Intellectualism vs. Anti Intellectualism

It can also be a logical fallacy if used by someone who has to prove the legitimacy of an extraordinary claim (astrology, homeopathy, your latest fringe science movement of the week) and uses it to try to shift the burden of proof onto the other person.

Wicked: I fail to see how "I'm smarter than you on this, so I don't have to prove anything, lol" is not a fallacy.

edited 5th Feb '11 10:35:41 AM by SpainSun

Because experiencing the subject matter in your skin is not the only way to know about it and get a certain depth of understanding, which is the precondition that makes you able to make valid statements about the subject. Otherwise, say, psychologists wouldn't be allowed to explain madness unless they experience it themselves, and journalist couldn't analyze a conflict without joining one of the parties involved. I'll allow myself to be tactless here: You Should Know This Already.

Do not. Ever. End a post with that statement.

Topic: dodged.

I'm trying to be deliberately rude without being disruptive. I feel extremely angry when someone seems to imply the following: that just because I didn't experience something personally means I am not allowed nor fit to talk about it. Often because you are removed from an experience you can analyze and understand it much better than someone who is too busy being in the thick of the fray. It's called an outside perspective. This is literally the lifetime work of investigators, analysts, consultants, lawyers, judges, doctors, accountants, therapists...

edited 5th Feb '11 10:44:02 AM by Ardiente

However, I can also understand what's behind such claims; it's easy for someone to set themselves up as an expert without actually having more than the most superficial understanding. Even if they are a professional of impeccable reputation.

It's made worse by the attitude of some professionals and academics that under no circumstances should a view from the inside even be listened to, because "of course it's biased". It can end up with the ludicrous assertion that only those for whom it's not personal should be allowed to study, analyze and define it.

The reaction "if you're not X, you don't understand X" is the completely understandable reaction against outside experts who think they know better about what it's like to be X than the people who're actually there.

Sure, it's understandable, but that doesn't make it any more reasonable or right.

If people in group X perceive that the vast majority of those who aren't of their group talking about them are full of crap and get it wrong, it's empirically reasonable for them to do so.

I do feel that, if you don't understand something, any comment you make on it is likely invalid. It's one thing to understand the principles behind homeopathy and declare it to be bullshit; it's quite another to misunderstand it completely and dismiss it before you know what it is.

That's the problem I have with anti-intellectuals and their attitudes towards feminism, postmodernism, Death of the Author and numerous other concepts. I don't see myself as particularly intellectual, but I do at least avoid dismissing things which I don't fully understand. I don't fully understand set theory, but I wouldn't declare set theory to be useless or nonsense, which is how I see some people treating the more complex or nuanced concepts found in the humanities.

This argument is most infamous for being used by postmodernists.

Y'know, there's a certain irony there, given that postmodernism rejects objective truths.

It's made worse by the attitude of some professionals and academics that under no circumstances should a view from the inside even be listened to, because "of course it's biased". It can end up with the ludicrous assertion that only those for whom it's not personal should be allowed to study, analyze and define it.

It's also made worse by people outside of academics who refuse to listen to anecdotes entirely. The forum I mentioned way back on page one was very fond of this.

For example, according to them, the terrible neighborhood I grew up in couldn't possibly exist because the studies didn't support it's existence, therefore I was lying, and couldn't possibly voice my thoughts on minority gang activities (as in, the Latin Kings and other latino gangs).

So, even though I knew from experience that hispanic gangs exist, and that gangs traditionally lure in the vulnerable, I couldn't state that illegal or impoverished immigrants were quite likely to wind up in gangs, because there wasn't a study that specifically stated so. On top of that, after completely missing my point and attacking me for "the fallacy of arguing from anecdote" they started calling me racist.

^^You're honestly going to keep deluding yourself that, for someone to disagree with you, they have to not understand your position?

I don't dismiss DOTA because I don't understand it. I dismiss it because I think it's ridiculous.

There is a huge gulf between those two things.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:09:22 AM by SpainSun

I don't think I'm deluded.

I don't know why you think DOTA is ridiculous, so I won't make any assumptions about your reasons until you state them, but I find it difficult to see how somebody who understood the concept could dismiss it as such. It makes perfect sense to me.

You're still essentially saying that for someone to disagree with your position, they'd have to not understand it.

Before I set my wrath on you, I must ask: what is it exactly that you mean by "dismiss" and "ridiculous", and why do you think the attribute "ridiculous" as you understand it applies to DOTA and is grounds for "dismissal"?

^^ No, I'm saying I don't understand how somebody could dismiss Death of the Author as ridiculous unless they had misunderstood it. There may be perfectly valid reasons to dismiss the concept as ridiculous that simply haven't occurred to me, but nobody has ever told me them.

