In the book 1984 it's called doublethink, and doublethink is purposely nurtured in Oceania. Keeps the sheeple off-balance and more easily manipulated.
Posted on 02/19/2021 4:27:11 AM PST by Kaslin
Most middle schoolers or high schoolers in America are taught a mode of empirical inquiry and knowledge attainment usually referred to as the "scientific method." Although the discipline has origins dating back to classical antiquity, the term emerged in the 19th century and took on sustained life in the 20th century. The multistep "scientific method," as it is generally formulated, amounts to something along the lines of: (1) problem; (2) research; (3) hypothesis; (4) experiment; (5) data collection; (6) analysis; and (7) conclusion.
Rational empiricism and a skepticism of the status quo inhere in the very process; they are baked into the entire enterprise. The purpose of the scientific method is to constantly contest and, when necessary, disprove flawed hypotheses and mistaken conclusions previously deduced about the workings of the natural world. A basic thought experiment is instructive: Imagine what sort of world we might have today had Copernicus, Galileo and all subsequent astronomers blindly accepted the erroneous, then-dominant belief in a geocentric universe.
True, as the conservative icon Edmund Burke taught, epistemological humility is a defining trait of political statesmanship. But science is not, contra the left's frequent hysterical shrieks, synonymous with politics. On the contrary, any scientist worth his salt must approach his discipline with something resembling the opposite of epistemological humility -- skepticism, that is, of the legitimacy of the inherited status quo and an insatiable desire to challenge the status quo's underlying precepts. Only through such intellectually unconstrained, methodologically rigorous testing can we approach confidence in the validity of any claimed scientific knowledge.
Alas, the Democratic Party, America's would-be "party of science," whose leading lights bellow, "Trust the science!" as an authoritative command akin to the tablet-bearing Moses' descent from Mount Sinai, missed the memo. Whether the issue is climate change, COVID-19 mask mandates, pandemic-era school reopenings or any other number of issues, the left browbeats its political opponents with the faux mantle of science and accuses those who have the temerity to ask questions as science "deniers." Flat-earthers no doubt nod with approval, but Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein scowl from the grave.
Hold aside the fact that the left, on issues such as the biological personhood of the unborn child and the chromosomal immutability of sex, holds substantive policy positions that are manifestly hostile to science. The frequency with which the left acts as if the science on any given issue is "settled" -- indeed, the very notion of "settled science" -- is anti-science, no matter how confident proponents of any specific scientific theory may be. It was less than a year ago, after all, that the World Health Organization's Dr. Mike Ryan pronounced: "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit." It turns out that "science" was not particularly "settled." And within just a few months, after the WHO changed its mind on the efficacy of mask-wearing, Facebook outright removed a prominent mask-skeptical group on its platform for spreading COVID-19 "misinformation."
All throughout this pandemic -- whether it was "15 days to slow the spread," mask mandates, social distancing, draconian lockdowns, business closures or massively delayed school reopenings -- skeptics have been told to shut up and just "follow the science." But even if the notion of "settled science" were somehow not oxymoronic (which it is), it would be unjust to structure a public policy agenda and political regime solely based upon the whims of science. Scientists naturally view the world and advocate policy recommendations through the prism of their chosen discipline. So, medical doctors, such as the much-ballyhooed Dr. Anthony Fauci, naturally view the world through the prism of medicine. Economists naturally view the world through the prism of economics. The task falls to politicians alone to deploy prudence, discernment and careful judgment in balancing competing inputs and best channeling the pursuit of justice, human flourishing and the common good.
With apologies to Neil deGrasse Tyson, no one should want to live in a world in which science rules the roost. Such a life would be desiccated, miserable and meaningless. Science exists to assist in our understanding of the natural universe, but it has no answers whatsoever to life's most existentially pressing questions -- the existence of God, the best way to lead a virtuous life and so forth. Lowercase "s" science is good; uppercase "S" Science is bad. And it would benefit our political leaders to grasp the all-important difference.
“The task falls to politicians alone to deploy prudence, discernment and careful judgment...”
We’re doomed.
a curse on fauci.
MEDICINE used to require a diagnosis of infection
made by isolation of the organism ....
not a putative symptom.
Science will never be destroyed. It is organized knowledge.
The difference NOW is that the stupid DNC/GOP cannot
recognize it because they are PUPPETS of CCP and WHO.
Good article. Thanks.
I particularly appreciated the sentence from the article: "...Hold aside the fact that the left, on issues such as the biological personhood of the unborn child and the chromosomal immutability of sex, holds substantive policy positions that are manifestly hostile to science..."
The same people who have signs on their yards and stickers on their cars that snarkily proclaim "Science is Real" refuse to accept that XX chromosomes fundamentally define female sex and XY chromosomes fundamentally define male sex.
No wonder these people on the Left are so bizarre and unhappy. The cognitive dissonance that must abound in their heads from this and so many other contradictory or ignorant stances must ricochet destructively like a bullet fired inside a steel vault.
Most middle schoolers or high schoolers in America are NOT taught cause and effect, logical reasoning or critical thinking.
Our socialist wannabe elite overlords require it; they require their sheeple to be ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning proles.
Pubic school teachers: Enemy within #1.
Science does not make value judgements.
It is the principle flaw of Progressivism.
They wanted "disinterested" "experts" to decide policy decisions.
But, experts are never "disinterested" and politicians can always find an "expert" who recommends the policy decision they wish to execute.
Consider Dr. Fauci. He gives whatever policy decision he sees as most advantageous, politically, at any given moment.
In the book 1984 it's called doublethink, and doublethink is purposely nurtured in Oceania. Keeps the sheeple off-balance and more easily manipulated.
I would speculate that most college students couldn’t tell you Aristotle’s three fundamental laws of logic.
The three fundamental laws of logic in today’s colleges:
We must save the Earth.
Boys can be girls.
White people are all racists supremacists.
^
So true.
Science has become their religion and woe to those who dare to pull back the curtain.
I watched an interview with an industrial hygienist the other day. She mentioned that pre-covid she would have been fined by OSHA and sued by her clients for recommending face diapers to block viruses.
Imagine what sort of world we might have today had Copernicus, Galileo and all subsequent astronomers blindly accepted the erroneous, then-dominant belief in a geocentric universe.
None of those involved in the debate about the order of the universe blindly accepted anything. There were three hypothesis floating around and everyone was trying to PROVE their choice hypothesis. Galileo shot off his mouth before he could prove anything. The scientific method was in force back then; the church insisted upon it.
The scientific method doesn’t matter much to people today. If you say “Nicotine may not be at all addictive” people will bounce off the walls in reaction. But When Harvard University tried to show how it was addictive they couldn’t addict anybody to to the stuff no matter how long they pumped it into them in their double blind study. The Greenhouse effect. Same thing. zWe all assume we know how a greenhouse works. The left glommed on tho the “greenhouse effect” in support of their global warming fakery but thir assumption is erroneous. A scientistvway back in the 18 40s decidea to show the math behind the common assumption. He designed an experiment...and discovered that they DONT work the way most people including leftist ideologues assume they do. Hence global warming that is dependent upon a massive atmospheric green house is utter bollocks.
The fact is science doesn’t give a shit and neither do most people.
Man. I HATE seeing Orwell’s 1984 principles in action.
You are absolutely right there with that post.
They often seem to be able to effortlessly keep two diametrically opposed views inside one head, but if you were to take the lid off their heads, the inside would resemble a nest of writhing snakes...that is how I envision their normal state of doublethink.
I suppose that is a Leftist/Conservative cleavage line. Most conservatives I know don’t like to hold views like that. We try to be consistent in our own heads, and strive to do so.
Leftists seem to accept having views at odds with each other as a simple expediency that must be accepted.
I saw this first hand in an on-line conversation I had on a website for exchanging information and explanations. I was answering a question about electric motors; fairly easy to understand by means of vector notation and vector concepts. The questioner asked me a series of follow-on questions in a slightly snarky way, implying that my answers were unsatisfactory and that I was evading the question.
Finally, after several exchanges in which I tried to keep my cool and zero in on the exact point this person was failing to get, it became clear that the problem was that he didn't "believe in" vector algebra. In effect he thought it was a hoax, some sort of mumbo-jumbo that engineers and scientists use to obfuscate the truth from those not in the club, and that we are fully aware that it is nonsense when we use it to try to explain things.
When I realized that I gave up, and wished the person a nice life.
But I couldn't get the exchange off my mind. I think the way this person looks at the world, at reality, is fairly typical of a certain style of thought that IMHO is often present in people who we identify as "liberals." When confronted by aspects of reality that they don't understand, instead of seeing the problem as stemming from within themselves, from the way they are thinking and reacting to the world, they reject a framework of insight that would enable them to find a satisfactory explanation and instead blame the framework and those who use it. Taken to extremes, they actually form the belief that the framework of insight is being used to keep them from the truth, when actually all that's going on is that they're able (for whatever reason) to understand the framework.
Long ago I read Ayn Rand's The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, so long ago that I don't really remember it in any detail, but I believe she spoke of the turn of mind I observed in the above exchange. That it seems to be becoming more common is perhaps a consequence of the fairly high degree of technological sophistication of our society, and of the easy availability of large amounts of information to people who otherwise wouldn't have occasion to encounter it.
I don't know if it's more pathetic or comical when I hear nitwits who are lawyers, financial advisors and real estate agents tell me to "follow the science" when it comes to any of these issues. Most of these people wouldn't know "science" if it bit them in the ass.
What else do you really expect when all aspects of society are corrupt? Legislatures, courts, law enforcement, education, commerce; the corruption is endemic. Science in universities and commerce has become largely dependent on federal research grants and student loans. So science becomes attuned to the principal of don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Science is bought and paid for. This is capitalists failure - corruption throught economic exploitation. Business becomes so large that it wields inordinate power.
I am no where near being a socialist. Socialists will always gain the upper hand over capitalists until capitalist are willing to discus”s and overcome capitalisms corrupting faults. The stench pervades our whole country.
I must admit, I laughed aloud reading it when I got to the sentence:
"...Finally, after several exchanges in which I tried to keep my cool and zero in on the exact point this person was failing to get, it became clear that the problem was that he didn't "believe in" vector algebra..."
I am all too familiar with that feeling of both my own confusion and irritation, only to realize I am not talking to someone who wishes to understand and solve something, but wishes only to validate internally what they want to believe.
Often, they aren't even listening to you. I always feel like kicking myself for not seeing it sooner. Once you see it, the light bulb goes on, and you remonstrate yourself for not having seen it from the very beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.