Notes on the History and Philosophy of Science

The history and philosophy of science is an area of study that emerged in response to the apparent facts that science is “in” time, “done” by humans, and came from somewhere at some time for some reason. This implies that science is not a case of divine intervention and thus could not be freely moving or acting, or independent of humans and nature.

Are the subject matters split by scientific disciplines natural categories, or are they just the easiest way for humans to organize their practices and concepts? If the latter, than why should we expect there to be “physical”, “biological”, and “psychological” categories of thing? If no such categories exist, why should we expect the master category in which the subject matter of all three categories operate to be like any of those three categories?

I generally accept that “science” is not a single entity. The word may refer to a store of information (IE: “Science says X”), a method of acquiring knowledge (which not all “sciences” follow all the time), multiple communities who may or may not interact with the prior two things and whose claims to being “scientific” appear more or less strong (physicists, sociologists or biologists). Is a “scientific” approach defined by the system one chooses to study, the way its studied, or the core assumptions made about it?

Finally, “technology” is often grouped as “science”. This tends to elicit disagreement depending on whether a person views science as the search for truth, as the control of nature, or both. Some believe that science and technology are just two sides of the same coin, that technology is only applied “science”. The latter accommodationist position prompts the question of whether “science” as an agreed upon and complete store of information always, or ever, precedes the technology that is purported to use.

The accommodationist stance also prompts the question of whether something needs to be fully understood in order to be controlled for the purposes of the one doing the controlling. It is hard to imagine what “control” could mean, if not something being manipulated relative to the purposes of the user, even if such purposes were simply to satisfy impulses or desires. Yet, Homo Neanderthalensis created blades out of stones and thus successfully manipulated a number of natural systems to fulfill their purposes. Such systems included the structure of the stone and the physical principles of the blade. Does this imply that they had a complete knowledge of the natural phenomena they manipulated, ranging from geology, to chemistry, to physics? If not, then by what standard, could we know that we have complete knowledge of the natural phenomena that we can we manipulate now to the satisfaction of our ends?

This is just one of many fascinating historical and philosophical questions that emerge from noting that “science” occurs in time, is done by humans, and groups up a number of different ideas, objects, and practices.

Having noted these points, there are two ways of tackling the issue of science as a temporally and conceptually embedded family of objects. One is to view oneself as trying to disentangle, describe and (maybe) explain the astonishing complexities of the temporal, social, cultural, geographical, and philosophical contexts in which science has and continues to occur. This work can be done without moralizing or political agitation.

There is, unfortunately, another way to tackle the subject which emerges in reaction to the recognition that “science” is not cut and dry. This reaction is to view oneself as an “activist”, and to reduce all the complexities all scientific contexts at all times and at all places to a single principle, that of “power structures”.

To me, this latter approach epitomizes the “pseudo-science” that underwrites the Marxist worldview. Marxism is presumed by believers in Marxism itself to be the authoritative science of the social. If all scientific truth claims can be reduced to social activities, then the ultimate scientific truth of all things at all times in all places can only be told by whomsoever claims final epistemic authority over social truth.

Those who claim such authority are the “critical” studies that presume the single law governing all that can be known about the world is the existence of three categories, power, oppressors and oppressed.  The “activists” in HPS who view the area as being obliged to “speak truth to power” presume all cultural, social, and intellectual objects to be nothing more than cases of power asymmetry to be “deconstructed” and revealed as such.

Remarkably, despite all norms, standards and truth claims purportedly being dependent on power structures, this Marxist approach to HPS also presumes an objective morality. This morality is like their ontology which presumes all social, cultural, or intellectual objects to be reducible to power structures. It is an unbelievably flat, simple and childish belief that the only true moral imperative that any human can pursue is the perfect equality of all power relationships at all times.

It is worth noting an irony. Having established that there is some social dimension to knowledge, the “activist” approach to the History and Philosophy of Science immediately assume that it is the only dimension. They also assume that the domain functions in accordance with a single law bound system. That system is the arrangement of social power relationships, which functions in a binary with only two modes, oppressor and oppressed. They are, thus, every bit as reductionists as the reductive physicalist “naïve realism” they purport to oppose in trying to reduce complexity to a single law operating in a single kind of domain.

Advertisements

The heresy of not celebrating “pride”

Today was the obligatory “pride” celebration in my city. The scandal of privately choosing not to attend is evident in the insufficiency of simply stating that you will not be present. Surely such choice must have some reason other than your own preference? Increasingly a lie must be presented to conceal that preference.

One can hardly say that they don’t agree with normalizing hypersexual displays, particularly where children are present. Nor can one say that they don’t agree with the underlying conviction governing the mentality that led to “pride” parades. The conviction that my society’s prevailing moral system should be based on an unending quest of finding and glorifying its margins while either condemning its mainstream or claiming that any such mainstream does not, could not, and should not exist. I could certainly not claim that I believe my society’s ancestral norms, traditions, celebrations, and glorified categories to have more profound truths embedded within them than pride parades or the morality on which they are based.

My society doesn’t note the difference between being comfortable with LGBTQ+ people existing and manically celebrating their sexuality, along with the artificed nihilistic culture of general “subversion” surrounding it, which we are expected to believe represents the values of all homosexuals. If I don’t display my support of “pride”, it is considered legitimate evidence that I support abusing homosexuals or preventing them from choosing their way of life. A highest virtue has clearly been established, and my society now considers not actively and publicly worshiping it to be synonymous with harbouring an evil will to destroy it.

This reminds me of why I think the liberal dogma of separating church and state was, and remains, idiotic. Clearly a religion will always fill a vacuum to dominate society. Its purity rituals, public liturgies, normative moral metaphysics, sacred festivals and ceremonies, and the pathologization of dissent will fill social custom and shape legal codes. The ever-expanding window of what is considered “hate”, an expansion that true believers call “progress”, is a testament to this.

Being that they are unavoidable, I prefer the religion to which I am subjected to be based on an explicit, self-aware theology. A theology that at least some members of the society are able to admit exist, and are permitted to discuss.  “Diversity”, “tolerance”, and “progress”, by contrast, are based on an implicit, un self-aware system of metaphysics that is not open for discussion. To attempt any such discussion is simply a heresy.

Deus Vult

A robust definition of white people

The most effective strategy that prevents white people from protecting themselves from harm requires deconstructing their group identity. A people can’t have legitimate interests, or protect themselves, or even imagine a better future, if they don’t exist.

This strategy relies on deconstruction, itself predicated on the post-enlightenment intuition of reductionism. When you say “white people” or “The English” are being harmed, the response will be “who are the white people” or “who are the English”. One response is to say whoever claims to be English or white, but that leaves too much room for autistic statements made in bad faith. The better strategy is to define white people, and different groups therein, by whomsoever is expected, or expects themselves, to have in a way appropriate for that people. This weaponizes their anti-white attacks against them. It makes the definition of white people as strong as their attacks against them.

Those who “deconstruct” whites out of existence also morally demand certain things of them. The trick is to identify what those demands are, and who they are applied to. What is appropriate for the English people? It is appropriate that they should not have a group identity. How should they be expected to behave differently to others? They should not say certain things that other groups can say. How should they view their history? They should view it only as others do. Are they allowed to tell their own narrative of their own history, or to identify an exclusive history of their own people? No. These are not demands made of other groups, and thus identify who the English are. However, it also applies to whites in general.

If you  point out that their willingness to work against their own interests, to deny their group existence,  and to deny their people a future, is a pathological worldview indicative to whites they may say “I don’t view myself as White” to try to deconstruct the category you presume. The correct response is to say that the act of denying your own group existence and identity, but not that of others, demonstrates that you view yourself as a member of the identity you feel morally obliged to deny and destroy. That YOU feel morally obliged to deny it is yet another example that you recognize yourself as a member of a particular people with particular moral responsibilities. It is because you feel that what is appropriate for that people is appropriate for you. That its moral perversions demand action from you.

