For some time now, Democrats have prided themselves on being the so-called ‘party of science.’ As the party of science, figureheads on the Left have routinely asserted themselves as de facto expert authorities on such issues as Climate Change, Biology, Environmentalism, and most recently, COVID. At this same time, however, folks on the Left have also prided themselves on their strong egalitarian commitments to such projects as feminism, transgender rights, and Critical Race Theory (CRT). While at first glance, it might appear that these sets of facts and values are not at all in tension with one another, upon closer examination, it turns out that these dual moral and metaphysical commitments are actually
The Smithsonian Institute also listed the scientific method, quantitative analysis, rational linear thinking, cause and effect relationships and objectivity as aspects of 'Whiteness' and 'white culture'.
Yes – I hadn't thought about it that way. Contemporary leftism accepts Aristotelian presuppositions an axiomatic, yet throw them away when it comes it gender.
Thank you for yet another clear and accurate analysis of the mind-bogglingly hypocritical and inconsistent messaging from the left side of the spectrum. It is a relief to know there are at least a few who see through this "house of cards", as you so accurately describe the present state of affairs.
There was a recent viral tweet from Schwarzenegger urging everyone to not question anything and instead defer all thinking to the "experts," and by "experts" he specifically meant the government's experts (Fauci) to the exclusion of all others. This is the antithesis of science and the promotion of authoritarianism. I've been trying to get across to my very left-leaning social circle that "we believe science" and "listen to the experts" are intellectually bankrupt and dangerous positions, but to little avail.
Bertrand Russell saw all of this coming:
"The triumphs of science are due to the substitution of observation and inference for authority. Every attempt to revive authority in intellectual matters is a retrograde step. And it is part of the scientific attitude that the pronouncements of science do not claim to be certain, but only to be the most probable on present evidence. One of the greatest benefits that science confers upon those who understand its spirit is that it enables them to live without the delusive support of subjective certainty. That is why science cannot favor persecution."
“We have seen that scientific technique increases the importance of organizations, and therefore the extent to which authority impinges upon the life of the individual. It follows that a scientific oligarchy has more power than any oligarchy could have in pre-scientific times. There is a tendency, which is inevitable unless consciously combated, for organizations to coalesce, and so to increase in size, until, ultimately, almost all become merged in the State. A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called "totalitarian," that is to say, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the State.
[…]
Oligarchies, throughout past history, have always thought more of their own advantage than of that of the rest of the community. It would be foolish to be morally indignant with them on this account; human nature, in the main and in the mass, is egoistic, and in most circumstances a fair dose of egoism is necessary for survival. It was revolt against the selfishness of past political oligarchies that produced the Liberal movement in favor of democracy, and it was revolt against economic oligarchies that produced socialism. But although everybody who was in any degree progressive recognize the evils of oligarchy throughout the past history of mankind, many progressives were taken in by an argument for a new kind of oligarchy. "We, the progressives"- so runs the argument- "are the wise and good; we know what reforms the world needs; if we have power, we shall create a paradise." And so, narcissistically hypnotized by contemplation of their own wisdom and goodness, they proceeded to create a new tyranny, more drastic than any previously known. It is the effect of science in such a system that I wish to consider in this chapter.
In the first place, since the new oligarchs are the adherents of a certain creed, and base their claim to exclusive power upon the rightness of this creed, their system depends essentially upon dogma: whoever questions the governmental dogma questions the moral authority of the government, and is therefore a rebel. While the oligarchy is still new, there are sure to be other creeds, held with equal conviction, which would seize the government if they could. Such rival creeds must be suppressed by force, since the principle of majority rule has been abandoned. It follows that there cannot be freedom of the press, freedom of discussion, or freedom of book publication. There must be an organ of government whose duty it is to pronounce as to what is orthodox, and to punish heresy. The history of the Inquisition shows what such an organ of government must inevitably become. In the normal pursuit of power, it will seek out more and more subtle heresies. The Church, as soon as it acquired political power, developed incredible refinements of dogma, and persecuted what to us appear microscopic deviations from the official creed. Exactly the same sort of thing happens in the modern States that confine political power to supporters of a certain doctrine.
