through science to understand what is really going on in this confused world we live in.

The topic of discussion is the current problem of terrorism, immigrants and Islam.

Action one:

Professor B quotes Professor A's statement without any context – “ These people (it is not clear who exactly) are another biological species… They despise us…”. By themselves, without context, this quote is useless. The unbiased observer cannot tell whether Professor A said these things publicly in a heated racist temper or as a joke while drinking his afternoon coffee.

However, Professor B accepts the former by presumption and indignantly comments: "The explanation of cultural differences by biology has a specific name, inherited from the mustachioed man of the 20th century. Professor, our role as public opinion leaders is to preserve humanism and respect for the human person in all circumstances. Racism should be condemned - not encouraged."

Here the unbiased observer would be confused. What is the specific name of the theory explaining differences in cultures with biological signs? Who is the mustache guy from the 20th century? Hitler? If it is Hitler – then the theory should be Nazism.

What about science? Is every scientific study that finds a connection between human biology and human culture Nazism? And if so, does that mean that it should not be published and analyzed, but simply rejected for its conclusions?

Professor B does not provide answers to these logical questions.

Action two:

Professor B quotes Professor B's "analysis," sharing his outrage and using the occasion to emphasize the need for political correctness: "So what did we have to say against 'political correctness'?" This has a dual effect, as it both condemns Professor A's as-yet-unproven racism and kicks Professor B in the nuts (since he is an opponent of political correctness). Kills two birds with one stone.

Here I intervene, commenting on Professor B's analysis and pointing out that the connection between culture and biology is not so obviously implausible. As an example, I give the studies of Richard Lin and Tatu Vanhanen from 2002 and 2006, which found that the average IQ (a biological trait) varies quite a bit between different countries and that certain IQ values correspond to countries with a certain type of dominant culture and racial group: "There is some reason to explain cultural differences in terms of biology. IQ varies between different races and regions."

The studies and publications I cited total 500 pages. However, instead of producing a critique of the data, a logical counterargument, or introducing himself to the research he is unfamiliar with, Professor B counterattacks with a threatening sophism: “ I think you have come very close to hitting rock bottom here – and my tolerance has broken ! You quite boldly state hypotheses that are completely unsupported by these data – where correlations have been established, you find causal dependencies without a single argument. Well, I hope your colleagues have explained to you the difference between correlation and causation .”

Action three:

It is obvious to me that there has been some confusion. So far I have not hypothesized that biology has causal consequences on culture. All I have done so far is comment on Professor B's analysis, emphasizing that we cannot so easily dismiss biological factors and citing data to support the comment. I decide to clarify: " I am not claiming that there are causal relationships between culture and IQ (I am still studying this). I argue that the thesis that biology can have an impact on culture does not sound 100% implausible. In other words, what Professor B said, that the idea that biology and culture are connected is Nazi, is a bit exaggerated. ”

But it is clearly too late. Again without data, without analysis and without arguments Professor B tells me the following: “The idea is Nazi, and not only that – it is racist. Professor A is not even racist – he dehumanizes other races by claiming that they are a different biological species – this goes beyond the claims of racism .” It is clear that this is how things are – the idea is Nazi, racist and that’s it. And anyone who dares to discuss it will be called a Nazi and a racist until they give up and apologize.

Scientific debate? Arguments supported by data and logic? Freedom of speech? These ideas are being cast aside because of the fear of scientific discovery. A fear that has punished great scientists in the past by irrational societies.

Puzzled, but still hoping for a meaningful intellectual discussion, I continue: “ There needs to be a meaningful fact-based debate in society. I really don’t understand how someone can demonstrate data and instead of having the facts refuted, be called a racist/fascist/Nazi, etc. Aren’t we scientists? We need to follow the data. ”

However, Professor V's response shatters these naive dreams of mine: " When you thoroughly research the issue by publishing a scientific report in a reputable publication, I may even bother to answer you - until then, I think I will ignore such unproven - and rather dusty, in fact - hypotheses. You received a significantly more reasoned answer than what you wrote deserves - you did not make the necessary effort to even find plausible literature and data to support your hypothesis. That's it from me. Good afternoon."

From this comment by Professor B, we can logically conclude the following:

1. For my argument to be valid, I do not have the right to cite research that has already been done, I can only cite my own original research and articles.
2. Professor B's subjective opinion is the only thing that determines whether a scientific paper is valuable or not, even when Professor B has not read it.
3. To deserve the right to have an intellectual discussion with Professor B, I would have to be a renowned intellectual like him. Ordinary plebeian students are not worth the "effort."
4. An argumented thesis is not an axiom of intellectual debate, but something that must be "earned" by someone (it is unclear by whom and why).

Conclusions

You might think this is an isolated case, but it is not. The debate in the social sciences is dominated not by scientists, but by ideologues. The professors mentioned above are a clear example of this, but there are many others. It is obvious that data, facts, logic and reason are secondary, and the beliefs and political agenda of the particular “scientist” are decisive.

Keep in mind that these people are very influential in our society. They are constantly invited by the media to comment on one social issue or another, the ruling class regularly relies on their advice, businesses consult with them, thousands of leva are invested in their research, and they are relied upon to educate the next generation of intellectuals.

But can we even talk about quality science and education if those whose duty it is to develop them are irrational ideologues? Or will we only get propaganda disguised as science?

And can we expect a quality and sober debate on sensitive public issues if our most respected social scientists respond to arguments supported by data with ad hominem attacks and sophistry? Or will we only get a merciless speech?

As a society, it is time for us to reject the personal authority of anti-intellectual intellectuals and embrace the scientific method, logic, reason, and data wherever they lead us. Only then can we take a decisive step forward in our development.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!