That lyric, in isolation, isn't anti-intellectual. But it's followed by "and I don't wanna talk to a scientist, y'all motherfuckers lyin' and givin' me shit".
Just wanted to clarify a harmless misquote - the corrected is: "and I don't wanna talk to a scientist, y'all motherfuckers lyin', and gettin' me pissed"
The correction draws you into the mindset of a killa fuckin' clown writing lyrics in criticism of an alleged killa fuckin' scientist abusing his/her socially granted authority.
Sure, Scientists can "give him shit", that's fine as it is, but in my opinion, in the corrected form, Shaggy expresses a bit of anger and resentment: "gettin' me pissed".
The corrected, to me, conveys an active and growing defiance. whereas the misquote suggests a passive complacency.
Rather than accepting allegedly fraudulent claims (in this case, the infamous inner workings of magnets), I believe he is offering an allusion of menace to the scientific community members that would mindfully work to subdue his demonstrated and consciously limited, yet poignant, understanding of the nature of reality.
Although some might consider that in poor taste and perhaps ignorant, I believe he is expressing the autonomous freedom of thought awarded to us all by virtue of birth.
Science is a bliss I truly appreciate and I long for keen minds to show me new and exciting discoveries where I can offer in kind in my own studies.
Indeed an interesting conversation. Hope more of y'all chime in on this.
Exactly. The singers are looking out at the world. They don't know how it works, but it's awesome. To them, reducing the mystery through science makes it less miraculous. But, they are mistaken.
As Feynman said, "It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it."
I agree and refer to my statement of Shaggy's, in my opinion and observation, "demonstrated and consciously limited, yet poignant, understanding of the nature of reality."
In that interview, Violent J (one half of the Insane Clown Posse) verbally pointed out my statement when he is offered a book that, in the interviewer's mind, would answer the question: "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work!?"
They are aware of the scientific observations, and presumably agree to the validity, yet they, for reason of their own merit, justly decide not to indulge.
I would make a selfish request, not to take away from their proven and successful prowess, that they educate themself, if for anything, to spite the haternation. I am in Love with Insane Clown Posse, and would not prove it otherwise.
But scientific fraud is extremely common, more than half of peer reviewed journal published research results are wrong, and many if not most professional scientists do research to support a corporate or political agenda. Saying that scientists are liars is not inaccurate, as a general statement, because many scientists are indeed liars, particularly that they claim things which are not true, which is certainly true per Ioannidis (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...).
As applied to specific scientists it is not necessarily true, but the lyricist does use a collective addressing form. In the loose poetic form of a song "y'all" is not generally interpreted to mean all in a strict mathematical sense, but is a plural second person pronoun that addresses those it addresses.
The generally accepted definition of 'liar' is not someone who says something that is wrong, but rather, someone who knowingly says something is wrong.
Note that only the third definition is the purely factual
one. When you are using the word 'liar', you are typically implying the first two. (People differ as to whether spreading a lie makes you a liar).
Now typically in science, you only get accused of lying if you intentionally misrepresent your data. This is _not_ what the linked to article says is happening.
For those interested, here's a somewhat more digested summary of the paper (with a few caveats mentioned):
