You remind me of an interesting passage I read recently (from one of Ian Stewart's popularizations of math):
- - - - "Yes: the research worker usually works in a fashion which is far from logical, leaping to conclusions, leaving odd problems to be taken care of later, arguing by analogy, and making wild and unsubstantiated guesses. Yes: the rigorous, technical argument is usually filled in later. Yes: the intuitive ideas behind proofs are the true source of inspiration. Nonetheless, the technical grind is not just an afterthought: it is an absolutely essential part of the process. Without it, mathematics would collapse of its own weight. Without a firm framework of technique, and without the constraints imposed by rigour, the mathematician's intuition would lose its sharp edge, become dull and wooly, and fade into decadence.
"Much scientific [9] methodology (and, if only in this technical sense, mathematics is far more akin to the sciences than it can ever be to the arts) has been developed to overcome fatal flaws in the human psyche, of which the worst is a willingness to believe in something on too little evidence, simply because it would be nice if it were true. This is where mathematical rigour came from: particularly in the nineteenth century, attempts to dispense with it and argue by physical analogy or ill-founded principles derived from past habit came sadly to grief. Because scientific discoveries are so well founded, it has become possible to build on them."
[9] - "I exclude a number of self-styled 'sciences' of a recent vintage, whose assumption of that term has greatly devalued it." - - - -
It's nice when an "intellectual" is honest about how terribly easy it is to fall into this error. How they're not superhuman.
> Ridiculous as it may sound, this is actually the mechanism behind
> anti-intellectualism - linking personal troubles with wrong social forces.
> Most people are not dumb, they understand that their personal lives are
> affected by larger social forces. Where they fail however, is that they
> take "fast food for thought" explanations of those connections - just as
> they go to a fast food joint when they are hungry instead of looking for a
> better value. They do it because it is the easiest and most familiar way -
> go with what they think everyone else around them believes or eats.
I kind of shy away from the term "anti-intellectualism," just as I do with "anti-Americanism." Behind that term hides many assumptions, which I think many would disagree with if they were made explicit.
And when we meet intellectuals, it's not like they're all Chomskies or anything. Agree with him or not, Chomsky has a good standard of integrity (fortunately it's not unique to him), and people see it. He's not out to "convince," but rather to offer information. He's broad, in the sense that he can explain the underpinnings of how he acquired and evaluates his knowledge. And he'll quickly admit when The Opposition has a good point, generally proactively.
And why not ask people about their experiences with the intellectual class? (There's more people outside that class than in.)
Maybe try someone outside the US, like a German hotel receptionist I know. One type she singles out for special condemnation is the intellectual Fachidiot, the person who's clueless outside their specialty. This ignorance is particularly galling when combined with the typical arrogance of the intellectual class. The high-IQ Isaac Asimov illustrated this concept entertainingly: <http://www.haverford.edu/writingprogram/Asimov.html>
And personally, I needed a hard-won investment of "unproductive" time to simply gain a strong enough core of knowledge to fruitfully speak with intellectuals, with enough self-defense not to easily be taken advantage of by them. It's damn hard.
And part of that is being aware of the attitudes and mannerisms which "educated" classes (and those who like to associate with them) share. <http://disciplined-minds.com/>
Tayssir