top of page
  • Writer's pictureSam Wilks

Impact of Anti-Intellectualism on Academic and Scientific Advancements

In the discourse of societal progress, a paradox emerges. On one hand, the disdain for intellectualism and expertise threatens to undermine the very foundations of scientific enquiry and technological innovation. On the other hand, a growing scepticism has taken root, fueled by the real failures of contemporary intellectual elites to address pressing issues with accuracy and integrity. This scepticism is not without basis; instances of false assertions and consistently failing models, particularly concerning vaccine efficacy and climate change narratives, have eroded public trust in universities and academics. Such a complex landscape demands a nuanced exploration.

At the heart of this discourse lies the principle that for justice and societal progress to thrive, they must be grounded in a framework that balances fairness with an understanding of human nature and the realities of the world we inhabit. This balance is precarious, and when the scale tips too far in either direction, the consequences can be profound. Scepticism and distrust of scientific expertise, often labelled as anti-intellectualism, can indeed hinder technological and scientific progress. It leads to the rejection of well-established scientific facts, like biological facts; the spread of misinformation, like gender as a social construct; and a general reluctance to embrace new technologies or understandings that could propel society forward, like child mutilation as a form of good parenting.

However, this scepticism does not emerge in a vacuum. It is, in many cases, a response to the real and factual failures of the intellectual elite. The instances where models have failed to predict outcomes accurately, where the promised efficacy of interventions has fallen short, and where the narrative of consensus has been used to stifle legitimate debate have all contributed to a climate of distrust. This is particularly palpable in the realm of public health and environmental policy, where the stakes are high and the decisions made by the few have profound impacts on the many.

In Australia, and more specifically in the Northern Territory, these dynamics play out in unique and instructive ways. The Northern Territory, with its vast landscapes and small, dispersed population, presents a microcosm of the broader challenges facing the scientific and intellectual community. Here, the impact of climate change is not an abstract concept but a tangible reality affecting communities, ecosystems, and industries. Yet, the narrative around climate change and the proposed solutions often faces scepticism, not just from those ideologically opposed but also from those who have witnessed the failures and inconsistencies in the models and predictions presented by the scientific community. In over 40 years of climate modelling, they have not accurately predicted any, not one, local environmental event. Predictions made when I was a child of snow falling in Darwin are as credible today as they were when they were made, not at all.

Similarly, the response to public health crises, such as the global pandemic, has laid bare the complexities and limitations of relying solely on qualified expert opinion. In remote communities, where access to healthcare is limited and traditional knowledge systems still hold sway, the one-size-fits-all approach to public health interventions has often met with resistance. This resistance is not merely a rejection of modern medicine but a response to a system that often appears disconnected from the realities of those it seeks to serve. The excess deaths due to the imposition of an experimental vaccine require real accountability, yet the very architect that led to those excess deaths has been promoted, not imprisoned.

This brings us to a critical juncture. How does society move forward in an age where scepticism of intellectualism is at an all-time high and the credibility of experts is continuously called into question? The answer lies not in the dismissal of scepticism but in understanding its roots and addressing the legitimate concerns it raises. It requires a reevaluation of how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated, and implemented. Experts and academics must engage in introspection and acknowledge where they have fallen short. They must strive for greater transparency, admit uncertainty when it exists, and actively work to rebuild the trust that has been eroded. There needs to be greater methods to hold these false predictors to account, whether that be civil, criminal, or regulatory accountability. When the stakes are so high and people's lives and livelihoods are in balance, these individuals, often parasites that rely on taxpayer funds to survive, must face some sort of punitive action.

Furthermore, the discourse around scientific and technological advancements must be inclusive. It must recognise and value different forms of knowledge and experience, from the traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities to the on-the-ground insights of those directly impacted by policy decisions. This is not to say that all opinions are equally valid or that scientific consensus should be disregarded. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that a more holistic and nuanced understanding of the world often emerges when different perspectives are brought together. The truth is that competent private entrepreneurs, not elites or academics, have engineered almost every significant advancement in human history.

The impact of anti-intellectualism on scientific and technological progress is a complex issue that cannot be fully understood without considering the context in which scepticism emerges. While distrust of expertise can hinder progress, it often stems from real concerns and failures of the intellectual community. Addressing this challenge requires a concerted effort to rebuild trust, embrace transparency, and foster a more inclusive discourse. As society navigates the complexities of the 21st century, it is imperative that both experts and the public engage in a constructive dialogue that acknowledges past failings, embraces complexity, and seeks a path forward that is informed by a broad range of perspectives and experiences. Only through such open dialogue can the delicate balance between scepticism and trust be restored and the path to progress be cleared.

Even amidst the myriad failures of the scientific community, the propagation of falsehoods, and the pursuit of financial agendas often detrimental to both communities and the human condition, we must avoid discarding valuable insights along the way. The onus is on university lecturers, academics, and professors to partake in public discourse without succumbing to the trepidation of potential backlash. History has consistently demonstrated that a consensus of opinion is rarely synonymous with the best course of action. These educators must impart not only their knowledge but also the process and reasoning behind their conclusions, thereby fostering an environment where merit and intellectual rigour are paramount. The liberty to select one's path of study, particularly paths that contribute to, rather than detract from or render no value to, one's intellectual and societal growth, is indispensable in navigating and advancing in this modern era.

As someone deeply invested in adult education, my commitment is not merely to the process but to the tangible outcomes of my instruction. It's disheartening to witness countless individuals, often burdened with substantial debts from their Australian university education, struggle to find meaningful employment in their fields of study. This disjunction between academic preparation and market viability is stark. In contrast, through a succinct two-week course—a mere fraction of the cost and time of traditional academia—I've managed to guide students into gainful employment, often outstripping the earnings potential of their original academic pursuits. My focus is on teaching competence and practical application rather than abstract theory. As a trainer and assessor, the responsibility rests heavily on me to ensure that my students leave not just with knowledge but with the requisite skills to secure employment and add real value in the practical world. From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

6 views0 comments


bottom of page