The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies. The only remaining possibility of unauthorized propaganda is by secret whispers from one individual to another. But this, in turn, is rendered appallingly dangerous by improvements in the art of spying. Children at school are taught that it is their duty to denounce their parents if they allow themselves subversive utterances in the bosom of the family. No one can be sure that a man who seems to be his dearest friend will not denounce him to the police; the man may himself have been in some trouble, and may know that if he is not efficient as a spy his wife and children will suffer. All this is not imaginary; it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.”
- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953
The Smithsonian Institute also listed the scientific method, quantitative analysis, rational linear thinking, cause and effect relationships and objectivity as aspects of 'Whiteness' and 'white culture'.
Yes – I hadn't thought about it that way. Contemporary leftism accepts Aristotelian presuppositions an axiomatic, yet throw them away when it comes it gender.
Thank you for yet another clear and accurate analysis of the mind-bogglingly hypocritical and inconsistent messaging from the left side of the spectrum. It is a relief to know there are at least a few who see through this "house of cards", as you so accurately describe the present state of affairs.
There was a recent viral tweet from Schwarzenegger urging everyone to not question anything and instead defer all thinking to the "experts," and by "experts" he specifically meant the government's experts (Fauci) to the exclusion of all others. This is the antithesis of science and the promotion of authoritarianism. I've been trying to get across to my very left-leaning social circle that "we believe science" and "listen to the experts" are intellectually bankrupt and dangerous positions, but to little avail.
Bertrand Russell saw all of this coming:
"The triumphs of science are due to the substitution of observation and inference for authority. Every attempt to revive authority in intellectual matters is a retrograde step. And it is part of the scientific attitude that the pronouncements of science do not claim to be certain, but only to be the most probable on present evidence. One of the greatest benefits that science confers upon those who understand its spirit is that it enables them to live without the delusive support of subjective certainty. That is why science cannot favor persecution."
“We have seen that scientific technique increases the importance of organizations, and therefore the extent to which authority impinges upon the life of the individual. It follows that a scientific oligarchy has more power than any oligarchy could have in pre-scientific times. There is a tendency, which is inevitable unless consciously combated, for organizations to coalesce, and so to increase in size, until, ultimately, almost all become merged in the State. A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called "totalitarian," that is to say, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the State.
[…]
Oligarchies, throughout past history, have always thought more of their own advantage than of that of the rest of the community. It would be foolish to be morally indignant with them on this account; human nature, in the main and in the mass, is egoistic, and in most circumstances a fair dose of egoism is necessary for survival. It was revolt against the selfishness of past political oligarchies that produced the Liberal movement in favor of democracy, and it was revolt against economic oligarchies that produced socialism. But although everybody who was in any degree progressive recognize the evils of oligarchy throughout the past history of mankind, many progressives were taken in by an argument for a new kind of oligarchy. "We, the progressives"- so runs the argument- "are the wise and good; we know what reforms the world needs; if we have power, we shall create a paradise." And so, narcissistically hypnotized by contemplation of their own wisdom and goodness, they proceeded to create a new tyranny, more drastic than any previously known. It is the effect of science in such a system that I wish to consider in this chapter.
In the first place, since the new oligarchs are the adherents of a certain creed, and base their claim to exclusive power upon the rightness of this creed, their system depends essentially upon dogma: whoever questions the governmental dogma questions the moral authority of the government, and is therefore a rebel. While the oligarchy is still new, there are sure to be other creeds, held with equal conviction, which would seize the government if they could. Such rival creeds must be suppressed by force, since the principle of majority rule has been abandoned. It follows that there cannot be freedom of the press, freedom of discussion, or freedom of book publication. There must be an organ of government whose duty it is to pronounce as to what is orthodox, and to punish heresy. The history of the Inquisition shows what such an organ of government must inevitably become. In the normal pursuit of power, it will seek out more and more subtle heresies. The Church, as soon as it acquired political power, developed incredible refinements of dogma, and persecuted what to us appear microscopic deviations from the official creed. Exactly the same sort of thing happens in the modern States that confine political power to supporters of a certain doctrine.
The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies. The only remaining possibility of unauthorized propaganda is by secret whispers from one individual to another. But this, in turn, is rendered appallingly dangerous by improvements in the art of spying. Children at school are taught that it is their duty to denounce their parents if they allow themselves subversive utterances in the bosom of the family. No one can be sure that a man who seems to be his dearest friend will not denounce him to the police; the man may himself have been in some trouble, and may know that if he is not efficient as a spy his wife and children will suffer. All this is not imaginary; it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.”
- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953