Scientism

[Bill the Piper]

When did the Democrats become the party of Scientism? Today's Democrat appeal to science quite a lot. LGBT rights and environmentalism are supposed to be scientific.

In the Past Democrats were a populist workers' party, so when did the shift happen?

[Warren Dew]

Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.

[pbrower2a]

Let us make sure that we have our terms defined. Most of us prefer science to superstition and the whims of people in authority.  Science is less capricious than almost everything else.

Here's the introduction to the Wikipedia article:



Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[1][2] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[3] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[4] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[5] and Tzvetan Todorov[6] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[7]

More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism has two senses:

1. The improper usage of science or scientific claims.[8] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[9] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
   
2. "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".[11][12] Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[13] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[14]
   

It is also sometimes used to describe universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the complete exclusion of other viewpoints, such as historical, philosophical, economic or cultural worldviews. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[15] The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]

For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization for modern Western civilization.[7][21]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Most of us hold science in high esteem. Science is more likely to get a right answer on the nature of reality. Science is far more reliable than superstition, pure guesswork, or the dictate of some authority figure. Even in a humanistic activity such as linguistics, scientific methods of scholarship can winnow out nonsense from reliable conclusions.


Science generally self-polices as other activities do not.

Quote:Posted by Bill the Piper - Yesterday, 01:49 PM When did the Democrats become the party of Scientism? Today's Democrat appeal to science quite a lot. LGBT rights and environmentalism are supposed to be scientific.

In the Past Democrats were a populist workers' party, so when did the shift happen?

Republicans found that they could win more votes by appealing to anti-intellectual populism. The GOP used to be the party in which engineers and scientists felt more comfortable -- but that is over.  Scientists and engineers typically did not need labor unions to protect their economic interests, and the GOP stayed clear of attacks on formal education.

LGBT rights are a moral choice in the same sense that the dignity of dark-skinned people is a moral choice. Such is no more scientific than is establishing some optimum in the level of taxation.

Obviously there is more to college education than is scientific and technical training, such as the promotion of the humanities as a sort of completion of the educated person. Note well that the GOP has been appealing to people who hold science in contempt -- including religious fundamentalists who consider science a tool of the Devil for exploitation and abuse of people who think themselves innocent due to their ignorance. (Never mind that ignorance is not innocence, as one can know about horrific crimes while holding such crimes and their perpetrators in deep contempt.

Quote:Posted by Warren Dew - 6 hours ago Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.

Among academics have been some decided conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in economics, people who recognized the idea that unfettered markets are far more effective than is central planning in achieving prosperity and equity. Then there are arch-conservatives who teach at colleges (often academically-suspect "bible schools") that push arch-conservative ideology as the supposed will of God. To be sure, professorial hacks in suspect schools have little influence upon America's economic and administrative elites, few of which have any respect for bible colleges that put more emphasis on certainty of faith than upon academic rigor.

On the other hand, it could be that academics end up with liberals because liberals are less prone to see profit as an unqualified virtue. In much private enterprise, it is wise to have political values consistent with the GOP and the John Birch Society (which are now hard to distinguish in ideology. In much of corporate America, no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it turns or enforces a profit on behalf of the shareholders. I cannot be certain that American executives and shareholders would reject the opportunity to exploit helpless people as German executives and shareholders did when the Nazis made the offer of ultra-cheap labor that could be worked to exhaustion on starvation rations. Such exploitation was profitable, and anyone foolish enough to not use such labor would get subnormal profits.

The profit motive is not a great moral principle. Of course one can define 'socialism' if one wishes, to include any compromise of the profit motive. I have seen arguments that the abolitions of both peonage and slavery were 'socialist'.

[Bill the Piper]

(07-08-2019, 02:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: LGBT rights are a moral choice in the same sense that the dignity of dark-skinned people is a moral choice. Such is no more scientific than is establishing some optimum in the level of taxation.

Exactly. There is no scientific politics, science is just a tool which can be used to further "good" or "evil" aims. China uses science to establish an unshakable tyranny. So did the Nazis and Bolsheviks, who grounded their ideologies in supposed scientific concepts.

For me this is what scientism means - using science to make value judgements, rather than merely factual statements. Science can tell us whether homosexuality is innate or not, but a value judgement doesn't follow. Value judgements have to come from religion or philosophy.