And most of the reasons I have heard have seemed like simple anti-intellectualism.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:17:33 AM by BobbyG

^^"Ridiculous" is something nonsensical, or simply incorrect. For example, if I said 2+2=22, that would be ridiculous.

"Dismissal" is me deciding that something isn't true.

And another thing, do not ever threaten me.

^Okay then, before we wander into the territory of semantics. Just tell me what you think Death of the Author is.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:18:05 AM by SpainSun

Death of the Author is in no way comparable to 2+2=22, which is objectively wrong. Death of the Author is a viewpoint, not an objective claim, and cannot be "untrue" in that sense.

The concept of Death of the Author originated in an essay of the same name by Roland Barthes, which argued that criticisms of texts should not regard the intentions and viewpoints of the author as parts of that text unless they were actually included in said text.

More generally, it means that any interpretation of the text can be considered a valid interpretation - not canon, which is something else altogether - providing it is possible to read the text and interpret it that way.

2 + 2 = 22 if + is the string concatenation operator. *whistle*

Death Of The Author is in no way comparable to 2+2=22, which is objectively wrong. Death of the Author is a viewpoint, not an objective claim, and cannot be "untrue" in that sense.

I'm going to assume you missed my point, and move on.

2+2 being 22 is an example of ridiculousness, not a definition of it. -_-

which argued that criticisms of texts should not regard the intentions and viewpoints of the author as parts of that text unless they were actually included in said text.

Okay, here's the part I have trouble with. I do not see how it makes any sense whatsoever to completely disavow the intentions and viewpoints of the author when analyzing what they wrote. Taking their intentions into account is critical to understanding what they meant for you to take away from what they wrote.

The only reason I can think of that this'd be valid is if you didn't care what the author meant for you to take away from what they wrote. In which case, fine, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the work you're analyzing. That has to do with you and what you took away from the book. What you took away from it wasn't necessarily what the author meant for you to, and at that point it's not an analysis of the work. It's an analysis of you. And thus, not an analysis of the book.

More generally, it means that any interpretation of the text can be considered a valid interpretation - not canon, which is something else altogether - providing it is possible to read the text and interpret it that way.

See above. To expand, I simply can't understand why you'd be concerned with anything but the valid interpretation, see above how I define valid.

I don't see any value in taking things from the text that the author didn't intend for there to be there. Unless you're looking for a reflection of the society of the time, but there are infinitely better ways to do that.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:31:43 AM by SpainSun

Okay, here's the part I have trouble with. I do not see how it makes any sense whatsoever to completely disavow the intentions and viewpoints of the author when analyzing what they wrote.

Bradbury has stated that Fahrenheit 451 is about how TV sucks. Most people treat it as an anti-censorship story. This is because it's more interesting that way.

Taking their intentions into account is critical to understanding what they meant for you to take away from what they wrote.

Why does what they meant matter?

@ Tzetze (post #69): No matter how much I talk about it, don't ever be fooled into thinking I understand math. But AFAIK, that seems like a question of semantics.

@ Spain: You don't have to completely disavow the viewpoints and intentions of the author; they make for useful context if you want to understand the author's view. However, if you wish instead to understand how people read texts, how they interpet them, which seems to me to be an equally valid enquiry, you must be aware that the canonical or intended reading remains often just one of many possible readings.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:33:59 AM by BobbyG

Bradbury has stated that Fahrenheit 451 is about how TV sucks. Most people treat it as an anti-censorship story. This is because it's more interesting that way.

How does how interesting it is matter at all?

Why does what they meant matter?

I explained that already;

The only reason I can think of that this'd be valid is if you didn't care what the author meant for you to take away from what they wrote. In which case, fine, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the work you're analyzing. That has to do with you and what you took away from the book. What you took away from it wasn't necessarily what the author meant for you to, and at that point it's not an analysis of the work. It's an analysis of you. And thus, not an analysis of the book.

tl;dr version: Because if you don't care what the author meant, you're not analyzing the work anymore. You're analyzing yourself & the book together. Which is a totally different thing.

However, if you wish instead to understand how people read texts, how they interpet them, which seems to me to be an equally valid enquiry,

Valid in the sense of "a worthy pursuit"? Sure, but you're not analyzing the work at that point, you're analyzing the people reading it.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:34:52 AM by SpainSun

Why should the more interesting interpretation not matter?

If a new technology is invented, must it only be used as its inventor intended? If a new song is written, must it only be played for the occasions that the songwriter intended?

The work remains the text that you apply your analysis to. You just do so mindful of the fact that the text may be interpreted in multiple ways.

edited 5th Feb '11 11:36:43 AM by BobbyG