Français Français Français        Smaller page        Larger page          pastel colours page  

General Epistemology        Chapter II-7       

 

II-7 Scientistist ideologies

 

(Permalink)(Was Chapiter 17 in version 1)

 

(Scientistic taboos are better presented in chapter II-8)

 

This chapter was essentially written between 1999 and 2010 (undated text), with more recent updates (dated). Today (August 2018) I bring a final revision, because many things have changed or were clarified, most often in a good direction. However at a moment I have to stop these incessant rewriting, just removing some errors and clean up the style. The purpose of this chapter remains the same (to denounce falsehood committed in the name of science), but you ought better take it as an historical testimony of the moment when it was written.

«Hard science» delirium (3')

(Permalink) (These numbers send to the pictures in the previous chapter II-6)

Whereas rationality (1) is a pragmatic mind which uses effective means to achieve its goal, while remaining able of self-questioning, rationalism (3), or scientistism are ideologies (chapter I-9) which cannot admit what they do not control. For this reason they are socially dangerous: the concepts of objectivity and rationality were transformed into limiting and reducing ideologies, which rejects the core of the human being (ethics, mind, feelings, poetry, spirituality...) For example, if the physical world seems without purpose in itself, it is inferred that the experience of the human consciousness does not have any purpose either. This eludes from the very beginning as «subjective» or «purposeless» any discussion on ethics, culture or environment protection. Some even went so far as a paranoia rejecting life and the mind. But curiously it is never noticed that the financial interests which destroy environment or support dictators does not have any more purpose either... It is that in politics and in social matters, the concepts of objectivity and rationality are often hardly more than advertising arguments, intended to hide perfectly irrational and subjective personal interests and ideologies (in the worst meaning of these words). This main rationalist current, often implicit (administrations...) expresses itself in numerous more or less immoral or antisocial ideologies:

 

Materialism Only matter is observable... materially, so they infers that only matter exists, thus allowing to elude the mind, its morals, its emotions, and all which hampers the ideological or financial interests... which however are as much immaterial!

 

Atheism. To the contrary of a skeptic, who just practices Cartesian doubt while recognizing he does not know if God exists, an atheist positively states the non-existence of God and of the spiritual domain. So we can say that, from a logical/epistemological point of view, atheism is just a belief system among others, and, in front of the law, a religion like any other.

Behind the refusal of God we find, of course, egocentricity, the refusal of ethics and respect of others.

 

Amorality. If the human being is only matter without mind, he does not need morals. There is thus no objection to destroy, to pollute, to make vivisection, on animals and on humans too when law allows. But why those who make this kind of reasoning do not destroy and vivisectionate themselves? Would they be subjective? Oh this is not nice, this.

 

(Permalink) Races and genes. To equate an individual with his race constitutes 90% of racism, hatred entering there only for the remaining 10%. Yes it is, even if you «respect» people of the X race, the only fact of thinking «X are...» «X want...» is already enough to found Auschwitz, hatred being useful only to make it visible (This was seen in chapter I-5). To assimilate an individual with his genes constitutes as well the 90% of geneticism, which, with the emotionless rationalism, does not even need 10% more of hatred to turn into an exclusion or oppression system. We are not genomes, but persons! It is quite obvious that the main field where the majority of human invest themselves today is in the field of consciousness (even if it is just for their personal pleasure, and other playful concerns very far from holiness) and that we shall soon escape any influence from such or such gene. Already I find much more useful and significant to transmit my own children ideas, philosophy, feelings, vocational training, which in turn need training in reading, calculation, languages, all tasks without any genetic significance, but which are however among the top priority in our society. So far that children left completely without any education just get idiot and disabled. To transmit the color of my hair? Bah, there are dyes for that: chestnut brown. That only ten persons reading these words imitate me in dying their hair, and this character will be transmitted much more efficiently than by my only two children. Recently (French review «Science et Avenir», December 1998, page 34, Laurent Shwartz, cancer specialist, Richard Lewontin, geneticist) I found nabbed the Association Française contre les Myopathies, which, with a gigantic budget gathered from mass propaganda (téléthon), is now unbalancing research (and the humanitarian domain in general) at the risk of engaging it in an «all genetic» that nothing yet proves that it will not lead to a dead end (2011: it is not becoming better...).

Some common genetic idioties:

-That our genes «define» us.

-That our clone is «another ourself», or that he has the same intends.

-That we «continue to exist» after death, through our descendants.

-That our genes can transmit memories or learning

-That people want to transmit their genes (most don't know what they are, not to speak of animals)

-That people with the same genes are our friends (and how do we know they have the same genes?)

-Etc.

 

Psychological Reductionism Here one deals with «explaining» the mind in a matter of neurons, of genetic programs, or similar to data processing techniques. This once again allow to elude any moral or compassionate reference: «If you fail in your life or in your happiness, it is because you do not have the right program, so bad for you, and nobody will feel sorry for you because the concept of suffering does not make material sense.» But, how curiously, those who utter this kind of speech still keep much compassion for... themselves, and for their personal financial interests! They have their villas, their servants, their cellars filled with rare wines, in a place away from nuclear plants... and if you make them sore, they will not bear it, they will cry that it hurts, they will call for their doctors, their lawyers... Ha! Subjectivism...

 

Materialists economic theories Partisans of these theories can make very great savings, since they do not take care of the immaterial «subjective» needs of human (calm, poetry, company...) and this makes possible to satisfy without obstacles the subjective needs (power, luxury, glory) of their own minds! See chapter VI-8 for a true scientific economy.

 

«Personal freedom» This concept, good by itself, is sometimes used in a particularly perverse way, by claiming that people «will ask to enjoy» all the rationalist nonsenses (genetics fiddles, test-tube babies, etc...)(Added 2018: gender change) in the name of their inalienable freedom, and that we shall have to satisfy them at all costs. And especially without dealing with consequences on the freedom of the future generations: they only are «others».

 

Positivism (Permalink) Without entering into complicated debates, we can say that in the beginning positivism had for purpose to base knowledge on observation. But it was still a material observation, thus not solving the basic mistake of materialistic science. Today this word is often used for the perverse idea that only exists what can be materially observed. Hey, the dream which I had last night, under the pretext that yourselves cannot observe it, would not exist, even as a dream? Go down, guys, your eyes are not the center of the universe.

This criticism of positivism is common among the scientists, and we shall see a peculiar aspect of it into chapter V-2 concerning the law codes.

The history of positivism is complicated, as the same things were presented or re-interpreted later with opposite significance. In short, Auguste Comte, worthy son of his epoch, attempted to give a systematic interpretation of the world, together with a vision of an ideal society. Especially, he hoped that reasoning would allow to solve any problem or disagreement. But he was materialist, and anyway we saw in chapter I-9 that we cannot explain the world with only one unique conceptual system. This is how his positivism was flawed from the beginning, with such hyper dangerous ideas as basing morals on... consensus!!! Then Auguste Comte discovered love with Clotilde de Vaux, that unhappily he could not marry. This mishap however made him understand that the human being has other needs than only material. So he tried to rewrite his system, to account with love as a new basis. But it was too late, his disciple called him fool, unable as they were to accept love. So, against Comte's last will, they kept the logical/epistemological apparatus of positivism disconnected from fundamental human realities. This is what allowed the use of positivism to «justify» the great totalitarian dystopias of the 20th Century: marxism, nazism, capitalism, scientistism, technocracy.

 

(Permalink) The denial of consciousness: behaviourism the basis of this pseudoscience, held by some as a revealed truth, would be that the human mind being «unobservable», one can only observe what enters in it (stimulus) and what comes out of it (reactions). (Note the purposely mechanistic vocabulary). This vicious presentation leads to the idea, implicit but strong, that a nervous system whatever it is (including the human brain) only reacts to the environment, thus eluding any self motivation, desire or purpose. This directly leads to the planned result: excluding from the observation field precisely what the materialists and the immoralist do not want to see. This is the very reason why behaviourism is perfectly non-scientific. I think that this example (and the following) clearly illustrates the disadvantage that we announced about the search system of the USA: that some «scientific theories» would be financed and diffused by fascist or antisocial groups through umbrella foundations (2011: we have now clear evidence of this, with the climate denier morons).

(Added 2018:)To start with, how animals could want to transmit their genres, they even have no idea that they exist. Even most Humans still don't. It is clear that such barmy official pseudosciences as behaviourism and sociobiology are of use only to hide the suffering of vivisection or abortion.

(Added 2018:) This still not forbids behaviourism to be in high school programs in France, 2013, in 4th level. We could read this interesting lie by omission: «Le cerveau est un centre nerveux qui analyse les messages nerveux sensitifs (perception) et élabore en réponse des messages nerveux moteurs» («The brain is a nervous center which analyses the sensory nervous messages (perception) and elaborates motor nervous messages as a response»). After, they wonder that teens have drugs and delinquency.

 

(Permalink) The denial of consciousness: sociobiology When this «theory» first appeared into science popularization reviews, it was presented as a major breakthrough, a definitive explanation of everything, that all the biologists were cheerfully acknowledging. It was explained that the behavior of all living beings is completely and totally determined by only one motive: to transmit his genes to his descent. It was given appalling nonsense as examples, for instance a raped woman resists only to test the genes of her attacker! Clearly, this was the work of some underhand manipulator or consciousness denier, and the real reaction of scientists was more mitigate, and often embarrassed.

