Monday, April 04, 2005

Progressives, Biologists, Scientism and the Panda's Thumb

This one's long.

Progressives and scientism,
These sorts of fellows are not kept up with the way they should be thanks to a strong Leftist bias in academia. Yet they do have quite a past that some keep up with, and links from the present to the past:
"In general, Lynn points to positive reviews of Pioneer-funded books, like Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior or works such as The Bell Curve, "which made extensive reference to Pioneer-funded research "as evidence " that the intellectual tide has started to turn" back in favor of eugenics. (Richard Lynn, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (2001) :540) Burnham's, Rushton's, and Lynn's books are turn-of-the-millennium examples of the message the Pioneer Fund continues to subsidize. As noted earlier, the Pioneer Fund also provided financing for the work of many researchers favorably noted in The Bell Curve. It is small surprise, then, that The Bell Curve characterizes Harry Laughlin's work as the innocent thoughts of "a biologist who was especially concerned about keeping up the American level of intelligence by suitable immigration policies." (Richard S. Herrnstein & Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life 298, 300 (1994) :5) The Bell Curve's insistence on the futility of social welfare programs is consistent with passages from the Eugenical News decades ago. Then, Laughlin's journal dismissed the value of equal education, (Negro Efficiency, 1 Eugenical News, Nov. 1916, :79) as well as health service expenditures for non-whites, (Race Mortality, 1 Eugenical News, Nov. 1916, :79) and promulgated Wilhelm Frick's opinion that the impulse of public charity was at odds with hereditary fitness. (Dr. Wilhelm Frick, Reichminister for the Interior, Address Before the First Meeting of the Expert Council for Population and Race-Politics (June 28, 1933) in German Population and Race Politics, 19 Eugenical News, Mar.-Apr. 1934, :33, 36) Thus, the most malignant brand of eugenics survives, hidden behind a disingenuous veil of statistics, masked as innocent science in the pages of The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve argues that our biological legacy is deteriorating. It employs the language of genetic determinism that was popular during the heyday of eugenics. It attempts to overwhelm the reader with numbers, charts, and formulas, posing as a scientific analysis of our current social woes."
(Albany Law Review, 2002
65 Alb. L. Rev. 743
"The American Breed": Nazi
Eugenics and the Origins of the Pioneer Fund
By Paul A. Lombardo, J.D., Ph.D.)

The fact is, eugenic notions are at the root of what many scientists believe as true, even if the current generation of scientists cannot stomach their application to man for the most part. The same patterns of ideas are still there, lurking about. There is also a misanthropic tendency among biologists that may make the recurring application of such ideas more palatable. I'm referring to Leftist scientists, mainly evolutionary biologists. They are still around, although they do not seem to write about eugenics very much anymore. They are still believers in scientism and have quite a Leftist bent, with some interesting mythological narratives of Naturalism. (I've never seen people so energized to prevent stickers (yes, just some sticky stickers) on text books in order to maintain a textbook orthodoxy which promotes mythological narratives of Naturalism. It's really quite amazing, in a way. Why do they do it? I suspect it is their psychology.)

Here is a comment from the comments section of a post on the same blog, in which a writer does quite a hack job on the Scopes trial and William Jennings Bryan. That post can be corrected but I'd rather focus on what those who have faith in scientism tend to say these days.

So an example,
"They ["fanatics"] have, today, reached the point where they would prefer to suffer without, than to have the government intervene and set things more equal. This inevitably spills over into science and medicine. Today, they have PDAs, microwave ovens, MRI/CAT/PET scans, genetic-drugs, air travel, energy to spare… All those things are resultant from basic science and basic scientific method, and all are intimately related, yet this is not enough to overcome the idea that science is out to destroy their religion, and them."

The irony here is that Leftist biologists are out to destroy fundamentalism. Their ideas are also often about getting rid of the unfit, those who need the opiate of the masses.

