The Anti-intellectual Problem of Anti-elitism

As I’m new here, one of my objectives on Substack will be as a repository to move and repost much of my original content from FB over the last 13 years where it languishes in obscurity and descends into the abyss of a Facebook feed, never to be seen again.

Another objective is to develop my ongoing and longtime thesis which I have coined the Revenge of the Layperson as a framework for trying to understand the times we live in.

I will also shortly be publishing an introduction so you know what The Scientific Skeptic represents and who I am.

The below essay was posted in December 2024.

A very common anti-intellectual stance is to either argue that knowledge is not a thing, that humans cannot acquire such a thing, that it is wholly a subjective thing, or that ignorance, intuition, and opinion are somehow equal or even superior to knowledge.

Another common anti-intellectual stance is to see every issue as merely binary, good or bad, dangerous or beneficial, right or wrong with no ability to understand complexity, nuance, and the probabilistic nature of so much of life and our understanding of our universe.

A good example of anti-intellectualism is the inability of people to understand that words can have different meanings in different semantic contexts.

Elitism is one of these words.

One form of elitism is believing that some superficial quality like owning a BMW, purchasing an overpriced dessert coffee, or being born to generational wealth means you are better than everyone else and somehow deserve more rights or political power than others.

That form of elitism is loathsome and illegitimate.

There is, however, another form of elitism which argues that a highly experienced airline pilot is more likely to safely land a 747 than a brain surgeon and a brain surgeon more likely to successfully remove a brain tumor than a pilot.

We subscribe to the latter meaning of elitism and loathe the former.

Is it possible that the pilot or brain surgeon can be wrong about claims in their respective domain? Of course.

Is it possible that the pilot or brain surgeon has something of value to contribute about the other's domain of knowledge? Sure.

Novel ideas can certainly come from anywhere and can often promote new thinking by those most equipped to synthesize new information and add to our collective knowledge base.

The real snowflakes are those who don't accept this latter meaning of elitism and believe their ignorance or privileges somehow qualify them to not only ignore the value of the pilot and neurosurgeons' views but to consider theirs somehow more relevant.

Anti-intellectualism is in the ascent and the lords of unreason are angry for being ignored and wish to remake society in their image, whether would-be oligarch or layperson, respectively.

As humanists, we should try to find and establish policies, norms, and values which address any legitimate grievances of the disenfranchised and proudly ignorant in an effort to help everyone find dignity and self worth in our global society.

But if your intellectual and moral confusion leads you to promote regressive and harmful values or objectively false claims, you are a threat to the progress and survival of our species.

If pointing that out is considered rude, elitist, or somehow a violation of your misguided understanding of free speech and the right to an opinion?

We have a problem, Houston, and here are some tissues for your issues. It's not all about you.