As part of my self-imposed continuing education requirement, I read a book called Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. It came highly recommended from some random blogger who said it was the best book on the subject by far.
Meh. I'll stick with Michael Polanyi, Stanley Jaki, Errol Harris, and the rest of my crew.
Can I even pull a post out of it? The chapter on Feminism and Science Studies might yield some fine insultainment, but it wouldn't be gentlemanly. Too easy.
Suffice it to say, if you want to become a living exemplar of the retrograde belief that women are incapable of science, logic, and accountability, by all means obtain a degree in Feminism and Science Studies. Its very existence is an insult to women. To paraphrase the Aphorist,
When the progressive condemns, every intelligent woman must feel alluded to.
Do they actually condemn real science?
many began to treat science as part of a larger, multi-tentacled political structure that acts to reinforce subtle forms of exclusion and coercion.... The anti-authoritarian image of science came to be seen as just "good PR."
Mansplaining in disguise:
some feminist epistemologists have argued that even our most fundamental concepts of reason, evidence, and truth are covertly sexist.... The idea of a single "true" description of the world that transcends these different perspectives [of race, class, and gender] is a harmful illusion.
All perspectives are equal, except for that of Marginalized Peoples, who have a special and superior insight into reality than do the Privileged. You'd think that no cognitively functioning person could believe this premodern nonsense, and you would be correct: the White House has decreed that
Indigenous Knowledge is a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, innovations, practices, and beliefs developed by Tribes and Indigenous Peoples through interaction and experience with the environment.
The Biden-Harris Administration has formally recognized Indigenous Knowledge as one of the many important bodies of knowledge that contributes to the scientific, technical, social, and economic advancements of the United States and our collective understanding of the natural world.
In other words, watch for falling planes.
When “following the science” becomes pure quackery dressed up in cutting-edge native garb:
Without anyone seeming to notice, then, governments in the United States, Canada, and other Anglo settlement countries have become institutionally committed to medieval quackery, notably on the watch of left-wing governments that claim to be “following the science.”
The big bull of indigenous knowledge has turned into the very sort of mysticism that its advocates claim to oppose. Like most aspects of native identity, it has grown up on a rich manure pile of European romanticism and Marxist oppression narratives. It has become an evil spirit, and we desperately need a vaccine against it.
There is a chapter on Popper, who famously argued that scientific theories can never be proven in an absolute sense, but rather, must be capable of falsification.
For example, what would falsify the theory of global warming? Correct: nothing, which is why it does not qualify as science. Indeed, everything proves it:
In properly Popperian science,
We take a theory that someone has proposed, and we deduce an observational prediction from it. We then check to see if the prediction comes out as the theory says it will. If the prediction fails, then we have refuted, or falsified, the theory.
Catastrophic global warming excepted: not just some, but "all of the models yielded more warming than actually occurred, most to an absurd degree."
A model is a hypothesis. Like any scientific hypothesis, it is confirmed or refuted by observation. A model that is refuted by observation is worthless. And yet, these models, which have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, are the basis for enormously destructive policies that have been adopted across much of the western world.
It comes back one of my ontological bobbyhorses, man as open system:
For Popper, science is characterized by permanent openness, a permanent and all-encompassing critical stance, even with respect to the fundamental ideas in the field.
There are a couple of chapters on Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, probably the most influential book ever on the philosophy of science. While reading them, I couldn't help noticing that such a revolution has occurred right under our noses, and here we are. Certainly it has happened in my own racket, psychology. I wonder what's happening with the American Psychological Association?
Psychologists Persevere in EDI Work Despite Growing Backlash Against Racial Equity Efforts
There was never a debate about this. Rather -- in my professional lifetime -- just a sweeping away of the old liberal paradigm and its replacement with the new leftist one. It reminds me of when Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality was summarily removed from the DSM, not because of any scientific breakthrough, but by fiat due to the pressure of activist groups.
Abortion Bans Cause Outsized Harm For People of Color
Indeed, they lead directly to more People of Color suffering the outsized harm of being born.
Speaking of suffering, I'm already on to the next book, Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering, but thus far it is rather slow-going. It also comes highly recommended, but the degree of pedantry is causing me a lot of suffering. I'll report back tomorrow.
4 comments:
Feminism and Science Studies
Much like mixing even an infinitesimal quantity of poop and ice cream, once feminism and science are combined together what you have is not science or even "Science Studies" (?), but something incomprehensible to a healthy mind.
Politics + X = Politics.
Exactly. That's a much nicer way of saying it.
Good evening Dr. Godwin, Julie, readers all. I am just back from a field mission, which is taxing for the elderly. Back in the saddle now.
From the post: "All perspectives are equal, except for that of Marginalized Peoples, who have a special and superior insight into reality than do the Privileged."
You have dismissed this as nonsense, however lets stop a moment and unpack this assertion. There is more insight to gain here.
Insight #1: The ardent children of Clausewitz, me among them, easily perceive that "Marginalized" should be decoded as "locked in existential combat with" a foe group. Therefore we are talking about "war footing" here. War footing is geared toward a narrow goal of existing and this narrow focus determines all that is said and done.
"Feminism" therefore is a resistance movement pushing against an opposing force on a war footing. Everything feminism asserts makes perfect sense in that context. They will say and do whatever they must to fend of the aggressor or even come out on top. Any group on war footing will assert their moral superiority and superior insight into reality, which you have picked up on but dismissed as nonsense. So you see, there is more to it. They must pump themselves up and downsize the enemy; that is how total war is conducted.
Our organization took a look at feminism and we did see it as a resistance group which had perceived itself to be suppressed to the point of annihilation, if not in the form of an outright extermination of the body, in the form of a lethal poison to the morale and spirit. The writings for Viginia Woolf, and other proto-feminist writers, have clearly described and delineated the stifling confines of womanhood in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Was it really that bad? Why yes it WAS that bad. And that's why conditions are not like that anymore. And now the women, having fended off annihilation, and nevermore to be secure with their status, have gone on the offensive. Because that's how total war is conducted. For example, read up on the battle of Stalingrad. At this point Feminists may do the very thing to men which they feared would be done to themselves, and lethally poison manhood and castrate his potency out of an abundance of enthusiastic violence. And this struggle could even yaw back in the other direction a in revived neo-patriarchy. I would not be surprised. There may never be an armistice. Your master class on Feminism is concluded. War is hell.
You can take this concept and apply it to any other marginalized group and things will snap into focus. Take for instance the "Great Replacement." Are white Americans feeling like they are going to be annihilated as a cultural group? Yes, they ARE feeling like that. They are on war footing. You will see negative sentiments against brown groups that are out-breeding and supplanting white populations, because these folks are the enemy. From this basis come groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and all covert or overt hatred directed against Mexicans or foreign nationals of any non-white color. All of it makes perfect sense. Whites used to be the dominant group and they have lost that distinction and this has created panic in their ranks. How far will this Replacement go? All the way to bupkiss white people? So you see why there is tension there.
There you have an analysis from a martial perspective to add to you your knowledge base. Trench is happy to educate in areas where the Trench has expertise and this is one of those areas.
At your service, creaky bones and all, the Thing dwelling in a gash upon the Earth.
Post a Comment