Note their typical veneration of "science" based on the usefulness of technology. If history is any measure a sort of technocratic scientism is to replace "religion." (Oddly, that can be mixed with some sort of Nature based paganism. When was the last time the National Geographic attacked a Nature based spirituality? Instead, they are avid supporters of it.) The sort of religion that must be destroyed or replaced is only that which traces back to the "Jewish influence" and its Scriptures. The fundamental appeal to the common man by the technocratic barbarian, other than propagandistic emotional conditioning, is based on the usefullness of or promise of technologies which can be the basis of utopia. Yet note that technology is based on ingenuity, creativity and intelligent design, not the myopic adherence to Naturalism typical to those who put the creation before the Creator. Also, the State enforced egalitarianism typical to socialists (Get "...the government [to] intervene and set things more equal.") undermines the ingenuity, creativity and intelligent design typical to technology. Apparently the Left simply does not understand creation and creativity. (creationism?!) It seems that one cannot understand if one is constantly trying to put mere creations before the creators/creative. They seem to be trying to do the same to man as they do to the Creator by seeking many ways to put the creation before the Creator. Egalitarianism seems to fit in with the urge to merge, which fits into a whole passive psychology, which fits with the Cosmic Oedipus complex that seems typical to the Left. It is ultimately a very banal and uncreative sort of pattern.

(Note the arrogance though, did that little fellow have anything to do with the creation and invention and design of PDAs, microwaves, etc.? No....yet he seems to want to pretend that their invention somehow justifies his sort of faith in scientism as well as other notions typical to the Left.)

"So, in all, they would like to condemn all that makes their lives better, because they feel as if a better life is due to those powers that come from the antichrist..."

Sheesh, this one must be from an American university.

"Science, government, money, power, they are all things of the elite and not the “common man.” Thus they come from some place other than god, and that is the one thing (belief) that anyone can hold....
The irony is, of course, they tend to be led by the Robertson/Falwell/Dobson/Kennedy types, who are themselves quite rich and powerful, and knowledgeable in the ways of manipulating people
." Jeff Perado, at the Panda's Thumb

I actually don't know much about Robertson/Falwell/Dobson/Kennedy types. I've never read one of their books, etc. So, I really can't say what they're doing. I did read Dobson's website though, and I didn't see any "manipulation." Also, I know that they are all most likely Scripturalists. That veneration of text itself, code, language, that which is at the foundation of civilization itself, acts as a limitation. It does so no matter how corrupt the man, with the words shaping and civilizing the man rather than the other way around. Why did Islamic civilization rise so high, yet now is so low? Civilization does not rely on any specific tonge, yet does rely on an attitude toward language itself.

In contrast, the Leftist biologist's attitude towards text and code is that only Nature "selects" it or that they, personally, can shape it to suit their political ends through some triump of the will. They will not deal with the metaphysical and use language based on its sermonic capacity. Instead, they deal in the physical while trying to shape the genetic code to utopian ends. Thus the Scripturalist will sermonize about charity, not seeking to bring about heaven on earth, while the Leftist will try to eliminate the poor physically through sterilization, killing, etc. It is the Left that claims to bring heaven on earth.

Note, Leftist believers in scientism typically define their opponents as fanatics or "fundamentalists" for one reason, to develop an association of American fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalism. It should be noted, they really do believe that Bible believing American Christians are "just like the Taliban." This association is utterly absurd on many levels. For one thing, fundamentalism is the veneration of a religious text or scriptures. If one person is venerating the script "You must kill them." and the other is venerating, "You must love them." then they are different fundamentalists. For the fundamentalist, it is all in their religious texts.

I suppose this post really belongs at Right2Leftists.


mynym said...

I suppose that's one of those posts that is slow going if you don't know some of the words.

Here's a dictonary.

I don't know how to write without such words. If I had to unpack each one when dealing with patterns of ideas, a post like that would be longer and longer. It's already long enough, as I suspect that the neural nets of some brains get tired!

I need to write a story about the brain sometime...

Anonymous said...

I like it when you use more compact words because it gets the point across quicker, and there is something lost in translation if there is another word or words used.

On worshipping the creation rather than creator: in my anthropology class today we had another discussion about cultural relitivism. I was struck when I read your post about how this is a perfect example of a creation being put on a shrine rather than looking at the creator. It becomes really twisted when you worship a creation like culture because, due to the immorality of people making up or creating the culture, every culture has many problems in it!