OK, genes exist, and they may have some observable influence on the mind, as they build the hardware of the brain. But it is obvious that the main motive of any living being is to live, and if it experiences feelings, to be happy. Some today still claim to be sociobiologists, for instance in the study of social insects, where hormones are exchanged between individuals, and change their biology. But in a general way, the influence of genes into the daily life of most beings is weak. We have some exceptions such as the sexual desire. But still, this sexual desire is controlled by many non-genetic concerns, such as the search for beauty, which led many species toward very non-Darwinian shapes. We also have bacteria which increase their mutation rate to modify their genes. In a general way, the today stakes of the evolution of mankind are culture, knowledge, freedom, happiness, spirituality, all kind of things which have no genetic meaning and supersede by far the purposes of the genes. Even if we need to transmit genes for these purposes, genes are only tools, not our gods.

 

(Permalink) The denial of consciousness: marxism and psychoanalysis (Added August 2018) are somehow the opposite course of behaviourism (even though they were invented before). Unlike simply denying consciousness as in behaviourism, they arbitrarily place a lot of clutter in, after their fashion: class interest for the first, unhealthy sexual symbols for the seconds. And they deal with people, not according to what they really think and feel, but according to the thoughts they attribute them... Thus, psychoanalysis and marxism are true inquisitorial systems, just as religious inquisition which accused people of impossible things (covenants with the devil, demon visits, breastfeeding a toad...).

In the case of marxism, people were persecuted and massacred according to their «class belonging», even if they were sincere militants or workers, while the power made a nomenklatura of «good communists», even if they were scoundrels.

In the case of psychoanalysis, no blood, or cries, but how many lives lost in unnecessary sessions, seeking in false directions without giving any real way to solve the problems. An anal stage? Yeees, I have one every morning, but, sorry, the rest of the day I think at something else. This vision of rich bourgeois, fretting in imaginary problems, would be fun, if there was not more serious things, like the way autistic children are treated in France.

Psychoanalysis has long been, and still is among eggheads, an «official pseudoscience». I call these imaginations «freudaines» (chapter V-1). In fact, psychoanalysis is based on the same principle as the fake mediums and New Age «channels»: a special person with a «gift» that we cannot obtain, in the instance to see in our «unconscious». Of course they do not see anything at all, and the psychoanalysis session is like putting plain water on a wooden leg so that it grows again: «Doctor it does not work -Continue paying me, it will end up working».

 

(Permalink) Extremist Darwinism (Lost the addition date, it seems after 2010) The point here is not to reject Darwinism as a valid scientific theory carrying interesting results, but that its much too often used abusively as a justification of materialism or atheism.

The today dispute «Darwinism versus creationism» is not a true debate, it is a trap for science, prepared by religious fundamentalists and the populist Media, in a very similar way as with the climate deniers and other manipulations. Many scientists fell in the prepared trap, by replying in a defence of materialism and atheism. This made of this debate a dispute between two ideologies (chapter I-9), which cannot yield any result or convince anybody.

Science should attack, instead of entrenching itself on the rotten ground of materialism. Attack with accepting to pose the still unanswered questions. For instance, many points are still badly understood in the evolution, especially the role of sexual desire and search of happiness, which, even among animals, often produced results in contradiction with the theory of adaptation. This kind of things, and facts like anthropism (chapter IV-6), strongly suggest that our universe «has a purpose» or «is directed». Yet it never appears any noticeable evidence showing that «something» or «somebody» really acted for this at any given moment. This is a real mystery, that neither religion nor materialist science can explain today. My own hypothesis, however very simple by itself, is difficult to explain, and it is introduced all along this book, especially in chapter IV-6, chapter V-6 and chapter V-7.

 

(Permalink) Communist science and capitalist science (Danger: hazard of death from laughter). (Added in 2011) It is extremely funny to compare these two pseudosciences: Lysenkism and behaviourism. Lysenkism was a merry delirium to justify or illustrate «scientifically» the social, collective and materialistic values of the Soviet regime. Of course, today, scientists laugh at Lysenkism, dismissing both the phoney theory and its use to justify moral or political tenets. But I laugh even more, because what else are doing the behaviourism and the like, than inventing pseudo-theories, or selecting facts, in order to illustrate the egocentric, competitive and materialistic values of capitalism? Everybody knows today, that lobbying groups linked to the American far right, funded by the carbon industry or the Koch brothers, and supported by the disinformation media of the Murdoch network, have established a myriad of «foundations» or «think tanks», in order to make believe that there is no greenhouse effect. We are starting to unravel that these shenanigans were already at work long before, to support the above pseudoscience, competitive education, ultra-liberalism, religious fundamentalism, sadomasochist budget cuts, conspiracy theories, antiecology, antiscience, etc. This situation is perfectly symmetrical with the one of the Soviet regime, and just as ridiculous and contemptible. Just that Westerners are less inclined to see the beam in the eye of capitalism, rather than the beam in the Soviet's eye!

 

(Permalink) Rationalist pessimism This is not strictly speaking an ideology, but often, the psychological shortcomings which lead a person to adopt a rationalist ideology also lead this person to express restrictive or sad ideas about anything, sometimes with scientistist justifications, but always without the least scientific base, or despite the denials of experience. Let us note:

-Incommunicability (impossibility to communicate major emotions or paradigms between persons)

-Unknowability (impossibility to know everything), shared with other ideologies.