Quote:Note well that the GOP has been appealing to people who hold science in contempt -- including religious fundamentalists who consider science a tool of the Devil for exploitation and abuse of people who think themselves innocent due to their ignorance. (Never mind that ignorance is not innocence, as one can know about horrific crimes while holding such crimes and their perpetrators in deep contempt.

I'm loving it! I asked a question about democrats and you answer about republicans.

Quote:Among academics have been some decided conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in economics, people who recognized the idea that unfettered markets are far more effective than is central planning in achieving prosperity and equity. Then there are arch-conservatives who teach at colleges (often academically-suspect "bible schools") that push arch-conservative ideology as the supposed will of God.

Yeah, I also wanted to reply along these lines.

[Eric the Green]

(07-07-2019, 07:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.

But Bill's question is whether Democrats are believers in scientism.

"the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory."

from brower's post.

This is a more basic critique than Bill's good points about how supposed "science" can be used to support bad value judgements.

Some of us of the Green meme persuasion are against scientism, but still accept, refer to and laud science when not accompanied or directed by the philosophy of scientism.

Democrats today usually are cohorts of what I call the Lemon meme. That is the Orange meme of Spiral dynamics, but in it's later form which emphasizes socialism or the promotion of social programs and collective responsibility as a corrective to the excesses of Orange in its original form, which was individualist, competitive market capitalism as well as supportive of democratic and classical liberal values.

Academics are usually the best informed and most concerned people in our country, and are intellectual. So they inclined toward both aspects of the Lemon meme: its social concern and altruism, and its tendency toward scientism and physicalism. That is not true of all academics, however. Some may be Orange, and some may be Green. And the brainwashing consists mostly of just passing on what they know to their students. 

People outside the academy, whether former or current students or faculty, or much more likely to be Republicans or Trump supporters, as polls show. From the liberal Lemon or Green point of view, their lack of education contributes to their liability to be brainwashed by the memes promoted by traditionalists (such as religious right promoters of the Blue meme) and the wealthy elite (promoters of trickle-down economics and destruction of the welfare state).

The "shift" Bill mentions toward support of science among Democrats is largely due to how conservatives have used unscientific notions to promote the views of these two elites. The religious right is used to suppress freedom movements like feminism and LGBTQ rights, and the trickle-downers oppose and deny climate science because government programs to deal with climate change might bring down more taxes and regulations on their business and financial schemes.

[Bill the Piper]

(07-08-2019, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some of us of the Green meme persuasion are against scientism, but still accept, refer to and laud science when not accompanied or directed by the philosophy of scientism.

It's a sane attitude. Science is important, but there are other aspects of experience like emotion and instinct, and without it there cannot be fullness of life. Stapledon in his Last and First Men describes Great Brains, who were creatures of pure intellect and found existence meaningless for this very reason.

Quote:The "shift" Bill mentions toward support of science among Democrats is largely due to how conservatives have used unscientific notions to promote the views of these two elites. The religious right is used to suppress freedom movements like feminism and LGBTQ rights, and the trickle-downers oppose and deny climate science because government programs to deal with climate change might bring down more taxes and regulations on their business and financial schemes.

So it was a reaction to the use of religion by Republicans? OK, but when did it happen?

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2019, 11:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some of us of the Green meme persuasion are against scientism, but still accept, refer to and laud science when not accompanied or directed by the philosophy of scientism.

It's a sane attitude. Science is important, but there are other aspects of experience like emotion and instinct, and without it there cannot be fullness of life. Stapledon in his Last and First Men describes Great Brains, who were creatures of pure intellect and found existence meaningless for this very reason.

Quote:The "shift" Bill mentions toward support of science among Democrats is largely due to how conservatives have used unscientific notions to promote the views of these two elites. The religious right is used to suppress freedom movements like feminism and LGBTQ rights, and the trickle-downers oppose and deny climate science because government programs to deal with climate change might bring down more taxes and regulations on their business and financial schemes.

So it was a reaction to the use of religion by Republicans? OK, but when did it happen?

It was implied early on by Goldwater's appeal to "morality" in his campaign. But the main thrust began in 1978 with the rise of Falwell's "moral majority" and Pat Robertson's TV show and cult, which allowed him to run for president. The moral majority helped elect Reagan, and he and his successors have used the religious right since then to cement their power. Now Trump is effectively advancing their agenda.

