Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the anti-intellectual sentiment is a bit broader. I'd define it as, "Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do." The anti-intellectual movement is the belief that everyone is biased, and since everyone is biased their scientific position is no more correct than mine. This started more than a decade ago, and I used to joke…
"Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do." Just because you've studied something your entire life doesn't make you right 100% of the time. "All those papers published in science journals are by Democrats!" The problem? Many scientific studies are also political in nature and slant to one way, which is why I start to question ma…
I don't know if Wiles did or did not prove FLT. I've seen the proof, don't understand it. Do I believe it -- I believe that a good faith convincing effort has been made. For most things I know in life that is also what I believe. I haven't confirmed really anything about the periodic table or much about quantum physics our sun or even more basic things like the gravitational pull of things not as large as the Earth. I do generally believe what others have told me (and the fact that they "say" they've done experiments), especially if they have a history of telling me things that are consistent with other things in my life.
And to be clear it's not about people claiming to be smarter than you. It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge.