Not just that he disagrees, he disagrees because Keynesian economics is some sort of complicated math infested trick compared to the common sense logic of Austrian thought.

Now that we've decided anti-intellectual is an insult obviously nobody is going to say they are one, but the entire Rothbardian wing is proudly and passionately anti-intellectual. There's a reason why Lew Rockwell's website has so many articles about creationism.

No they weren't.

I disagree as I think most of these people are not intellectuals.

Sounds good.

Wait, wtf, Ron Paul doesnt believe in Evolution?

Clarify please?

Does this definition only apply to the field of economics? Does it only apply to the current and/or previous century?

Also, you've been very vague about who makes up this 'intellectual establishment' so far. Of course everyone you have mentioned pejoratively has flaws in parts of their thinking or certain areas where they just get things incredibly wrong, but that's going to be the case to one degree or another with any person or thought process until all knowledge is discovered.

I define anti-intellectual as not having any intellectual curiosity. I consider anti-academic to be more in line with what Max and Fly are using the term for.

Using their terminology, I mostly agree with their argument. However, we are using different words.

Ron Paul is so old he would have witnessed evolution if it was real.

lol

No, the biggest reason why Galileo/Socrates were not anti-intellectual was because they were fully trained at a beyond world class level at any ideas that they went against.

For instance Galileo found a way to improve the Ptolemaic system
but he was much better versed in the Ptolemaic system than all the contemporary proponents of it. He probably was one of the top 50 humans in history in predicting planetary motion using doing Ptolemaic calculations (Copernicus and Kepler were probably 1 and 2).

So yes, when I said that the General was an anti-intellectual I should have added that I was assuming that he does not have a beyond world class understanding of Keynsian economics.... but for pretty much everybody here that goes without saying.

Keep in mind this originally started when somebody said libertarians were intellectuals and I said they were closer to anti-intellectual. I think i am using close to standard definitions or atleast reasonable ones even though I have not typed out a full definition which is non trivial.

dear everyone, and i am struggling to be polite now.

someone's name has ****ing changed for privacy ****ing reasons.

please cut that **** out.

And you probably think that (anti-academic)=(anti-intellectual) in alot of fields, like biology. The only difference here is that you sympathize with the anti people.

My bad. I thought it was a just for fun change. Thanks for letting me know so I know not to do it.

Not really. Hard sciences, I'm definitely cool with academics. I am a bit skeptical of authority in general, though. Obviously skepticism with authority is going to be a bit higher in anarchists/libertarians. I don't hold academics on pedestals and realize that everyone is biased, even when trying to be fair. My wife stays on top of biology journals and studies, and I am far more likely to trust them. I trust science very much. I don't trust junk science, though. The fields where someone is less likely to be biased or there is less likely to have political motivation, the easier it is to trust. Biologists may be biased in that if they are studying particular problems, they may play up the most extreme cases to get more attention/funding/support/awareness, but few parts of biology are in that position.

I'm also not a fan of wasting money studying useless crap, even if it's not junk. That's a whole different story, though. I admire the intellectually curious, but don't think we should be forced to pay for someone's curiosity if there is no real benefit coming from it.

I would make fun of ron paul not believing on evolution except that I dont know anything about biology, I basically failed every biology test on high school.

Pretty sure this is how the dictionary defines it too.

Anti-intellectual = the guy that goes "eh, **** talking about politics, lets just watch football!!!"

To call people who read ****ing Bastiat, Hayek, Rothbard, etc, "Anti-intellectuals" is thoroughly misusing the term. The people reading Dan Brown and **** like that aren't intellectual, but economic and political theory? Come on. Figure out a new word to describe whatever it is your trying to say. Anti-establishment, perhaps...maybe just 'anti-blatantly stupid theories"?

The main difference (in my mind) is that in those fields things like the scientific method tend to be adhered to a little more often. In the field of politics and political philosophy, however, conclusions tend to be parroted and accepted based on some combination of what makes people feel good, what is in their perceived best personal interest, and what conforms to their prejudices.

evolution is a fact. he is a doctor. there is almost no excuse.

also, there's no excuse for a doctor saying "its just a theory" like "theory" means "I have a theory about who farted" when in scientific terms, ****ing gravity is a theory. if he's a doctor he's taken a bunch of science classes and ****, he should know better.

But you would consider a person who doesn't know much about evolution but thinks it is obviously wrong and intelligent design is obviously correct an anti-intellectual? Even though they would claim to be just an anti-academic.

I think we would both say the anti-academic is just a cop out.

i believe in evolution just because some guys told me to not because I know any science behind it.

Right. I am not implying that all "academic" fields have the same standard as the hard sciences. Just that non serious critiques of both are about the same.

Frankly that should be enough. The split should be something like:

70%, believes it but doesnt understand it
25%, believes it and understands it
5%, doesnt believe it and refuses to try and understand it
(edit, i guess there is a rounded out number in there of people who understand the theories yet draw minority conclusions)

Evolution, especially in its most basic explanations, really isnt that hard a concept. But im not gonna mock people for not understanding those basics if at the very least they are willing to listen to the VAST majority of experts.

a more interesting question is what % know that evolution is a fact, think they understand it, but don't really understand it

all those people going "well, that's why lions evolved with tan fur, they needed it to survive better."

There are a few people who fit that regard who are involved in developing or studying what could loosely be dubbed 'libertarian theory,' but saying that anyone else has to stay out of the conversation until they're 'experts' on whatever flavor of thought the 'intellectual establishment' is pushing at the time seems like a fairly useless and stifling standard.

It just seems like it's been somewhat of a moving target in this thread, and a somewhat disingenuous definition of anti-intellectual at any rate. Especially when it's been implied that anti-intellectualism is the motivation behind 'libertarian' thoughts/theory* and that the same motivation is the motivation for christians. If that was the case (anecdotal evidence coming), I think I'd see fewer athiest 'libertarians' and fewer christian 'statists' in my personal life whereas (especially a few years ago in college) it seems like most of the athiests I knew also tended to be libertarian-leaning.

*not saying some of the people mentioned ITT aren't motivated by this, but the people who originally came up with the 'rational' portions of their thought processes most likely weren't.

I was just explaining why Galileo and Socrates were not anti-intellectuals. I certainly think Keynsian/mainstream economics is atleast like Ptolemaic astronomy, in that even if it is not correct, anybody smart enough to improve upon it will be a master of it. And nobody alive today in all of economics (or really all of science) warrants comparisons to Galileo. Not because Galileo is smarter than all of us but because we know so much more now.


I am trying to come up with a reasonable definition of it. I think people's main argument against it is "Hey.... wait a minute!! I'm not an anti-intellectual"

Fair enough. We get into some definitional problems here again, as in my undergrad, socialists who wanted drugs legalized called themselves libertarians.... which you guys would reject.

I don't know about this. I certainly think Hayek was not an anti-intellectual.... but Rothbard seemed to break with him later and I very much feel like Rothbard was an anti-intellectual (perhaps even a proud one), from some of his writings.