So we were talking about the 7 “hard” disciplines and how they underlay the entire web of trust which makes our modern civilization work and provides pretty much all of us with an unprecedented standard of living, safety and comfort.
The 7 “hard” disciplines is the complete picture of our civilization’s web of trust in a nutshell – physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science and of course mathematics. Everything that makes life safe, prosperous, and even possible for us today depends totally on developments and progress building step upon step in those 7 “hard” disciplines, the development of which stretches all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, and the birth of the Western Philosophical Tradition, a group referred to collectively by the Illuminati of the Pink as “Dead White Males” in their broadcast Ad Hominum attack on all of recorded history. And, of course, the total construct of these interrelated “hard science” disciplines rests on a foundation of Catholic Philosophy and the work of hundreds of generations of Catholic scientists, many of whom were (HORRORS!) Catholic Priests. . We are never told about that part these days, in the midst of absorbing our Progressive Relativist Revisionist “Social Studies”. I didn’t just make this up for this blog post. It is common knowledge available to anyone who cares to search rather than get their “wisdom” from the main stream media.
As I mentioned earlier, I use the term “hard” in the sense that these disciplines typically function in an empirical structure that doesn’t care how the student, working scientist, or professor “feels” about developments and results. In the “hard” disciplines we have no room for weaselly distortion and subjective opinion. No room for feelings. Things either “are” or “are not”. The direction of experimentation always points to “truth” or “fact” or some sort of error or “untruth” which encourages the searcher to try a different tack, revisit his or her thesis or premise and try again. Or you can choose the “soft” approach, the “Pink” approach”, and just chuck out or ignore the bits that don’t support what you are selling.
And so you have the “soft” sciences, the “studies” programs, the subjective, emotional, touchy feely, “investigations” into the human “reality”. The “soft” sciences are a very recent development in our history. The “soft” sciences only exist because the “hard” sciences were so successful that we developed an incredibly rich civilization. The 7 hard disciplines applied over centuries allowed mankind to bring into existance a civilization so successful that huge surpluses of wealth and resources existed to support the investigation of areas of human existence where empirical reality has less value and subjective feelings and “Gedanken” experiments reign supreme.
Stated another way, we now observe the sad fact that the very success of the 7 “hard” disciplines in creating an incredible civilization, also gave us enough security, and comfort, and frankly, slack in the system, the culture of slack, for all the “soft science” areas called “studies” to develop, and even usurp pride of place over the “hard” disciplines which make them possible, not only possible but to thrive and flower and release their spores into the surrounding culture. We have become as gods, destroyers of worlds, for the real important world is not actually the physical reality so easily manipulated by the hard disciplines but the much deeper spiritual reality of souls. and verily we are truly destroying the world of the soul.
And in the “Just So” stories of our culture, the “soft science gurus” experienced their own “trinitarian” Epiphany. Their very own “Eureka” moment when they gazed into the mirror of their black souls and saw the perfect reflection of themselves gazing back and immediately felt total love for that reflection. They became each and every one of them their very own little triune god.
And so it was that in their heart of hearts they KNEW they couldn’t take themselves seriously, knowing themselves and their personal evils as only they did, and not feeling the same respect for themselves that the examining committees are expected to project, they took the only easy way out and began to ridicule God. They became Momos, and proceeded to attack and destroy anyone who didn’t get in line to worship at the alter of their thesis.
And Lo’ their “Gedanken” experiments were assigned the arbitrary weight of “reality”, until something overwhelmingly and undeniably contradicted their predictions whereupon they moved the goal posts to a new “Gedankan” position and carried right on, on the theory that no-one would remember what they originally said, and anyway it’s all about getting the grants, and everybody does it, right? And the practice rubbed off on some of the “hard” science community because they could see, right before their starving eyes, that sensation sells and gets grants and sponsorship and publicity and television shows and so on, and so they too ate of the apple. And the serpent of egregious relativism entered the garden of science, and the rest is history …
Don’t believe me? I remember this, ’cause I was there!. If you weren’t then here are some “Historic Notes”:
The Population Bomb is/was a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor of Biology and teacher, Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth (why do they always decide that they have to kill off someone else to solve the problem?).
Fears of a “population explosion” were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience. The book has been criticized since its publishing for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future” and believe that it achieved their goals because “it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.”
Fact: Erlich trained as an Entomologist (specializing in butterflies). He had no background or training in agronomy or population growth. “The Population Bomb” was written at the suggestion of David Brower the executive director of the environmentalist Sierra Club, and Ian Ballantine of Ballantine Books following various public appearances Ehrlich had made regarding population issues and their relation to the environment. The Population Bomb began with the statement: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate… ” Nothing weasily about that prediction. Pretty much lays it on the line. And was dead wrong. … the book was a huge marketing success and made a LOT of money for the players involved. Any questions?
Global cooling will kill us all!!! But they didn’t just have a proposed physical mechanism for this catastrophe. They had the evidence of the temperature record, which showed global temperatures generally declining from about 1940 to 1970. Which led to fevered predictions like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
As late as 1980, Carl Sagan was still presenting global cooling as one of two possible doomsday scenarios we could choose from. The series “Cosmos” marks the precise moment of change, when the goal posts were moved. This is a bit of a cultural time capsule, preserving the precise moment at which scientific alarmists were switching from warning about a new ice age, in the 1970s, to warning about runaway warming. …
so, “soft science”, moving goal posts, changing stories, relativism, denial, plausible deniability, … to be continued …
Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately