Sounds Reasonable To Me... Ideology vs Science

Courtesy Pinterest

We live in an age where ideology is often accepted as science... Ideology, however, requires only belief whereas science requires proof. For example, the Big bang Theory- ideology masquerading as science. let's look at it more closely... First there was nothing- no matter, no time, nothing. Then a proton became so compressed that it imploded and became the universe as we know it. As my friend Tobin would so eloquently say: "Get the f**k outta here! They don't make hip-boots that big." If there was nothing, where did the proton come from? A proton is a subatomic particle. Nothing is the absence of ANYTHING (including, obviously, protons). Moreover, what did it explode into" You can't explode into nothing- it requires space. This doesn't even meet the test for common sense. Why is it accepted as science? Because "really smart guys" say so. Sorry, no sale.

The "social sciences are particularly vulnerable to ideological manipulation. The social sciences in themselves offer little scientific proof, only sets of assumptions. A good example is Marxism. The basis of almost all social sciences begins with a "state of nature" argument... that is, how do people exist and interact in a state of nature. Marx's fatal error (among many) is the belief that in a state of nature people are altruistic... that they will be naturally cooperative and that this most basic inclination of human nature has been "socialized" out of us by capitalism. In fact, the opposite is true. People will inevitably do what is in their own interest unless forced to do otherwise. Simply put, people don't cooperate because they're naturally good, they cooperate because it's in their interest to do so... most often their survival as part of a group depends on it.

Marx is an easy sell, however. We all like to think of ourselves as "good people." The self esteem movement, that has taken over public education, is predicated on this belief. If you were to interview any of the social justice warriors such as ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter, or any of the other groups perpetrating violence around the country, they would all tell you that they are good people fighting the good fight against some social malfeasance... the end justifying the means. Social justice, like a perfect society,however, is an impossible goal. What these individuals are in reality are just spoiled children fighting for their own way... after all they're entitled to it because they're good people.

Darwin's theory is another of these unprovable hypotheses masquerading as science. Darwin, in fact, wasn't attempting to explain how species evolve at all. He was attempting to create an argument to bolster the superiority of the white race (men in particular)... the last part of the title: "The Survival of Preferred Races in the Struggle For Life," has been conveniently deleted. The legacy of Darwin has been disastrous... Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism is just a natural extension. From that movement came Eugenics which led to Hitler's racial purity or racial hygiene laws... and it wasn't limited to Nazi Germany by any stretch. Eugenics, in fact, was "made in the USA." America as well as most of Europe also adopted eugenics laws that caused sterilizations of the "unfit" in the tens of thousands.

The point is that all of these ideologies masquerading as science sound plausible on the surface, but often cause disastrous results. I used to do a lecture entitled Designing the Perfect Society- actually 2 three hour lectures. As a part of it I offer the following theory:

In the original dispersal of people around the globe, people who lived in particularly hot climates had darker skin and eyes, whereas people in colder climates has light skin and light (blue) eyes. The reason is that dark skin and eyes ward off harmful rays from the sun and light skin attract them. In the more temperate climates they get more direct sunlight so dark skin is a necessity and the opposite is true of more northern climates. Knowing what we know... that warmer temperatures provide a longer growing season would naturally result in a surplus of production and colder climates would naturally, because of shorter growing seasons, result in competition for scarce resources. Therefore we can discern that people with dark skin and eyes would naturally be more cooperative and people with light skin and eyes would be more competitive.

I would then ask the class how many would agree that it sounds reasonable... the overwhelming response was yes. The fact is that people are basically the same the world over at any given point in time. The theory is BS, I made it up. There is no perfect society, never was, never will be. All there is are groups of flawed, imperfect people doing the best they can. The drawback of social engineering is that not everyone is going to fit the paradigm... What are you going to do with those that don't fit in? Hitler had a plan. Mao had a plan. Stalin had a plan. If there is one lesson to learn from the 20th century, it's that social engineering doesn't work... of course, that won't keep people from trying.