The role of scientism in the modern West.

Readership: All
Theme: The W!tchy War on Masculinity
Author’s Note: This is Part II in a Series on Modernism.
Length: 1,450 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Age of Feelings or Age of Science?

Reader Oscar objected to Why are We in this Mess (2023/11/13), noting that:

“The character of our age is to reject logic, facts, reason, and evidence as products of the evil wh!tә suprәm@c!st, heteronormative patriarchy.”

His disagreement is with my assertion that our age is defined by exclusive belief in reason and science. The confusion stems from my use of ‘reason’. Further comments clarified this:

“I’m telling you that your definition of reason is unreasonably narrow.”

Oscar, in response to Jack’s comment

“Materialist philosophy that supports scientism is what you are calling ‘reason’.”

naturallyaspirated

In response, I pointed out that ‘reason’, as I used it, refers to the over reliance on bare principles of logic and not the ability to form logical thoughts. To illustrate, there is a story that, in the Middle Ages, some Aristotelians decided to figure out the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth from first principles. They intended to use just reason, rather than another means of discovering truth: experience. Of course, they could not determine the correct number (24-42, depending on age, breed, and sex). This story illustrates the absurdity of relying solely on logic.

img-1783680814-6a50cf2e3d7bb0.75734374.jpg

Other than logic and experience, we do have other means of apprehending truth which have fallen into disuse or disrepute: memory, perception, a priori intuition, induction, introspection, testimony, and faith.

Having cleared that up, the rest of Oscar’s doubts could be better addressed by discussing scientism. As I noted in my last post:

“[S]cientific verificationism. This is the dominant form of verificationism […] today.”

Magnifying glasses, gentlemen! We’ve got a mystery to solve.

Calling the Shots

img-1783681944-6a50d3980b5056.47105067.jpgNicolaus Copernicus, computerized image reconstructed from cranial remains. (STR/AFP/Getty Images)

The influence of intellectuals in the West skyrocketed with the invention of the printing press (~1440 A.D.). Before then, people largely looked to traditions for guidance. After, they followed theologians’ ideas, as they were the intellectuals of their time. It is difficult to imagine the power these men had. Ideas like Protestantism, the nature of salvation and the afterlife, the value of freedom and the natures of good and evil were their province. We still cherish their legacies today because ideology is the most durable form of influence. With their power, one could change human conduct forever.

As we know, it didn’t last long. Starting with Copernicus (1473-1543), power began changing hands. The Copernican Revolution is relevant because it represents the loss of public trust on two fronts. First, faith in the church was weakened because the church defended Ptolemy’s Earth-centric universe as doctrine. And, more importantly, people lost faith in themselves. News that the Sun, traveling overhead across the sky was just an illusion meant that people were to have more confidence in scientists than in themselves. The public have since relied on the authority of scientists in their respective fields.

The Scientistic Necessity of Pseudoscience

img-1783681945-6a50d39955b930.72589062.jpg

Overturning old, erroneous beliefs is not, in itself, a problem. The problem is the concomitant belief that science is universally authoritative; that it has the answer to all questions. This, in turn, creates a massive incentive toward scientific sensationalism. Scientists stand to gain money and fame by purporting to have answers to issues science could never solve. For example, men like Richard Dawkins pen bestsellers and have countless adoring fans for claiming that biology can explain God away; that belief in God is delusional.

One important point here is that pseudoscience is an inevitable consequence of scientism. The belief that all truth is scientific means sciences must arise wherever truth is perceived. Atheist scientists believe the proposition “God does not exist” is true. Being convinced that anything true (or assumed to be) must also be scientific, they construe science as justifying their beliefs. The public, as if enchanted, follows blindly.

Unfortunately, the scientist is as likely as the cleric to make theological pronouncements, although he knows nothing about them.

How to Spot a Pseudoscience

Finally, gentlemen, direct your magnifying glasses here:

“[A] pretty good indication of what it will be like after you die. Nothingness. An absolute absence of thought, consciousness, awareness, memory, or existence. It won’t be painful or unpleasant. It just won’t be.”