-No extraterrestrial life

-Ok, bacteria, yes, but there «cannot be» extraterrestrial intelligence, or they «cannot» avoid self-destruction.

-Impossible to control our psychological problems (Land down, folks, we speak only of methods for this today, and we shall soon organize races of psychological healing with bets)

-We cannot be vegetarian, it will always miss «something» (what?)

-There «must» be wars

-Impossibility to ever arrive to a harmonious society

-Sadomasochist theories about the happiness of some which should always result from the sacrifice of others (economic war, vivisection, industrial «hazards», pollution, etc...)

-Etc...

 

The alchemists would have been idiots (Added August 2018) Some scientists like to denigrate the ancients. They say that alchemy is a pseudoscience, while it is actually a protoscience, and the basis for modern chemistry. Today it is easy to write that we cannot transmute lead into gold, and call the Ancients idiots. But alchemists could not make the difference between transmutation and chemical reaction. This explains that the word «transmutation» was still used by the first chemists, before the concept of simple body emerged.

 

Refusal of parapsychology (Added August 2018) This refusal has a curious origin... It was, let us remember, a Catholic taboo. With some others, like the taboo on extraterrestrial life. How did Catholic taboos managed to build their nests in science, despite the contradiction? It is that a neurosis of opinion (Chapter V-12) does not seek to be logically coherent.

 

(Permalink) Reductionism This concept applies to a whole set of situations where one reduces a difficult to apprehend problem, or mind disturbing, to another which does not arise problems (Of course this attitude reduces only the understanding or the vision, but it does not modify the reality itself. It is in some extent a «scientific» way to bury one's head in the sand)

-To reduce to a known and «acceptable» field: to reduce UFOs or NDEs to hallucinations, to reduce the mind to the neurons...

-To reduce a complex situation to a simplistic explanation (often to elude our responsibility): to reduce a post-colonial war to an ethnic conflict, to reduce the need for affection to a psychological traumatism, to reduce the ecological dispute to «an irrational fear of technology».

-To reduce gradated or subtle problems to a duality in yes or no: to reduce a Yin-Yang dialectics or a quadripolar diagram to an opposition of contraries, with an Aristotelian duality (This is explained in chapter I-5)

-To reduce the inhabitants of two countries at war to two clans (note 63), to reduce the relations between the genders to a matter of power...

-To reduce a moderated speech, with many references to various fields, to a simpler sketch, but which does not work the same way. The great scientistic reductions are the materialism, the psychological reduction (to bring back spirituality, feelings, the meaning we give to our lives... to psychological errors) the neuronal reduction (to bring back the mind to biochemical phenomena).

Without forgetting the cases, common in science, where to reduce a complex problem to a simpler one is perfectly legitimate, if this is a mean for understanding the complex situation at a whole. So the concept of reduction is vast and does not easily let itself... be reduced.

 

Utilitarian science. Many peoples try to justify the colossal science budgets with their utility, or technical spin-off. Without going as far as saying that this attitude would be false, we can however point that it is a justification, in front of a bad criticism of science by the ignorant or by short-sighted economists. I think that on the contrary we must recognize that some searches do not have any other «usefulness» than being a part of the free play of consciousness exploring the universe, and thus that the high cost matches the high stake. We must not be shy of being scientists! A relevant criticism of science budgets is more likely to nab the enormous funds absorbed by certain «ideological developments» of poor real utility (ITER, space stations, supersonic submarine...) when very useful small searches are neglected (thermochemical fuels production, male contraception, plants more resistant to diseases...)

 

Punk science I propose this curious neologism to indicate a rather late tendency of the grotty-punk movement, which also tries to involve in sciences, to propose nutter theories, but still coherent enough so that the specialists cannot refute them, and even accept them. Let us hope that this tendency, which starts today (1999) will do nothing but follow the slow but general decline of the grotty-punk movement. See for instance the warp drive, the idea of distorting space-time around a spaceship in order to go faster than the light, as a surfer who would blow on the ocean to create his own wave. (Added 2011:) Let us also quote the come back of the Velikovsky ideas about planets wandering and colliding just in time to explain some isotopic details we do not understand.

 

(Permalink) «Official pseudoscience»: pseudo-scientific explanations presented as being «the science» (Added 2012)

The archetype of this kind of manipulation was presented by Patrice van Eersel, in the chapter I-4 of his book «La Source Noire» (The Black source, seemingly not available in English) on NDE. He tells us about Ronald Siegel, a psychiatrist specialized in drugs and hallucinations, who is well known for his «explanation» of the NDE, as a «fireworks of neuromediators»: the brain in its death throes would produce large amounts of neuromediators, such as endorphins, which would generate hallucinations, feelings of bliss, etc. Patrice, a «Libération» journalists, loved this idea, but when he asked Dr. Siegel for more specific explanations, the later replied that he only «supposed» that things were going in this way, but he had done no experiment, no study, and even not met experiencers of NDE! Pressed with questions, the good doctor eventually justified himself with a diatribe against «the irrational» which, after him, was perverting science... This explanation makes no sense anyway: no theory, and especially no experience or study, allows to say that imminent death causes production of neuromediators, neither that they would have this effect. Yet this «explanation» is since brandished systematically by all the rationalists, including on wikipedia pages, for breaking all our hopes and say that there is no parapsychology or no survival after death. Thus there is clearly a pseudo-scientific explanation, totally untested, but still presented as «the science», or even «the reason», to foster ideas which have nothing scientific or reasonable.

There are numerous other cases:

-Hessdalen unexplained luminous phenomena would be caused by inflammation of scandium, a metal which is present locally. Only trouble, this metal does not exist in metallic form in nature, but as silicates, this meaning in a totally non-flammable form, just as ordinary sand. This explanation is therefore clearly pseudo-scientific, or even a deliberate manipulation only intended at misleading the ignorant general public. Yet we find it everywhere, including on the same Internet site as its denegation!

-In the case of the Seron fires («Feux de Séron», a French case involving a hundred of fires departures in a farm, which for some time were suspected of being of parapsychological origin) the journalists «explained» that farmers «commonly» used phosphorus and sodium, two highly flammable substances. This is a lie, based on the confusion of words: farmers do not use phosphorus, but phosphates, and salt (sodium chloride), two totally non-flammable substance (otherwise all farms would have to comply to the rules of hazardous factories!). And to extinguish the fires, they used aqua simplex, perhaps.

-The climate deniers morons wrote that the ice melt cannot raise the level of the oceans, since the volume of the ice pack floating on the ocean would give the same volume of water once melted. The reasoning seems an astute blow to the face of the scientists. Except for a little detail, which returns the blow against its authors: this reasoning applies only to floating ice, not to continental ice. Thus we can calculate that the melting of the Greenland ice would raise the ocean level for three meter (enough to drown all of our harbours and several nuclear power plants), while the melting of Antarctica would raise it of 60 metres (which would result in a famine killing billions of people). It is also known that the end of the last glaciation did raised the ocean for about 120 meters, which explains why we find prehistoric sites under the Sea (Cosquier cave, Dogger Bank)

 

(Permalink) «Astrological» use of science and scientific studies (added in 2012).

Beyond deliberated falsification of studies, we see more and more a degeneration of «real» science, based on «softening» of the method, incomplete interpretation of facts, or even just on plays of words.

The principle is simple: If we compare a statistical average of a phenomenon, with the theoretical average without the phenomenon (due only to chance), there always is a difference. The idea is just to publish the studies where the average goes in the desired direction (publication bias), exactly as with the predictions of astrology or false mediums. Rationalists often criticized parapsychologists, saying they use this method, but it is easily seen at work in allegedly serious studies, where it does not bother the rationalists. It is the case of many studies in psychology, economics, or sociology.

A funny example of this kind of pseudo-scientific study claims to demonstrate that «men prefer women with wide hips and large breasts, because they are better mothers». The study asks to choose between five models, from skinny to obese... but what if one prefers slender women with large breasts? Or the contrary? It is clear that such a study offers only a biased choice, which induces the replies, as well as two totally gratuitous assertions: that large women would be better mothers (false, slender Asian women bear as well) and men would choose women solely on the basis of their reproductive qualities (false, and even fairly phallocrat, as all this kind of studies, as we guessed). This is how false scientists speak in our place, attributing us ideas and intents against our will, and even without actually asking us.

(Permalink) (Added in 2012, rewritten in 2018:) Another much less amusing example is the recent claim that sexual mutilations protects against AIDS. Yet, the three studies, carried out in Subsaharian Africa by ANRS (France), NIAID (USA) and UNIM (USA) do not demonstrate this statement: we only have a variation in the infection rate, which does not constitute a really usable protection. Worse, these rates can be explained for another reason. Indeed, the studies assume that all Africans are sexually obsessed, jumping from bed to bed. But in reality, in countries where Islam is common, there is a strong correlation between the mutilation proposed in the study, and marital fidelity. And the later provides an excellent protection, which is enough to explain the weakly positive results of the studies. And you can check yourself that all these studies ignore this bias: go to the list of studies published by wikipedia (March 12, 2018), and search for «Islam» or «Muslim»: these words do not appear anywhere, and the word «religion» appears only in one «study» which justifies mutilation by «its prophylactic benefits well-known from religion» (in more of politics discussions). The same «study» rejects the ethical and human rights aspects, and goes as far as comparing opponents to anti-vaccine groups! So we clearly are in a case of «astrological science», and courts may ponder the question of an organized fraud. Only one study doubts the effect of mutilations, given the mixed results of the others, and possible biases. Even wikipedia doubts, lol! In any case, if it had been a study of parapsychology, we would get our bottoms kicked severely. But what is really terrible in this case is that we find there large institutions, including the Melinda Gates Foundation and no less than the WHO... thus busy promoting their sexual fantasy. And it turns out that I am well placed to measure the fanaticism of these people to bend others to their fantasies: I had to defend a child against an attempt of sexual mutilation, orchestrated by a pedophile, in which not less than two doctors made false statements, including an «alternative doctor»!

