It is an article of liberal ideology that, given a choice between two sets of propositions, people will accept the propositions rooted in a bundle of methodologies and traditions that adhere to liberal principles - skepticism concerning authority; a trust that evidence, when provided the proper context, speaks for itself; a preference and priority for reasonableness in discourse as opposed to boldness, for measured, tentative, contingent conclusions rather than bald assertions that are both sweeping and final. The reality is quite different, however. There are always those who believe all sorts of things for which no evidence exists, and seek in the wider world evidences that will bolster those beliefs.
A case in point is the persistent belief among many on the right that higher education is not about providing a set of intellectual tools and skills for living in and understanding the world. Rather, they insist, our colleges and universities are vast propaganda outfits, ideologically rigid, committed to a set of principles that are antithetical to our best traditions. For evidence, they point out that some of those who teach and publish are opposed to various principles others hold sacred, whether they are religious, social, or political. Ignoring the repeated demonstrations that higher education is about thinking, those who insist higher education is tainted beyond repair insist there are alternative narratives that are just as legitimate that run counter to those we receive from professors and intellectuals. Whether about evolution, or God, or American history, there are cottage industries out there dedicated to creating counter-narratives to the dominant constructs.
At Religion Dispatches, historian Paul Harvey reviews a book dedicated to "debunking" some claims made by a man named David Barton. Barton seems to see it as his mission to recast our understanding of Thomas Jefferson, his views on religion, race, and the relationship between the state and the churches and its citizens. Throughout the review, Harvey makes it clear that, while Throckmorton and Coulter (no relation!) have done a thorough, admirable job taking apart Barton's numerous assertions, he wonders if it is worthwhile. Precisely because, as Harvey makes clear, Barton and those who buy his books and attend his lectures and write glowing things about him on blogs are not the least interested in history or intellectual integrity or any of those things people in higher education consider as central to their vocations, what possible good does "debunking" do?
As the recent contretemps at the University of Virginia make clear, intellectual freedom just isn't something people outside our colleges and universities either understand or value. Convinced our educational institutions can and should be governed in much the same way as businesses, they are quite willing to destroy our best such places to prove their point. So, too, do people like Barton mock real historical inquiry, not in pursuit of understanding as a good in and for itself, but rather aping what they believe to be the actions of their ideological opponents. Convinced as they are that behind the paeans to the life of the mind lie some hideous, anti-American agenda, they feel absolutely not compunction pursuing their own counter-agenda, all the while doing violence to things like facts and reality and understanding.
I used to think it was possible, even necessary, to engage such folks as Barton at their weakest point: their writings. I used to think it necessary to make clear how many people present erroneous material as fact; how many peddlers of intellectual snake oil are out there, preying on a people swamped with information, looking for answers that make sense. Now, I couldn't care less. Let Barton spread his fertilizer; the folks who eat it up aren't going to listen to people who present arguments against him. I suppose there are those who feel it necessary to point out the many errors of fact and interpretation in Barton's works. I just don't think it's a job that everyone who encounters such nonsense should do.
If we're going to move forward as a people, we need to recognize that not everyone is going to come along for the ride. They are going to kick and stamp their feet; they are going to demand to be treated the way people who do actual intellectual work are treated; they are going to insist that they will hold their breath until they pass out unless people pay attention to them. Let them. Part of moving forward includes moving the conversation forward. Stopping every time someone says something stupid would mean the whole process grinds to a halt.
Our intellectual life is part of what makes us great. Getting in to heated "debates" with people like Barton, or making clear why the Board of Visitors at the University of Virginia are on a path to destroy a once great institution takes up valuable energy. The folks who follow Barton won't listen; UVa will collapse under its new leadership, and what of it? Responsibility includes recognizing that some people, alas, will never learn.
A case in point is the persistent belief among many on the right that higher education is not about providing a set of intellectual tools and skills for living in and understanding the world. Rather, they insist, our colleges and universities are vast propaganda outfits, ideologically rigid, committed to a set of principles that are antithetical to our best traditions. For evidence, they point out that some of those who teach and publish are opposed to various principles others hold sacred, whether they are religious, social, or political. Ignoring the repeated demonstrations that higher education is about thinking, those who insist higher education is tainted beyond repair insist there are alternative narratives that are just as legitimate that run counter to those we receive from professors and intellectuals. Whether about evolution, or God, or American history, there are cottage industries out there dedicated to creating counter-narratives to the dominant constructs.
At Religion Dispatches, historian Paul Harvey reviews a book dedicated to "debunking" some claims made by a man named David Barton. Barton seems to see it as his mission to recast our understanding of Thomas Jefferson, his views on religion, race, and the relationship between the state and the churches and its citizens. Throughout the review, Harvey makes it clear that, while Throckmorton and Coulter (no relation!) have done a thorough, admirable job taking apart Barton's numerous assertions, he wonders if it is worthwhile. Precisely because, as Harvey makes clear, Barton and those who buy his books and attend his lectures and write glowing things about him on blogs are not the least interested in history or intellectual integrity or any of those things people in higher education consider as central to their vocations, what possible good does "debunking" do?
As the recent contretemps at the University of Virginia make clear, intellectual freedom just isn't something people outside our colleges and universities either understand or value. Convinced our educational institutions can and should be governed in much the same way as businesses, they are quite willing to destroy our best such places to prove their point. So, too, do people like Barton mock real historical inquiry, not in pursuit of understanding as a good in and for itself, but rather aping what they believe to be the actions of their ideological opponents. Convinced as they are that behind the paeans to the life of the mind lie some hideous, anti-American agenda, they feel absolutely not compunction pursuing their own counter-agenda, all the while doing violence to things like facts and reality and understanding.
I used to think it was possible, even necessary, to engage such folks as Barton at their weakest point: their writings. I used to think it necessary to make clear how many people present erroneous material as fact; how many peddlers of intellectual snake oil are out there, preying on a people swamped with information, looking for answers that make sense. Now, I couldn't care less. Let Barton spread his fertilizer; the folks who eat it up aren't going to listen to people who present arguments against him. I suppose there are those who feel it necessary to point out the many errors of fact and interpretation in Barton's works. I just don't think it's a job that everyone who encounters such nonsense should do.
If we're going to move forward as a people, we need to recognize that not everyone is going to come along for the ride. They are going to kick and stamp their feet; they are going to demand to be treated the way people who do actual intellectual work are treated; they are going to insist that they will hold their breath until they pass out unless people pay attention to them. Let them. Part of moving forward includes moving the conversation forward. Stopping every time someone says something stupid would mean the whole process grinds to a halt.
Our intellectual life is part of what makes us great. Getting in to heated "debates" with people like Barton, or making clear why the Board of Visitors at the University of Virginia are on a path to destroy a once great institution takes up valuable energy. The folks who follow Barton won't listen; UVa will collapse under its new leadership, and what of it? Responsibility includes recognizing that some people, alas, will never learn.
5 comments:
Hell, what do I care? I can't help but notice all the people who whine and complain about the state of higher education almost always 1) have a degree themselves and 2) are spending $$$ to send their kids to college.
They clearly don't even believe the hokum they're peddling themselves. They just believe in selling it.
Yup. No one ever went broke underestimating the public's ignorance.
Just like you can't save an addict because only the addict can do that, so, too, you can't teach people not to listen to garbage. If they're too lazy to go out and check out any claim anyone makes for themselves, preferring to have crap dumped on their heads all the while being told it isn't crap, what can anyone possibly do to change that?
I was talking to Lisa this morning about the prevalence of places on the internet where people argue all sorts of stupid stuff. The existence of God, Bible translation, the canon, global warming, whether or not Neil Armstrong really landed on the Moon. Honest to God, you could waste your life away at places like this if you thought it necessary to "debunk" them.
There will always be nonsense out there. Accept that, and moving on will be much easier. Most of the time, the folks selling that nonsense are either in it for the money, or are just attention whores, or both. Like the latest wankfest over homosexuality Marshall Art is currently hosting, it's fun to watch in the same way a Dr. Johnson thought a woman preacher or a dog walking on its hind legs was fun. All the same, don't ask me to get involved because I'm just not interested.
Sometimes I think the internet was the greatest invention for moving society forward, not because it fosters the rapid movement of information, but because it is so effective at keeping the suckers busy poking each other with sticks so the rest of us can get to work moving the world forward.
If we can continue to make the internet a more immersive experience, we'll get to the point where they'll never leave the house. Perfect.
Stupid people who do not bother to check reality don't bother me. It isn't my problem that they spend too much money on a car that's a piece of crap because they don't bother to read Consumer Reports. It isn't my problem that they waste money on magnetic bracelets to cure their arthritis, or waste time and money on homeopathic hokum to cure their made-up syndromes because they've spent so long being so rabidly anti-scientific they wouldn't recognize reality if it hit them in the face.
They deserve what they get.
Turns out that "don't shit where you eat" is a cliche that works for the brain, thinking, and information too.
Just gave my favorite lecture of the quarter on the hydrophobic effect. In short the concept is that when oil and water unmix and form a two layers, it is because that is actually the state of *greatest* disorder on a molecular level. It only looks like 2 layers are ordered to our eyes at the macroscopic level. The world is really nothing like what we see. Solids are mostly empty space, layers of liquids are disorder, random movement of molecules causes order on the macroscopic level, etc., etc., etc.) The stupid people don't get that, so they're easy to lead around, PT Barnum-style.
But they keep spending money to send their kids to my classes and I'm fine with that. At least the kids have a chance.
The way things really are is boring. I've come to that conclusion. It's so much more fun to pretend to debate and discuss stuff we actually learned years, decades, centuries ago was beyond debate. So, we have people dedicated to "debunking" Darwin, when contemporary evolutionary theory doesn't really look that much like Darwin's original, although the basic framework is similar. We have folks who believe they are being wise and radical when they call the Christian God "the sky fairy" then demand we answer their unanswerable smackdown of all religion. There are people who do all these things and so much more and they get all sorts of attention.
Because that's what they want. They're three-year-olds who know how to type.
The only thing that bothers me a bit is when people who should know better keep going back to the well - fundamentalists are heretics! evolution destroys religion! the whole magnetic bracelet thing will cure arthritis/cancer/depression! - because, for some reason, they think it's necessary to "debunk" what other people think.
No. If you really believe that, you're delusional. If you don't believe it, and you're doing it to show the world how smart you are, get a talk show.
So, folks like you who do the boring grunt work of showing the way the world really is, no one pays any attention to you. It's just so much more fun to scream about shit they don't really understand because that's what kids do and it works for them, right?
That said, there is the occasional fun of just outright making fun of the silliness, as long as one doesn't take the exercise too seriously. My blog post today on the McCarthy-esque tactics of the fundies in my denomination, for example. As a creative exercise in fun, seeing just how precisely I can kick out the stool from under them in as concise and amusing way as possible can also be valuable for entertainment purposes only.
Post a Comment