Aaron Clarey in Enjoy the Decline [1]
img-1783681946-6a50d39ab6e5d9.09166014.jpgSigmund Freud

Something claiming to be scientific must meet certain evidentiary standards. The Captain’s statement, while not claiming to be scientific, will serve in identifying pseudoscience. To begin, what makes the Captain an expert at dying? How many times has he died? How does he know what happens after death? More importantly, how could he? For those of us who are Christians the answer is faith. But for those who believe in no other gods before science, there is simply no way to know. There is no sensory data. If there is no way something can be known, then neither scientists nor laymen can know it, except through revelation. Or, by creating a pseudoscience.

While pseudoscience is best identified on a case by case basis, there are some general similarities. For instance, Freud’s psychoanalysis depends entirely on his discovery of the unconscious: a collection of mental elements that, for some reason, the patient does not want to remember. But if Freud had really discovered the unconscious, it should be possible for anyone with the required knowledge to repeat the procedure. And to demonstrate it to others [2].

Asking how, exposes it as a pseudoscience.

This simple test would solve several of the West’s problems; so many of which have their basis in psychological literature [3].

Case Study — Low Self-Esteem in the Obese

Since the effects of trauma are entrenched in psychology’s traditions, discrimination is often identified as the cause of trauma, and is thus the prime suspect in explaining disparities. Conclusion: Discrimination is why fat people have low self-esteem.

As said above, intellectuals lead the culture by manufacturing ideas [4]. Consider this article from 1968, when very few Americans were fat, The Stigma of Obesity. Everything you would expect to hear from a leftist on fat phobia today can as well be read from it. If you were around then, whatever you were doing, it certainly wasn’t worrying about fat. But intellectuals certainly were. 55 years later, this idea is widespread and firmly believed. Other possible reasons, such as being unattractive, a lack of exercise / physical activity, laziness, poor diet, poor health, poor self-image, etc., are quickly tamped down as ‘rude’ or ‘politically incorrect’ and are not examined any further.

The fact of the matter is that the conclusion is based on an a priori assumption, backed by subjective opinion. It has never been empirically proven that fat people have low self-esteem specifically because of discrimination.

Conclusions

img-1783681948-6a50d39c0c2864.54116025.jpgBetty Friedan

The political implications of this are clear. In this sense, if we do “reject logic, facts, reason, and evidence“, it is in adherence to science. We do it because we are a therapy culture, which is merely one psychological slice of our scientific era. No one is allowed to make fun of or offend an ‘at-risk’ individual (i.e. minority). Not only is this the cause of their problems to begin with, it could also be life-threatening. Being canceled is a slap on the wrist for this sin!

However, what is scarier is the religious impact scientism has had. Large portions of the world turn to atheism in the belief that science has killed God. When you consider the durability of ideas — even bad ones — and the extent to which Christianity’s foundational importance is taken for granted [5], you will begin to see how dangerous jettisoning it could prove going forward. Activist scientists (with unlimited scientific authority) allegedly leading people away from “facts and logic” seems trivial in comparison.

Case Closed.

Notes

  1. For more on Aaron Clarey’s book, Enjoy the Decline, read this book review by Matt Forney.
  2. Freud’s analytical psychology is a theory, and theories may very well be wrong. A theory is only as valuable as it’s usefulness in conceptualizing and describing abstract principles and predicting results.
  3. Psychologists in particular produce the bulk of the nonsense believed today. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but Betty Friedan was a psychologist by profession.
  4. Notable popular pseudosciences are the ideas of climate change, C0V!D vacks, flat earth science, gender fluidity / universal b!sexu@l!ty (that everyone is a mix of male and female), letting children choose their gender, and the idea of raising a boy as a girl, among others.
  5. A trivial example is the h0m0sexu@l insistence in being ‘born that way‘. In a different culture / religion, this would be a fatal self-condemnation, rather than an appeal to blamelessness as it is in Christian cultures.

Related

* H/T: Catacomb Resident: Triad of Community Building (2023/11/26)