> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts.
I agree with your point, but I suspect your choice of wording tells a little more of the story.
You said "facts", but given your skepticism of their veracity, I think "claims" or "propositions" is more apropos.
Consider the rhetorical difference of these two statements:
"Anti-intellectuals don't accept the facts."
vs.
"Anti-intellectuals don't accept the claims."
I would also question your use of the term "anti-intellectuals". I wonder if, at least for some of the persons to whom you apply that label, a better term is "skeptic".
Very good points. My own bias is to believe the claims of the scientific community and is thoroughly revealed in my language. Perhaps I'm the one being bilked.
Thanks. I think the discussion gets a little tricky because the groups "scientific facts" and "anti-intellectuals" are pretty broad categories.
I'm guessing that in a group of 1000 people that you would call "anti-intellectuals", some portion of them really do deserve that label.
Similarly, in the group of propositions you'd call "scientific 'facts'", some really are beyond reasonable dispute (i.e., Newton's laws in everyday-life settings). But that there are some other propositions which the academic community and their mouthpieces (New York Times, etc.) hold with unjustified confidence.
I agree with your point, but I suspect your choice of wording tells a little more of the story.
You said "facts", but given your skepticism of their veracity, I think "claims" or "propositions" is more apropos.
Consider the rhetorical difference of these two statements:
"Anti-intellectuals don't accept the facts."
vs.
"Anti-intellectuals don't accept the claims."
I would also question your use of the term "anti-intellectuals". I wonder if, at least for some of the persons to whom you apply that label, a better term is "skeptic".