 

(Permalink) Conspirationism (Written in 1999, exact quote:) Conspirationism appeared with the Heidelberg appeal, in 1992, which talks twaddle on ecology with these words: «We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealised by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse...» (Authentic quote). Such a delirious verbiage would just be laughable if it was not signed by more than 4000 scientists, including 70 Nobels, showing in which extend science can be easily taken over for anti-social, see fascist purposes. Here is the cost of not knowing what is a Klipah...

(Written in 2008, exact quote:) It must however be said that scientists reacted and identified this text for what it is: a case study of organized disinformation. It is interesting to know that the author of the Heidelberg appeal, Michel Salomon, was associated with the SEPP, a pseudo-science foundation subsidised by... the Moon cult! Other anti-ecology or anti-life forgers were also nabbed, such as Ragnar Rylander, condemned by a court for falsifying studies on the effects of passive smoking, while being paid by the tobacco company Phillip Morris. How many deaths this man caused? We also know that some world media networks are slavishly submitted to the «think tanks» of «carbon barons», subversive organisations handsomely paid to spread anti-ecology, anti-morals, «competitive education» and other barmy things. Of course, these people sometimes point at science results which help them, but most of the time they show loud and clear their absolute contempt of any science.

(I laugh, in 2011:) The conspiracy of the climate deniers, denounced since ten years by Greenpeace, ended to become much too visible, forcing science (and politicians) to at last take an unified position of denunciation of these manoeuvres.

«But, will bleat some, I believed that conspirationism was a New Age thing, denouncing the plot of the extraterrestrials with the Illuminatis and the government of the United States...» Oh, this. Well. Why to speak of this? Why do you believe that it is the same Media which advertise these things, which also advertise the climate deniers? Because this makes denouncing real conspiracies look nutter. This is the very principle of boosting disinformation. So the real conspiracies, like the climate deniers, are protected. There is especially one, still more dangerous, which name however regularly appears into the wikipedia list of imaginary conspiracies... Complicated? Eh, as in any scheming, the guies who want to con you don't want you to understand them, hihihi!

 

Let us complete this survey of serious deliria by mentioning the role which the public is supposed to play: The public should not be thrown into a panic, the public has irrational reactions, the public always demands for more «scientific» or technocratic deliria, the public can accept only very simplistic explanations, the public, the public... I am probably not part of the public, and neither are any of the people I encounter in shops or in the streets: most oppose all these things, even in their simple ways.

 

The above theories are generally presented to the general public as being «the science», and anyway deprived of concrete stakes and of no practical interest. Unfortunately, this is not true: the paranoid Heidelberg appeal, the disinformation by tobacco industry and climate deniers wackos, widely magnified by some media, always are in a way to delay the solution of life and death issues: nuclear power, greenhouse effect, OGM, POPs... So that they go straight against our very most essential survival interests. I think such groups and ideologies can be considered as being CULTS CALLING FOR COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OF THE WHOLE MANKIND. We have thus the right to place these scientistic and rationalist theories at the same level as the ideologies calling for racism or social hatred, when the denial of ecology problems would join the denial of the nazi camps. In any case I do not see anything more barmy and irrational than burying one's head in the sand about ecological problems...

 

(Added in April 2018:) But finally, science played its role, by denouncing the climate deniers as liars, and taking an united, official and effective position, that politics and economy just had to embrace. Unfortunately, conspiracy nutters responded by forming what works as a reactionary political party, in opposition to progress and to people.

(Added in April 2018:) Yet, it is worth noting that an interesting decantation is taking place. We started with conspiracies which were speaking in the name of science, or in the name of society (Heidelberg appeal, tobacco or asbestos industry lies). But science was quickly able to extirpate itself from this bog, so that now conspirationists, flat Earthers and post-fact nutters are clearly a reactionary and anti-Humanity force. Even further, society is now starting to isolate them (laws against fake news).

(To be continued: how the conspirationists, flat Earthers and post-fact nutters ended up totally ridiculing each other) Since conspiracy theories are no longer mainstream, further comments on them will be moved to the «alternative» sub-chapter.

«Alternative» deliria (4')

(Permalink) We can also nab here some «natural», «alternative» or «ecological» ideologies. They look more innocent, but if ever they were allowed to become mainstream, they would show as much dangerous (as they already are, in some cults). We can say, according to quadripolar logic, that the rationalism of the old fogeys and the most delirious New Age are two reciprocal situations, i.e. the same thing but painted of a different colour.

