(Note to readers who might find this old post from May 2015: That was then, this is now, I am adding this on April 14, 2019, almost 4 years on from where I was back in May 2015. I have to emphatically declare that much of what I believe and write about in this and the next three post about “The Web Of Trust” is based on the work of Bill Whittle and his writings at the beginning of the 21st century, about that Web of Trust as he sees it and also to no small degree on his “Tribes” polemic.
Bill put it all together in a good book called “SILENT AMERICA: ESSAYS FROM A DEMOCRACY AT WAR” which is well worth reading. Bill articulated very well the headspace of an entire generation of retired vets, workers in the trenches of our modern society, and even many who served in other ways, his Grey Tribe workers … you know who you are.
And he affected the way we resolved the coginitive dissonance we experienced once we left the Armed Services. I had a rather gentle transition spending, as I did, 10 years in the Corrections Service, getting used to “civvie street” again before making a clean break into the world of modern College, University and eventually Government Health Care. Others were not so lucky.)
Restating, that list of 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.
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. We are never told about that part these days.
The “soft” sciences are a very recent development in our history. The “soft” sciences and their little gedanken experiments dressed up as “real ” science.
Remember that the age of the “soft sciences” is relatively recent historically speaking, pretty much confined to the late 19th and the 20th centuries, and of course the 21st.
Also remember that the “troubles” we see today are relatively recent. It’s not a coincidence.
Simple really, Good = more God. Evil = less God. Gedanken” experiments. sounds “sciency” somehow … must be authentic, right? BAHH!!! “Soft Science” = soft heads = who cares as long as we get the grants.
The idiot rubes don’t care = useful idiots. So the “soft sciences” dress up “Gedanken” experiments in a lot of hocus-pocus to hide the facts that the emperor is naked. Link to a 2018 post that was not available in 2015 but keep in mind that the source is MSN.
Einstein (a 7 hard disciplines super-star) used Gedanken experiments as a way of trying on speculative ideas using one’s imagination but that provenance doesn’t grant them a pass so that they can be used as the basis for policy.
It’s still “gedankenexperimentung,” which is a German word that is usually translated as “thought-experiments” — by which I understand Einstein meant something like “experiments carried out inside one’s mind,” more or less (native German-speakers are please invited to correct or comment).
In English, a much better translation might be “imaginary experiments,” but the person who first literally translated “gedankenexperimentung” into “thought-experiments” … It is all in the imagination of the experimenter. Like our climate change experts, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, neologists, and so on.
In a previous post I mentioned “Nazi Racist” as a favoured epithet amongst the Illuminati of the tolerant left, amongst those who choose to “HATE” the other. and while I don’t particularly like being called a “Nazi”, I really take exception to the “racist” part of the lie.
This whole web of trust has nothing to do with race. NOTHING to do with race. The web of trust depends totally on facts, and logic, and rules and truth. It’s simple, really, depart from “The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”, and you depart from civilization and everything that our lives, security, health, and prosperity depend on.
Facts as provable items and logic as a process which leads to materially proven advances exist whether the “soft” pink crowd like it or not. And so do I, and my ideas, and my observations, and I don t give a damn what such people say, either.
This abusive intimidation tactic has been used to silence benign, well-meaning people for decades, since at least the 60’s when having long unwashed hair and yelling loud obscenities was painted as making a deep statement about standing for something outside the established culture.
How would a real Nazi respond to being called a racist? Hitler, dude, you’re like a total racist man! That’s a compliment to goose-stepping sons of bitches. The Neo-Nazi’s in modern Germany are proud of being Nazi’s! That’s a badge of pride for them.
There was a famous picture used by the left, (legitimately I think) to encapsulate the “Kent State Experience“. The use of this kind of symbolism effectively reduces complex issues involving many salient facts into simple emotional knee jerk, “I’m good – your bad” triviality.
The whole “LEFT – RIGHT” meme is deadly in that it effectively hides and obscures reality with a simplistic linear symbol. It brings it all back to the “useful idiot” mechanism and the one’s getting hurt are the tools. By any rational measure the “killing fields“ could not conceivably have been prevented by putting flowers in gun barrels.
That kind of evil eats flower children for breakfast and eats their children for lunch. It simply WAS NOT and IS NOT as simple as the Media agents of the Left would have the tools believe. At Kent State, both the shooters and the shot were kids. The grown ups of the day are culpable because they failed to teach the kids about reality.
It has only gotten worse since, because those kids are now the grown ups on both sides and they never learned anything growing up. The shrine of the Kent State idiocy is still in flower today. The most maligned group in America today are the very group who are charged with protecting us from evil. How does blaming the greatest civ in history help?
Only decent people are deterred by such screaming, irrational, in your face obscenities, and that is the entire objective of the abusers, they learned it in their childhood in the schoolyard and at the university. It works. Because the Kool-Aide drinkers are just as much totalitarian fascists as the original Nazis were.
