Reason as progressive scientism

Mr Gitlini has an article in the chronicles of higher Education that shows why some fear that academic organizations prefer ideology over reason....He uses this book review to tell his fellow professors that they need to revitalization and go out and preach repentence to the ignorant.

You see, Gitlin essentially is lamenting the ignorance of the hoi polloi, and to prove his point, he equates reason to scientism, religion to Jerry Falwell, and conservatism to David Horowitz.

This is a trick of rhetoric, not logic or "reason". Gitlin erects a straw man, and then knocks them down and then says he "wins" the argument". But he doesn't win, because he has framed the argument to win by ignoring the argument, instead relying on the caricature of soundbite TV as a straw man to destroy.

Take stem cells. Gitlin dismisses those opposing embryonic stem cells as "jettisoning scientific judgement". Has he actually READ John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Charles Krauthammer, or Leon Kass, who are able to give nuanced arguments on the problem of destroying human life for a potential benefit to other human lives?

A similar argument is about evolution, where he dismisses all those opposing narrow Darwinism as superstitious clergy, again using Falwell as a straw man.

He laments that "dissenting liberals" need to stand for reason against ignorance, and then lists a long line of social and political policies that he disagrees with. Fine. I disagree with some of them too. But that does not mean they are the "enemy" and it does not mean I demonize them with namecalling and by distorting their ideas.

What Gitlin needs to learn is his own philosophical basis for assuming other are ignorant.

Philosophy 101, please.

One: Gitlin blasts "fundamentalism". Since he does not mention any other type of religion, one assumes he places all religious belief in that catatory.
Jerry Falwell is religious.
Jerry Falwell is ignorant.
Therefore, all religious people are ignorant.
What's wrong with this line of logic?

Behind the argument is the unproven assumption that only the material is real. No, Gitlin doesn't say it. But his entire argument is based on this assumption. Notice all the stuff about standing for "reason". But what does he mean by reason? Science?

Laypeople assume what science teaches is True....But actually Science does not assume only the latest scientific theory is truth...

Actually no. We observe something, and then propose a theory to say why things happen. Someone else checks out what we observed, and then tries to see if the experiment agrees with our theory. If it does, it is taught as science. Very useful. But when later experiments show something different, we scientists are supposed to be humble enough to revise our theories. Because we respect the truth, and seek truth.

Science is merely a way to discover truth. Philosophically, science does not assume that the scientific method is the only way to perceive the truth....Those who assume that belong to the "religion" of scientism. Nor does science assume only the material exists. Those who believe that belong to the "religion" of materialism.

I say "religion", because they are basing their philosophy on an unproven assumption, that only that which can be observed by the scientific method is true. That in itself cannot be proven!

As the saying goes: They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

You might think: Of course, only what can be measured is real. Really? Are Angels unreal because we can't "see" them scientifically? If you assume that, then remember that radio waves were "unreal" before the radio was invented...Is the reality of radio waves or angels dependent on our perception of them, or do things exist independently?

And a second, related assumption is that only the material is real.
Ah, but what about love, or poetry, or hope? Plato, anyone? Or don't they teach him anymore?

Remember the old question:If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound? Answer: It produces sound waves. That is the scientific answer. Define the word sound and I will answer your question. Sound is how you perceive the fall. But the sound of a tree falling is more than sound waves. It is sorrow over the death of a living tree. It is terror and fear that the dead tree might increase risk of forest fire. It is the symbolism of the fall, for the falling of a tree reminds us of our own death. And it is the worry and fear that it might have fallen on your child. None of these are within the realm of the scientific method, but they are real nevertheless...

The final problem with Gitlin's arguments are that the academics need to teach us. I agree. Academics can teach us that we need to be honest, recognize nuances in discussion, the need to seek what is true, etc.

But of course, what Gitlin wants academics to teach is the progressive ideas held by most liberal academics. Essentially he is saying: Go and preach my religion.

Why does he assume all in academia belong to his religion? Hmmm...maybe Horowitz has a point...

You see, the essay is a book report. So most of the ideas in the essay might not be Gitlin's. What disturbs me is how Gitlin blithely quotes authors and criticizes what the authors say.

You see, it's hard to know what the books actually say. Gitlin quotes a lot of statements of inflammatory rhetoric, and he then lambasts their rhetoric with his own inflammatory rhetoric..

What is missing is no one is saying: This writer is using inflammatory language to discuss his theme. The writer denounces those who oppose his ideas by using personal attacks and name calling. The writer has presented no proof of what he says, nor does he recognizes the nuances of academic ideas. What is missing is the discussion of the ideas in the books. If they are as one sided and biases as Gitlin tells us they are, then why would an academic press publish such bosh? And if they are not, then why can't we have a reviewer discuss the ideas in the books? And finally, why did a respected academic journal publish a review full of childish name calling?

And finally, in summary, Gitlin criticizes his fellow leftist academics for being out of touch.

"....Neither do reformers' intermittent attempts to eject the party of plutocracy and fundamentalism from power, to win universal health care, to protect the planet from further convulsions, to enlarge the rights of the least privileged. If more academics deigned to work toward reforms, they might contribute ideas about taxes, education, trade, employment, investment, foreign policy, and security from jihadists..."

Gitlin says they are out of touch. Well, dang it, maybe you should start by...discussing ideas. Why does Gitlin assume academics who work toward reform are leftists? I would say that the most radical ideas in the last fifty years have come out of the University of Chicago than from Harvard? I wonder if Gitlin has read Hayek? Does he know who Alan Greenspan is? Ben Bernacke?
No, probably not. Because his universe doesn't know about powerful thinkers outside of their small self pollinating circle.

But there is a more disturbing assumption: That academics, because they are smart and intelligent and know more have the right to lead us.

As an American, could I point out that this goes against the idea behind the American founding fathers: Who felt that the judgment of many normal free people who discuss a matter will eventually come to a wiser decision than the decisions of philosopher/kings.

So, Todd, go down to Oklahoma and talk to some ignorant hoi polloi at the Bluestem Cafe.
Yes, I know they are ignorant Okies. I suspect you will find them less articulate but having a wider range of opinions than you hear among your friends in NYC.

See that large Indian joking over there? He has a masters degree, was a Green Beret, speaks Hmong, and is a tribal commissioner. Or that small quiet guy with the glasses? He's an MD and a well known artist. Or that cowboy there? He's not a cowboy. He's an oil worker who has worked in Venezuela and Nigeria and can take apart and reassemble an oil rig. Or that lowly housewife has raised three kids, knows how to clean, cook, balance a budget, and can tell you about the Lord Jesus healing her life.

And, unlike your essay, they will not call you names because they disagree with you.
You see, unlike you, they still value civility in Oklahoma.