The climate crisis began to get serious notice in 1988, but at first Republicans were on board, as when George Bush #I went to a summit in Rio in 1992 and promised action. Even before 2006, however, Reagan had resisted the moves begun by Carter to address the energy crisis. The Republicans began responding to the pressure of the corporate thugs threatened by climate change in the 1980s. But since a former Democratic candidate for president named Al Gore created a sensation with his movie, and stimulated the movement to address climate change as never before, powered by Katrina and other weather disasters, the fossil fuel industry got even more anxious and started recruiting a group of deniers who claimed to be "scientists," and Republicans increasingly deserted the cause. George Bush #2 was already a denier on free-market grounds and resisted action. McCain was not a denier, but Trump is, and so are almost all Republicans in congress today. Deniers may not explicitly denounce science, but they are denying the results of massive scientific research which says the "free market" in the form of the fossil fuel industry and unrestrained capitalism threatens life on the planet. The real scientists are right, and the Democrats rally to them and uphold "science" in the face of the denials. Most of the the religious right has lined up on the side of the deniers by now, saying that only God can alter the climate.

[pbrower2a]

(07-08-2019, 06:58 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 02:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: LGBT rights are a moral choice in the same sense that the dignity of dark-skinned people is a moral choice. Such is no more scientific than is establishing some optimum in the level of taxation.

Exactly. There is no scientific politics, science is just a tool which can be used to further "good" or "evil" aims. China uses science to establish an unshakable tyranny. So did the Nazis and Bolsheviks, who grounded their ideologies in supposed scientific concepts.

For me this is what scientism means - using science to make value judgements, rather than merely factual statements. Science can tell us whether homosexuality is innate or not, but a value judgement doesn't follow. Value judgements have to come from religion or philosophy.

Quote:It is safe to say that where life, property, family stability, the integrity of utterances by writing or speech, or sanctity of other people's reproductive organs is not safe, life is precarious and miserable. I became fully for LGBT rights after I was gay-based and recognized that gay-bashing was inconsistent with the needful law and order at a minimum necessary for a livable society.

Quote:[quote]
Note well that the GOP has been appealing to people who hold science in contempt -- including religious fundamentalists who consider science a tool of the Devil for exploitation and abuse of people who think themselves innocent due to their ignorance. (Never mind that ignorance is not innocence, as one can know about horrific crimes while holding such crimes and their perpetrators in deep contempt.

I'm loving it! I asked a question about democrats and you answer about republicans.

Implicit in that statement is that people who put reason above gut feelings are increasingly likely to become Democrats because they find themselves with no room in the GOP.

Quote:Among academics have been some decided conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in economics, people who recognized the idea that unfettered markets are far more effective than is central planning in achieving prosperity and equity. Then there are arch-conservatives who teach at colleges (often academically-suspect "bible schools") that push arch-conservative ideology as the supposed will of God.

Yeah, I also wanted to reply along these lines.

Equity and extreme equality are incompatible. Good reason exists for differences in pay between unskilled labor and skilled labor. Competence deserves reward, and incompetence that one be obliged to seek other employment. On the other side, extreme inequality that seems to have a basis in a tradition of oppression and exploitation is usually suspect.

[Warren Dew]

(07-08-2019, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-07-2019, 07:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.

But Bill's question is whether Democrats are believers in scientism.

To clarify, academics like to couch things in terms of science, whether or not they are truly scientifically valid.  Also believers in socialism, boomer academics brainwashed their students into being Democrats, and into couching things in terms of science.  That's how the Democratic party became "believers in scientism".

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2019, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-07-2019, 07:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.

But Bill's question is whether Democrats are believers in scientism.

To clarify, academics like to couch things in terms of science, whether or not they are truly scientifically valid.  Also believers in socialism, boomer academics brainwashed their students into being Democrats, and into couching things in terms of science.  That's how the Democratic party became "believers in scientism".

So what accounts for you having been brainwashed into trickle-down, free-market economics?

And maybe you can clarify, if boomer academics, all socialists, brainwashed their students into being Democrats (instead of Socialists), why are there so many more Republicans and conservatives now than there were before boomers became academics?

