Two serious problems with the article (though I didn't read every word). First, he says:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific.
This falsifiability criterion is what determines whether a theory is scientific, but there is a larger category of theories which are not all empirically testable yet are subject to rational criticism, and are therefore rational, though we must generally hold them with a lower degree of confidence than we do our scientific theories.
In fact, his very claim is an example of a rational yet non-scientific theory! For he himself has not provided us with the evidence it would take to prove his theory that evidence is necessary wrong! And so we see that there are meaningful, important ideas which can be judged on criteria other than evidence (in this case, internal contradiction, though that is far from the only criterion).
Second:
But the view that we all start out curious and creative, and have those qualities systematically stifled, fails to address some core questions. Why should it be possible to stifle these qualities at all? If there are people who see benefit from stifling curiosity and creativity, why should those benefits outweigh the benefits of encouraging curiosity and creativity? And assuming that there are people with a vested interest in stifling curiosity and creativity, why should they be able to prevail over those members of society who value curiosity and creativity? If curiosity and creativity are general traits of human beings, anti-intellectualism should be a rare and aberrant phenomenon. It should be regarded as a variety of mental retardation, or a condition as undesirable as impotence. The only possible conclusion is that there is something fundamentally wrong with this model of human nature.
This is certainly not the only possible conclusion. Only if you presume that human behavior never has unintended consequences must you think that someone must see themselves as "benefiting" from an act in order to do it. The simple fact is that our educational institutions do do tremendous damage to curiosity and creativity, and they do so despite having the exact opposite motivation.
Further, his examples of civilizations that failed to make various or other accomplishments (Sub-Saharan Africans, Romans, etc.) is only evidence that problem-solving is hard, and that the innate curiosity that human beings are born with is not enough. We need a good tradition of scientific and rational discovery to complement our innate curiosity, in order to create great things.
>>>>I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific.
>>This falsifiability criterion is what determines whether a theory is scientific, but there is a larger category of theories which are not all empirically testable yet are subject to rational criticism, and are therefore rational, though we must generally hold them with a lower degree of confidence than we do our scientific theories.
The essence of anti-intellectualism is when we say that there are subjects that are too deep or too laborious to discuss. Suppose we say that (1) empiricism is not empirically testable, and then say that (2) empiricism is true, and then say that (3) everything that is true must be testable. Now suppose someone were to come along and say that (4) It is the case that (1) and (3) are mutually exclusive. The shying away from statements/discussions like (4) is the essence of anti-intellectualism which spawns from all manner of modern philosophical beliefs. You'll notice a shying away of this type of discussion in the article. Not inspecting your true core beliefs is what anti-intellectualism is.
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific.
This falsifiability criterion is what determines whether a theory is scientific, but there is a larger category of theories which are not all empirically testable yet are subject to rational criticism, and are therefore rational, though we must generally hold them with a lower degree of confidence than we do our scientific theories.
In fact, his very claim is an example of a rational yet non-scientific theory! For he himself has not provided us with the evidence it would take to prove his theory that evidence is necessary wrong! And so we see that there are meaningful, important ideas which can be judged on criteria other than evidence (in this case, internal contradiction, though that is far from the only criterion).
Second:
But the view that we all start out curious and creative, and have those qualities systematically stifled, fails to address some core questions. Why should it be possible to stifle these qualities at all? If there are people who see benefit from stifling curiosity and creativity, why should those benefits outweigh the benefits of encouraging curiosity and creativity? And assuming that there are people with a vested interest in stifling curiosity and creativity, why should they be able to prevail over those members of society who value curiosity and creativity? If curiosity and creativity are general traits of human beings, anti-intellectualism should be a rare and aberrant phenomenon. It should be regarded as a variety of mental retardation, or a condition as undesirable as impotence. The only possible conclusion is that there is something fundamentally wrong with this model of human nature.
This is certainly not the only possible conclusion. Only if you presume that human behavior never has unintended consequences must you think that someone must see themselves as "benefiting" from an act in order to do it. The simple fact is that our educational institutions do do tremendous damage to curiosity and creativity, and they do so despite having the exact opposite motivation.
Further, his examples of civilizations that failed to make various or other accomplishments (Sub-Saharan Africans, Romans, etc.) is only evidence that problem-solving is hard, and that the innate curiosity that human beings are born with is not enough. We need a good tradition of scientific and rational discovery to complement our innate curiosity, in order to create great things.