Anti-Intellectualism and rejecting science

[C C]

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...g-science/

INTRO: As science-communicators and skeptics we are trying to understand the phenomenon of rejection of evidence, logic, and the consensus of expert scientific opinion. There is, of course, no one explanation – complex psychological phenomena are likely to be multifactorial. Decades ago the blame was placed mostly on scientific illiteracy, a knowledge deficit problem, and the prescription was science education.

Many studies over the last 20 years or so have found a host of factors – including moral purity, religious identity, ideology, political identity, intuitive (as opposed to analytical) thinking style, and a tendency toward conspiratorial thinking. And yes, knowledge deficit also plays a role. These many factors contribute to varying degrees on different issues and with different groups. They are also not independent variables, as they interact with each other. Religious and political identity, for example, may be partially linked, and may contribute to a desire for moral purity.

Also, all this is just one layer, mostly focused on explaining the motivation for rejecting science. The process of rejection involves motivated reasoning, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and a host of self-reinforcing cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias. Shameless plug – for a full discussion of cognitive biases and related topics, see my book.

So let’s add one more concept into the mix: anti-intellectualism – the generalized mistrust of intellectuals and experts. This leads people to a contrarian position. They may consider themselves skeptics, but they do not primarily hold positions on scientific issues because of the evidence, but mainly because it is contrary to the mainstream or consensus opinion. If those elite experts claim it, then it must be wrong, so I will believe the opposite. This is distinct from conspiracy thinking, although there is a relationship. As an aside, what the evidence here shows is that some people believe in most or all conspiracies because they are conspiracy theorists. Others believe only in some conspiracies opportunistically, because it’s necessary to maintain a position they hold for other reasons. There is therefore bound to be a lot of overlap between anti-intellectualism and holding one or more conspiracies, but they are not the same thing.

There is a new paper which sheds some light on anti-intellectualism itself. In a series of studies, researcher Eric Merkley found:

"I provide evidence of a strong association between anti-intellectualism and opposition to scientific positions on climate change, nuclear power, GMOs, and water fluoridation, particularly for respondents with higher levels of political interest. Second, a survey experiment shows that anti-intellectualism moderates the acceptance of expert consensus cues such that respondents with high levels of anti-intellectualism actually increase their opposition to these positions in response. Third, evidence shows anti-intellectualism is connected to populism, a worldview that sees political conflict as primarily between ordinary citizens and a privileged societal elite."

He concludes that anti-intellectual messaging affects how we process information. Let’s unpack this a bit. The first claim seems fairly straightforward and unsurprising – independent measures of anti-intellectualism predict opposition to mainstream scientific views, especially when there is a political implication. This implies that anti-intellectualism is a real thing, it is not just a label placed on those who reject consensus scientific views for perfectly valid reasons. It reflects a style of thinking that leads to or at least facilitates such rejection despite the evidence... (MORE)

[Syne]

Well, it's not Dunning-Kruger or lack of scientific literacy when Republicans rate higher on scientific knowledge than Democrats. Nor is anti-elitism, like that among populists, synonymous with anti-intellectualism. It tends to be the statements that go beyond what the straight science tells us that breed distrust. In such statements, it's the scientists' political/ideological views (or just the need to be eye-popping enough to publish) that bias the interpretation of the data. For instance, no one I know of disputes climate change. They dispute what the science cannot definitively account for, which is objectively open to dispute. No conspiracy or bias needed.

And people who distrust intellectuals is just because those intellectuals have discredited themselves, with their own bias. The replication crisis or Neil DeGrasse Tyson railing against Christians, for example.

[Yazata]

It's ironic that the author of the thing that CC quoted in the OP is a self-proclaimed "skeptic". (He even wrote a book on the subject.) Yet here he is denouncing as "anti-intellectual" people who show reluctance about credulously accepting arguments from authority.

I'm sure that if it was a theologian writing about miracles, this guy wouldn't just accept it. But when the authorities are "scientists", the demand is totally different. The demand is that people believe whatever they are told and the claim is that there is something wrong with them, some cognitive or even moral defect, if they don't.

Amazing how "skeptics" can turn their own principles on and off like that. It sure looks like hypocrisy to me.

gBb