At this point the one can ask why they apply a higher moral standard to themselves and their people. It becomes obvious at that stage that at the root of anti-white actions and feelings among whites themselves is not a genuine belief that white people, the English, or anything of those people that you are trying to protect, don’t exist. Rather, they presume such things exist and act from a deep sense of superiority for which they feel guilty.

 

 

What accepting postmodernism means for white people

For people of European descent, left wing post-modernism is an injunction to accept all perspectives of history as accurate except one’s own.

It is to pursue a world in which self-interested groups exist, but only groups that exclude you and your children, and never ones that include you or protect your group interests.

It is to ensure that one denies oneself and one’s children narrative control over their own history, while ensuring all other groups retain theirs.

It is to ensure that your children are allowed to know themselves only as those with different perspectives view them. To know their history only as those who hate their ancestors view it. To have no right to express their own view of the history of others.

It is to accept that there is no truly objective reality, that all perspectives are legitimate and shaped by different intergenerational historical experiences, that none are objectively illegitimate, and then to deny the legitimacy of one’s own perspective and to deny the existence of the history that shaped it.

It is to cost your children the power to critique the existence of groups that exclude them, while preventing them from forming groups that include them exclusively.

For white people, post-modernism is child abuse.

White people

What follows is a simple question whose answer I already know.

Since the English , and some other Europeans, constitute the first people in human history to risk their lives and wealth to stop the institution of slavery, why are they and other Europeans the only ones blamed and expected to atone for slavery?

The half-way reduction of Notre Dame

There are two common responses to the loss of Notre Dame. One is a celebration by France’s invited conquerors, who actually understand what is being lost and know it serves their group interests for that to happen. The other is the “sensible” and “rational” Westerner looking upon the Cathedral, conceptually reducing it to stones and wood, and then saying “how could anyone care about the destruction of this arbitrary physical product of history when thousands of humans are suffering! It could only be because they are heartless racists or fools who believe in imaginary social constructs like ‘Western Civilization’!”

The first type of response is perfectly reasonable. Its what should be expected of a functional human collective, whose continued existence in a new territory must come at the expense of the former group. The second, however, is a consequence of the Westerner’s habitual obsessive compulsive reductionism of the social sphere, a mindset which refuses to accept the existence of meaningful social abstractions. However, the cultural left cannot concede that there is no true social meaning, because to do so would mean their childish concept of morality would not be justifiable (the death of migrants under the yoke of capitalism could also be reduced to biochemical, chemical, and finally physical operations, making them meaningless too). The kind of meaning that explains societies in the ways that are necessary to legitimize the intuitive liberal/leftist worldview cannot actually be found in those things that complete reduction leads to, physical systems.

Yet, they are still compelled to reduce, if for no other reason than to signal that they are more rational than “parochial” and “regressive” types who believe in irreducible things that leftist and liberal worldviews cannot accommodate, like emergent and immanent meaning in objects of the Western cultural tradition. Thus, the next best thing they can reduce society to, which is just above actual inanimate matter and force, is a quasi-material and partly cartesian conceptual space for understanding social meaning. This conceptual space presumes that everything social is the effect of material wealth and power (marxism) and that the only remaining thing that is “real”, which is not material and thus jumps the mind/matter divide to derive social meaning for Marxist materialism, is the subjective experience of pain and trauma of individual consciousnesses (cartesianism).

The notion of a social reality that has meaning which sustains over time and across life spans, simply cannot be sustained in the face of such slave-morality autism. This makes it impossible for them to admit that something is actually lost with the destruction of objects like Notre Dame, because they cannot accept (or perhaps sense) that such things exist. What’s disturbing, is that they think this makes them more “rational” and “scientific”. Theirs is actually a half-baked chimera which lacks both the sophisticated complex meanings of nonreduced cultural awareness, as well as the rigour and bravery of truly scientific reduction that steps outside the social and cultural entirely to observe the objective, which is independent of human moral/social meaning and thus outside it.

State religion in the West

The only prevailing Western religion is a bastardized theology that morally obliges peoples of European descent to forget who they are and deny their link to their ancestral histories while obliging them to celebrate and perpetuate being replaced or intermixed out of recognizable existence.