 

Antiscience In this theory, all the problems due to science would come from the fact that science would be basically bad, and that we could not mend it. Any scientific assertion would be inevitably false or distorted.

This word has in fact been invented by the rationalists, who use it indistinctly for any critical attitude toward the dominant materialistic ideologies. It certainly is one of their phantasms, of which they exaggerated its importance, but this current of thought really exists in a diffuse way, and it could, at the occasion of some social or ideological crisis, become organised and dangerous in its turn.

It should be noted that the vacuum left by science in numerous fields, and its inopportune denials (chapter II-8) do nothing but feed the proliferation of beliefs, odd ideas, cults (note 48), distorted scientific theories or vicious spiritual statements that science was expected to eliminate. Here again we see reciprocal situations (3) and (4), apparently enemy, but building on each other in a synergy.

 

(Permalink) Everyone his own truth This is probably the one I hate the most, as it is the very concepts of truth and objectivity which are disputed. The goal is rather similar to that of the rationalists, but into an «environment» or «spiritual» context: to eliminate any concept of morals or respect of others, in favour of very personal egocentric motivations: power (in a cult), money, eating meat, alcoholism, and so on. I even got a bio-vegan paedophile! This is to say in which extent «everyone his own truth» can be used to justify anything, without encumbering oneself with morals or coherence.

I would add that such a simplistic statement like «everyone his own truth» makes intrinsically no sense: by definition truth is what does not depend on somebody's opinion or perception. However this statement is often thrown into a discussion, to elude any further questioning, when a manipulator has no real argument to prove that 2+2 = 5. And the usual effect is that people effectively stop discussing, and become respectful of the manipulator's point of view, admitting that 2+2 has the right to make 5. Why? Because in (4') attachment to freedom goes at the expense of the search of truth (1) or (2)! So these people «FEEL» that the manipulator is right! This is why the «sensitive» (4') can be really as dangerous as Orwell's 1984, but in the name of freedom, like Huxley's «Brave new world».

As to me, I am interested only in the truth of everybody, which is not always what I like, but at least we can meet other people there.

I call such statements as «everyone his truth» ideological viruses (Chapter V-12), because they do not make sense by themselves, but they get into people's thought system, take control of it, reproduce and contaminates other people. Ideological viruses are a very common vector for the dissemination of lies, ideologies and falsehood, since they have the ability to allow them to pass through people's defences.

 

Anybody is free to believe what he wants, any theory is true, we can forbid no theory

Probably the most dangerous attitude of the New Age, alternative medicines, UFO cultists or environment cultists, is that anybody would be «free» to create and publish any theory, see any arbitrary balderdash, and we would have no right to say that some theories would be false. This attitude is obviously anti-scientific, but also humanly very detrimental: how many people lose years into false spirituality, unpractical social alternatives, or ruin their health into inefficient medicines? This attitude is a major brake to the development of a modern spirituality and a better society. It is however very remarkable that those «calls to tolerance» are all the more angry when we get closer from intolerant sectarian movements. Yes, raw intolerance learned to hide itself under the guise of calls to tolerance... one way calls.

 

Post facts society (added 2018) is an expression invented by conspirationists pretending that society would follow them, by renouncing the notion of objective facts. Check who pretends that we are in a post-facts society, and bar them from any vote intent, leadership or information source. They are your ENEMIES. In every case.

 

Attacks against science. When conspiracy theories began to emerge, no one paid attention to these idiocies. When religious nutters came to censor certain scientific teachings in the United States, we saw only one isolated aberration. When the populist media began to advertise the so-called conspiracy theories, we did not wondered why. Today, we know: «some» are now seeing climate change as «a conspiracy», or even a taboo subject in society, because of disputes «like politics or religion». And science is seen «as a political party»... As in the time of the inquisition or the gulags, the truth is inconvenient. And for lack of being able to silence it, it is disguised. Other scandals such as venal experts «unaware» of the dangers of some GMOs or drugs, raise the question of the falsifications of science by technocratic sects or by infantile financial interests.

Also science defends itself: Independent science news

My blog on science, which was a blog about progress, but by necessity it became a blog about threats.

Because to defend science is everyone's business.

 

Naturalism Here it is nature which is deified, adorned with divine attributes such as perfection, higher imperious will, infallibility... We should not disturb it or modify it, all what is artificial would be bad, the wolves would not eat the little children, all what is natural would be good (even natural wine, did you know, would not cause alcoholism or cirrhosis) all what is artificial would be bad (a synthetic vitamin «does not have the same molecular structure»), etc...

The expression «Naturalistic fallacy» nabs the idea as what «everything natural is morally good»

 

Relativism We already studied this in chapter I-5: basic values are opposed. For instance we shall see in chapter VI-14, that a very general value, like avoiding suffering of others, lead certain persons to become vegetarian. The problem arises when certain «ecologists» or «naturists» oppose this attitude, in the name of individual freedom. This is relativism: to oppose a value to another, or to take pretext of one fundamental value to avoid another. In reality, true values never oppose or contradict each other. It is only a confused mind which «sees» such contradictions.

Cultural relativism is pretending that fundamental moral values depend of culture. For instance sexual mutilations would be «legitimate» in Africa. The best example remains the position of the Chinese as what «Human Rights would be «a Westerner's concept, not applicable in China».

 

(Permalink) «gender studies» (Added in April 2018:) are a particularly devious case, a skein of manipulations and counter-manipulations. In France in 2013 they were denounced by the «Manif pour Tous» (Demonstration for all), together with homosexual marriage and same-sex parenting. Without going into details, we have a complex controversy accusing the «Manif pour tous» of homophobia and extreme right. More objectively, we can consider a reaction motivated by the interest of the children, but which at one time or another was taken over by the political right and far right. A taking over which finally serves well the supporters of same-sex parenting, discrediting the movement and avoiding to address the real ethical issues (the consequences on children). Are you still following? :D

Regarding the gender studies themselves, the wikipedia page (April 2018) is tell tale. It defines that thing as a denunciation of sexual stereotypes. Good, but they call them «gender», which immediately (deliberately?) sows confusion with the biological sex. Worse, this denunciation invokes the big names of Marxist «feminism» and psychoanalysis, explaining the relations between the sexes as a «power struggle». So we clearly are in the high hogwash, without even having to invoke the stories of wee-wees which grow alone when you want to become a boy.

It is interesting to note that the «Manif pour tous» protested against the teaching of gender studies at school. Problem, I checked: gender studies do not appear on this year's school programs (which were visible to everyone on the internet). Yahoo claimed that this teaching had taken place in a pilot class, but they have since retracted (withdrew the page). In the other direction, Hoaxbuster claims that scientific studies shown that same-sex parenting is not harmful to children. They provide two links. Problem, one of the links is only instructions for social workers to respectfully approach these families, and the other was apparently retracted (error 404) by the Australian Psychological Association (leading association of Australian psychologists). So that Hoaxbuster is busted.

It remains that a law was passed against children, without considering their needs and their rights. As if they were pets, just good at serving sexual fantasies. Toy children.

The impression which arises from this kerfuffle is accurately described with only two words according to quadripolar logic (chapter I-4): this is just a «kliphoth brawl», as always when un-smart people oppose values instead of harmonizing them (these two values being respect for GLBT people, stupidly opposed to the rights of children). Harmonizing these values allowed me instead to present rational ethical conclusions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage in chapter VI-5, and on same-sex parenting in chapter VI-6 (basically: discretion about our sex practices, no adoption, but not either destroying functional families).

Indeed, I have seen everything in my life. When I was in primary school, the «Maréchal nous voilà» (pétain's anthem) was just buried, and the girls were still parked apart: it was a «shame» to go with them! I even have been contemporary with the ban on... watching eclipses! I shudder with horror... Today, after seeing the French «secular» schools transformed into an instrument of hatred of religions, it is the heterosexuals who are harassed and considered abnormal! So, it is the «left» which becomes the bad guy, and the extreme right which «protects» us... how far shall we go in the dualistic confusion?

 

Pot-pourri We can still quote in bulk without studying them: Opposition to mathematics source of all evil, opposition to writing, the medicine only formed only with gangsters, drinking one's urine cure all diseases, all information is hidden about the conspiracy between Extraterrestrials and the US government, etc...

 

The only difference with the dominant rationalism (3') is that (4') is in small groups, where it does not threatens the society at a whole. But a social crisis could make it dominant, with as much, or more noxious effect than rationalism (cults, fundamentalism). This is not a gratuitous prospect: I met many spiritual friendly or environment friendly people, and I often stumbled on (4'), which seems to already pervade large chunks of the society. In case of a «spiritual revolution», or a «green revolution» (likely to happen in the 2020 or 2030), how could the ignorant majority protect itself from these lies, if the elite cannot? Environment or spiritualist movements must first cleanse themselves of these manipulations. If not they will only do a new October 1917.

Harmonization

(Permalink) Let us finish this chapter, where everyone got quite a show for him, by reminding that we can reject neither science, nor the movements which criticize it. Never let us lose sight of the fact that in the quadripolar diagram, to each negative force corresponds a similar looking but positive force. The most traditional science (1) is rich with extraordinary results, admirable discoveries and characters of large stature. The growth of spirituality, environment and naturist movements (2), are a gushing of creativity and raw spirit which only requires to be organised to create an incredibly happier life. Both will be able to be united in a single science-consciousness, as soon as we shall try to eliminate the gangue.

And if this purification happened spontaneously, without effort, as soon as both agree to come together into contact and respect each other? As soon as their non-duality is understood?

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Epistemology        Chapter II-7       

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.

 

 

 

As every independant author I need your support to be able to continue to work on this site and allow for a freedom of expression to exist on the net:

 

 

 

Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.