[Bill the Piper]

(07-08-2019, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was implied early on by Goldwater's appeal to "morality" in his campaign. But the main thrust began in 1978 with the rise of Falwell's "moral majority" and Pat Robertson's TV show and cult, which allowed him to run for president. The moral majority helped elect Reagan, and he and his successors have used the religious right since then to cement their power. Now Trump is effectively advancing their agenda.

Except the fact that there is nothing moral about Trump.

Anyway, the divide between "scientific" Democrats and "religious" Republicans seems to be a 3T thing. Do you think it'll be gone by 1T? Science and religion do not have to be enemies.

Quote:Academics are usually the best informed and most concerned people in our country, and are intellectual. So they inclined toward both aspects of the Lemon meme: its social concern and altruism, and its tendency toward scientism and physicalism. That is not true of all academics, however. Some may be Orange, and some may be Green. And the brainwashing consists mostly of just passing on what they know to their students.

Interesting. AFAIK you believe in magic. Most academics deny the existence of magic. Do you think that's because they are so well informed and honest, or because of less savoury motives? When an academic teaches that magic is make-believe, is he just "passing on what he knows to his students"?

[David Horn]

(07-09-2019, 04:57 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was implied early on by Goldwater's appeal to "morality" in his campaign. But the main thrust began in 1978 with the rise of Falwell's "moral majority" and Pat Robertson's TV show and cult, which allowed him to run for president. The moral majority helped elect Reagan, and he and his successors have used the religious right since then to cement their power. Now Trump is effectively advancing their agenda.

Except the fact that there is nothing moral about Trump.

Anyway, the divide between "scientific" Democrats and "religious" Republicans seems to be a 3T thing. Do you think it'll be gone by 1T? Science and religion do not have to be enemies.

There is always tension between mystical and fact-based thinking. The latter provides an incomplete model, calling for more knowledge to fill in the gaps. The former tends toward a warm, fuzzy answers that is malleable and indistinct. Facts versus feelings is always a fraught area. The GOP has gone full mystic, and the Dems full STEM. The GOP has won on their "warmth", because the Dems come across as cold. The GOP can't move far from their perch, but the Dems might integrate a little spirituality into their program without destroying its message. If they do, it will appeal much more broadly, though the hardcore STEM-types may feel slighted.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2019, 04:57 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was implied early on by Goldwater's appeal to "morality" in his campaign. But the main thrust began in 1978 with the rise of Falwell's "moral majority" and Pat Robertson's TV show and cult, which allowed him to run for president. The moral majority helped elect Reagan, and he and his successors have used the religious right since then to cement their power. Now Trump is effectively advancing their agenda.

Except the fact that there is nothing moral about Trump.

Anyway, the divide between "scientific" Democrats and "religious" Republicans seems to be a 3T thing. Do you think it'll be gone by 1T? Science and religion do not have to be enemies.

It was a 3T thing, but the problem over climate change denial has gotten even worse in the 4T, and Trump's lack of personal morality, as you know, does not disturb the evangees in the least, just as long as they can get their reactionary judges appointed.

If the T4T theory holds, this culture war, as it's called, may be put on the back burner during the 1T.

Quote:

Quote:Academics are usually the best informed and most concerned people in our country, and are intellectual. So they inclined toward both aspects of the Lemon meme: its social concern and altruism, and its tendency toward scientism and physicalism. That is not true of all academics, however. Some may be Orange, and some may be Green. And the brainwashing consists mostly of just passing on what they know to their students.

Interesting. AFAIK you believe in magic. Most academics deny the existence of magic. Do you think that's because they are so well informed and honest, or because of less savoury motives? When an academic teaches that magic is make-believe, is he just "passing on what he knows to his students"?

He is passing on what he thinks he knows, sure. They know the facts of science and pass them on. Most of the scientific and academic community is still locked in physicalist views of the universe. People like Neil deGrasse Tyson. It's part of the Orange and Lemon memes, and sometimes it was seen in part in a few of the earlier Brown meme people from what you call rightly "the age of discovery." But it's a limited and false view, and some academics know this as well.

The conscious and the spiritual cannot be accounted for in physicalist, mechanical cause and effect terms. That's simply a denial of what consciousness is. It could be called magic, or miracles, and sometimes they happen. But consciousness and spirit is not limited to magic and miracles. Every thing we do is a miracle that physicalism can't explain. In the end, materialist, mechanistic explanations explain nothing, except how it is that western humans since 1700 can use some apparent physical observations to make machines that work. Some Greens can see this, and so did many writers and philosophers since the romantic and transcendentalist movements, and some early 20th century existentialists, modernists, depth psychologists, quantum physicists, etc. Proto-Greens rising, you could call people like Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"Every particular in nature, a leaf, a drop, a crystal, a moment of time is related to the whole, and partakes of the perfection of the whole."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Warm and fuzzy! And true!

Silver Droplets indeed!




"Nature always wears the colors of the spirit."
---Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mysticism is just an aspect of human knowledge, but most people are not sensitive or practiced enough in it to see it. If you disagree with it, it's to be expected today that many will, but you still can't deny that it exists, and that many call it the highest knowledge. It can't be swept under the carpet.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2019, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-09-2019, 04:57 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was implied early on by Goldwater's appeal to "morality" in his campaign. But the main thrust began in 1978 with the rise of Falwell's "moral majority" and Pat Robertson's TV show and cult, which allowed him to run for president. The moral majority helped elect Reagan, and he and his successors have used the religious right since then to cement their power. Now Trump is effectively advancing their agenda.

Except the fact that there is nothing moral about Trump.

Anyway, the divide between "scientific" Democrats and "religious" Republicans seems to be a 3T thing. Do you think it'll be gone by 1T? Science and religion do not have to be enemies.

There is always tension between mystical and fact-based thinking.  The latter provides an incomplete model, calling for more knowledge to fill in the gaps.  The former tends toward a warm, fuzzy answers that is malleable and indistinct.  Facts versus feelings is always a fraught area.  The GOP has gone full mystic, and the Dems full STEM.  The GOP has won on their "warmth", because the Dems come across as cold.  The GOP can't move far from their perch, but the Dems might integrate a little spirituality into their program without destroying its message.  If they do, it will appeal much more broadly, though the hardcore STEM-types may feel slighted.

That's sort of correct, except in no way can the Republicans be said to have "gone" any "mystic" at all, let alone "full mystic." Mystical knowledge does say that intellectual knowledge has its limits, and republicans and evangelicals are anti-science generally speaking (not always). But these two trends are opposites. Mysticism transcends traditional authoritarian religion. 

Fundamentalists and evangelicals, whom the GOP caters to fully, are not mystics. They are believers in the literal interpretation of ancient myths. Even many religious authorities say that many things stated in the Bible are to be taken symbolically. Myths are stories that point toward mystical or ethical wisdom of some sort, but those who take them literally are not mystics. Mysticism may be fuzzy, but it is not belief. It is knowledge, direct knowledge of the divine as we experience it for ourselves.

I say that the term "mystic" should be applied to genuine mysticism, but I understand your use of the term "mystic" to refer to warm fuzzy feelings and reassuring traditional beliefs that Republicans appeal to, while Democrats can come across as cold and intellectual. Those Democratic candidates who come across that way, tend to lose elections, especially at the presidential level. Democratic candidates can still be pro-science and intellectual, but they need to have the ability to connect with voters in a warm and charismatic way, in order to win. And not only warm, but also "cool," in the slang sense of the term. Americans know instinctively that to be a good presidential leader, you need more than book smarts; you need confidence, good instincts and intuition, and social ability. And these days, they all do refer to "God" and say "God bless America," and that's a way to connect with some more-religious people and not rock the traditionalist boat too much.

In terms of our meme language, mysticism is Turquoise, and folds in the most easily with Green. It also exists deep at the heart of Blue religions, and of Pink and Purple magic. Turquoise altruism connects with Lemon. Many of our greatest mystics appeared at the later stages of the Red meme period-- that age of awakening we call the Axis Age in about 570 BC, until the religious takeover of state power in circa 300 AD. This period is also known as the classical age. This was also the period when the Blue meme was "rising," in the ascendant but not yet in power. Of course, being in power tends to compromise the best aspects of a Meme.

I see the Yellow and Turquoise "higher level" memes as having always existed, but are higher levels of an opposite set of memes. The colors may often provide the clue. Yellow is the higher or enlightened side of the Brown and Orange memes, and of the Red meme.

[pbrower2a]

(07-08-2019, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-07-2019, 07:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.

But Bill's question is whether Democrats are believers in scientism.

