Ideology versus ideologues

From JC’s (un)motivated reasoning by Judith Curry. I liked this paragraph.

Every human has ways that they filter information based on some general principles – one can call this an ‘ideology’, but it is mostly a function of the society/culture that you live in, what you have read, etc. Individuals are more or less influenced by the ambiguities of a general ‘ideology’.

The German weltanschauung captures more of this accumulative nature of filtering, as opposed to a static and unchanging doctrinal filter.

This filtering of information based on accumulative general principles is not dissimilar to William James's focus on habits.

All our life, so far as it has definite form, is but a mass of habits,—practical, emotional, and intellectual,—systematically organized for our weal or woe, and bearing us irresistibly toward our destiny, whatever the latter may be

Curry goes on to make a very valuable point.

The problem for science is with ideologues (not with someone’s vague background ‘ideology’). I discussed the problem with science ideologues in one of my earliest blog posts No ideologues, quoting Nick Darby:

I have for many years been a student of the corrosive effects of ideology on science. This was prompted originally by works of Jacob Bronowski, Primo Levi, Charles Mackay, and an abiding interest in the history of I G Farben. As a guide, primarily for myself, I developed a set of characteristics of ideologues, to better recognize and interpret their behavior. (These are based in part on some ideas of John Ralston Saul in his “Unconscious Civilization”).

There are five attributes of ideologues:
1. Absence of doubt
2. Intolerance of debate
3. Appeal to authority
4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur

Note that each of these characteristics is anathema to science.

In the climate communication world, it has become very trendy to wear your political ideology on your sleeve. How many ‘climate science communicators’ can you name that have at least 4 of the above attributes of ideologues with regards to climate change?

I have been using unsatisfactory language to address observable patterns of discourse.

I have been referring to people with faith-based beliefs, not religious people per se, but people who believe things to be true which are either not true or are not demonstrably true. They take their beliefs as a given without acknowledging that their thinking derives from an unproven or unprovable assumption.

I have been referring to people who subscribe to postmodernist positions. The problem with this framing is that they would not recognize that their positions as postmodernist. They would not be able to articulate postmodernism and don't recognize postmodernism's derivation from various totalitarian antecedents such as Marxism, Frankfurt School, Deconstructionism, etc. The various postmodernist positions which we routinely see advanced include a belief in institutional racism, an obsession with inequality, a cultivation of victimhood, an insistence on group identities, a belief in heritable guilt, etc. People clearly hold these postmodernist positions but how can someone be a postmodernist if they do not know what postmodernism is?

I think Curry has hit the nail on the head. It is not that these people are postmodernists; they are ideologues about selected postmodernist positions. It is a fine distinction, but it better fits the observable dynamic.

You can see it especially well on some of our universities where small cables of ideologues (holding postmodernist positions) combined with extremely weak administration leadership create the impression that all our precious universities are circling the drain. And certainly they are at risk. But it is not that the administrators are Marxist postmodernists; they are simply weak and unwilling to defend what is important. And it is not that the student bodies are red in tooth and claw postmodernists. Most want to have a good time, find themselves, find a mate, and find a good job. A weak minority of passionate ideologues combined with weak executive leadership creates the impression of imminent catastrophe.

Darby's checklist is great.

1. Absence of doubt
2. Intolerance of debate
3. Appeal to authority [and, I would add, an over-reliance on ad hominem and straw man arguments]
4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur

What do we see at Berkeley, Missouri, Oberlin, Yale, Brown, etc.? Absence of doubt, intolerance of debate, appeals to authority, a desire to convince others of an ideological belief, and a willingness to punish others with different views.

And in the mainstream media. And in the entertainment industry. And in politics. But not so much in everyday life.

Perhaps it is not so much that postmodernist ideology has become ensconced in mainstream media, entertainment, universities, etc. Perhaps it is only that ideologues have become ensconced and that the postmodernism is incidental.

Food for thought.