They simply cannot stand to co-exist with anyone who disagrees with their enlightened point of view. If you are different you MUST be a stupid Nazi. But not here. Not anymore. You don’t have to take my word for this. Just ramble on over to Being Liberal for your daily dose of poison.
Wherever I look today, I see a full court press of barbarians and savages, of every colour, closing in on all we hold dear, and on the opposite end of the scale I see a “rainbow” of the brilliant, the civilized, and the decent. I see our civilization warts and all.
And you need to understand that this Civilization and the web of good it has developed has nothing to do with RACE and everything to do with Values, and Discipline, and Excellence, and belief in Something Greater than ourselves to Whom we are accountable and which leads us to aspire to greatness, to set high goals and recognize ideals and structures for peaceful exchange as important to our ultimate good.
Rwanda and Bosnia were on different sides of the planet, and their citizens were as different-looking from each other as humans can be, but the horrors each perpetrated during their respective 5 minutes of fame should put to rest forever the idea that a few millimeters of melanin can save us or doom us one way or another.
What we see in the Middle East and Europe and Baltimore, and Ferguson today is simply the result of bad choices and bad philosophies playing out their reality. Bad choices result in bad consequences. Elementary my dear Watson. None of it has ANYTHING to do with RACE!
So, what started out as a good feeling , “thankfulness” about everything wonderful in our civilization and how blessed we are to live at this time and place in history and in thinking about the why of it, it turns into a monologue about what helps and what hinders the operation of the web of trust which we all depend on every day.
In previous posts I have touched on the phenomena of experts in a particular field holding forth on events and possibilities in fields in which they have no expertise at all, and being credited with authority in the second because of their proven authority in the first. The is the phenomenon of Ultracrepidarianism.
It has two sides, one is the expertise that confers authority on the “expert” and can be wide and deep and thoroughly authentic, as in David Suzuki’s commentary on “Biotechnology“ both these links are PDF downloads. The man is nothing short of brilliant in his field.
The other side of Ultracrepidarianism is the authority he, as “expert” carries over into Climatology and it’s potential/ possible outcomes based on his “opinion” about the causes of “Global Climate Change” as it is known today – moving goal posts again. “Change” is a much easier straw man to defend.
Absolute predictions are a hard place to make your stand. “Climate Change” is much easier to defend, than statements like:
“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… “.
Suzuki’s Climatology credentials are non-existent. He is certainly is entitled to his opinion just as I am entitled to mine but it must be clearly identified as that, just opinion with no supporting replicable science behind the assumptions.
There is something inherently evil in any assertion regarding what we must do to “save the world” from global warming and that evil is exactly the same as the evil in the pronunciations by Edward East, a Harvard Professor and President of the Genetics Society of America, states in his Eugenics text:
“In reality, the Negro is inferior to the White. This is not hypothesis or supposition; it is a crude statement of actual fact. ”The problem of course, is that “inferior” is not a scientifically meaningful category. Like “superior,” “better” and “worse,” it is a value judgement. In their enthusiasm and zeal for the exciting discoveries in genetics, scientists like East confused their own personal values and beliefs with scientifically demonstrated “fact.”
The quote is taken from chapter 8 of the book “An Erratic Journey Through Science and Society“ by David Suzuki, Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British Columbia.
Another example of this Ultracrepidarianism phenomenon is Carl Sagan’s transition from Astronomer to Climate Change expert. Sagan readily admits that the science on this subject is still in its early stages—but then he makes a disastrous error. He states
“And yet we ravage the Earth at an accelerated pace, as if it belonged to this one generation, as if it were ours to do with as we please…. Our generation must choose. Which do we value more: short-term profits or the long-term habitability of our planetary home?…”
Sagan states that the study of the global climate, the sun’s influence, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, these are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are funded poorly and grudgingly, and meanwhile we continue to load the Earth’s atmosphere with materials about whose long-term influence we are almost entirely ignorant.
Can you see the error? Sagan enters this topic with a clear animus against the profit motive and a pre-established belief that industrial civilization is “ravaging the earth.” These are the obvious cultural biases of a late-20th-century modern liberal. So he considers two alternative theories—that we are destroying the planet by cooling it down, or we are destroying the planet by heating it up—and calls for more government funding to figure out which is correct.
But his bias prevents him from seriously considering the obvious third option: that our effect on the Earth’s climate is negligible, any heating or cooling is within the normal range of natural variation, and the benefits of industrial civilization far outweigh any negative effects. But if we don’t treat this as an option, much less as an equally likely option, no government funding is likely to be devoted to pursuing that theory.
This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we’re “ravaging the planet”—and we’re only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.
For this lie we should be willing to destroy the greatest civilization that ever existed? That makes the existence and funding of these soi-disant experts possible? This “original sin” is exactly the same as Pol Pot’s original sin. The godlike “I”, knows all, sees all, and has the ONLY correct answer to the problems “I” see.
Coming up! The New Democratic Party and Alberta! ….
Disclaimer for the nit pickers: we take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately