Rick Santorum: A frothy mix of lies.

I was going to write about Obama eating a candy mouse today because it is cute and lighthearted. But then I read youaredumb.net and learned that Rick Santorum has a writing gig with the Philadelphia Inquirer. His first article? Rare welcome to a red-blooded conservative. Today is not a candy mouse day.

The youaredumb.net article covered in general the idiocy of the Santorum Article. One juicy tidbit of santorum, however, requires a rant all its own:

"It's an unfortunate fact that over the last decades, the institutional left - Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia - have not only become intolerant of dissent from their own orthodoxies, but also often attack anyone who espouses an opposing view."

Over the last few decades academia has become "intolerant of dissent" from its own orthodoxy and also often attacks anyone who espouses an opposing view?

...

This is something which often happened in the Theology classes I took in college. Persons would take a word such as "faith", which has at least seven different definitions, and completely ignore the seven different definitions. The person would pretend that every instance of the word "faith" means the same thing. This leads to the delightful, "I have faith that there is an invisible man living in the sky. You have faith that your employer who has paid you every other week for the past 3 years will pay you the next time a paycheck is due. Therefore we both use faith." argument.

That is what Rick Santorum has done with the word "orthodoxy" with regard to academia. In Rick Santorum's mind Religious orthodoxy and "scientists use empiricism" are the same thing. They are indistinguishable. I assume that this same "logic" would be applied to the ideas of evolution and creationism. They are both "theories", so they both belong in science classes.

Ok, that's not how words work. That's not how definitions work. That is not how argments work. These are not semantic debates; it is not the case that if one can find one word which applies to both sides of an argument the two sides become the same side. That's just idiotic rhetoric.

And even ignoring all of that, what the hell is Rick Santorum talking about? If we want to use the word "orthodoxy" with regard to academia what is the opposing view to academia's orthodoxy? In my experience the only orthodoxy I ever experienced in academia which was consistent throughout was, "People ought to read books, understand those books, discuss those books, and modify their world view to accomodate the new information." In what way is that problematic?

And as to academica attacking anyone who "espouses an opposing view"? Well...yes. But to espouse a different view is to say, "One oughtn't read books. One oughn't learn. One oughtn't ever change one's mind." So, yes, well-read individuals who spend their lives teaching and learning would probably attack that view. But, again, in what way is that problematic?

How would academia function in Rick Santorum's perfect world? In what ways ought academia be changed? What is, in Rick Santorum's mind, the orthodoxy of academia? What would be better than the present orthodoxy?

I mean, yes, adherence to an unfounded orthodoxy blinded by ignorance and uncompromising intolerance is wholly detrimental. Dedicating one's life to squelching new ideas and indoctrinating impressionable minds with lies is harmful to society. Attacking world views which differ from one's own and maintaining that one is the sole source of truth will lead to deterioration and death.

But between academia and Rick Santorum? I'm pretty sure academia isn't the party guilty of those acts.

I mean, this is Rick "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything" Santorum we're talking about. Rational thinking is not something at which is his adept.