Depends. Which ones?
From the original link in my first post:
^Scientists have failed to resist politicization across the board, and the standards of what constitutes science continues to shift from a living, vibrant, thoughtful understanding of the purposes and ways of science to a scelerotic hide-bound form-over-substance version of science where papers are too often written to either explicitly attract grants or to confirm someone's political beliefs...and regardless of whether this is 2% or 80% of the papers written today it's nearly 100% of the papers that people hear about.^
Italics mine. It's like some (not all!) of the scientists doing wildlife research after the Gulf oil leak. It became obvious that the grants that were quickly issued to these universities depended on them continuing to find problems.
I think a lot of people missed the point of that link in my first post. Certainly Wikipedia's "definition" missed it by a parsec. It's not about the concept of intellectualism, it's about what's being labeled as "intellectualism" when it's not.
Flame » in reply to Ya gotta wonder
Re: Wildlife Biologists?
The whole thread (26 posts)
- A defense of "anti-intellectualism"
- Intellectualism vs. Anti-intellectualism
- What is "intellectualism"?
- Re: A defense of "anti-intellectualism"
- Yeah, some people like the thought of "fixing" things...