To clarify, academics like to couch things in terms of science, whether or not they are truly scientifically valid.  Also believers in socialism, boomer academics brainwashed their students into being Democrats, and into couching things in terms of science.  That's how the Democratic party became "believers in scientism".

Generation X, which was more exposed to Boom college professors than even Millennial college students, started out much more Republican-leaning than Boom liberals. The Reagan landslides surprised mainstream media who failed to recognize how conservative X voters were in the 1980s. Maybe such right-wing voting reflected Generation X rejecting the liberal teaching of Boom, Silent, and maybe some GI professors.

If Generation X has trended liberal, then such is because they found that they got the shaft instead of the little bit of wealth trickling down. They had seen American capitalism at its harshest since the 1920s (note that things were better for most Americans in the late 1930s than in the late 1920s) with its low glass ceilings, extreme inequality, and command-and-control management. Maybe the promise that pure plutocracy would create so much wealth that the inequality of a fascist regime or a plantation would be irrelevant.

The Millennial generation may have attended college and experienced their share of Boom professors who chose academia because even with the lesser pay it requires fewer ethical compromises than does work in a profit-and-loss environment. The ethos of Big Business has become that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as such turns a profit, supports sybaritic lifestyles of economic elites, or enforces the command-and-control economy. Millennial adults have seen capitalism at its harshest in nearly a century; they have heard their parents (often X) show disillusion with capitalism through griping; they can read between the lines of right-wing propaganda. They are legitimately scared of becoming cannon fodder in a war for profit. They recognize the calculus of militarism -- fifty million dead, a few trillion in profits for warmongers...

Millennials are the first generation of post-Marxist radicals. They have no aversion to markets that they see necessary for making business decisions responsive to reality. They may be irreligious as a group, but they are not militant atheists. Without question they recognize Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as villains for much the same reason that they recognize Hitler and Satan Hussein as villains. They do not need Marx, who is obsolete. But they no longer accept the idea that elite gain, indulgence, and power create a paradise for any but the elite.

[Eric the Green]

Another good one:

"What lies behind you and what lies in front of you, pales in comparison to what lies inside of you."

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Warren Dew]

(07-08-2019, 10:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So what accounts for you having been brainwashed into trickle-down, free-market economics?

I wasn't.  In fact, I used to think that stuff was voodoo economics and I voted for Anderson and against Reagan in 1980.  I even wrote Reagan a letter saying "raise my taxes" in 200 point type.

Then the 1980s proved that supply side economics worked.  And Bush then proved that his nonvoodoo economics didn't work.

With the evidence hitting me in the face, I accepted the truth that supply side free market economics was the best way to go.

Of course, to get free market economics, you have to do something about excessive concentration of wealth to the point of oligopoly. That's why I'm glad to see the Justice Department starting to probe today's tech oligopolists.

[Warren Dew]

(07-09-2019, 04:57 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Science and religion do not have to be enemies.

Science and religion do not have to be enemies.  Scientism and religion do have to be enemies, because Scientism is basically a religion, competing with other religions.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2019, 02:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-08-2019, 10:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So what accounts for you having been brainwashed into trickle-down, free-market economics?

I wasn't.  In fact, I used to think that stuff was voodoo economics and I voted for Anderson and against Reagan in 1980.  I even wrote Reagan a letter saying "raise my taxes" in 200 point type.

Then the 1980s proved that supply side economics worked.  And Bush then proved that his nonvoodoo economics didn't work.

With the evidence hitting me in the face, I accepted the truth that supply side free market economics was the best way to go.

Of course, to get free market economics, you have to do something about excessive concentration of wealth to the point of oligopoly.  That's why I'm glad to see the Justice Department starting to probe today's tech oligopolists.

In other words, you don't know who brainwashed you into accepting this free market, supply side, Reaganomics trickle-down bullpucky and phony evidence, but you seem to know exactly who "brainwashed" those who can see beyond the propaganda and know for themselves how wrong it is.

The fact is that free market economics is always oligopoly. Oligarchy and wealth concentration is not only the inevitable result of free market economics, establishing that oligarchy is its purpose. That's indeed why the Justice Department is needed to act as a countervailing influence on the free market. You have lurched uncontrollably into a little bit of truth, despite yourself. There really is no free market without some government regulation in the mix.

[Warren Dew]

I've never argued that there should be no government in the mix.  Government is needed to adjudicate contracts, for example.

The tendency to oligopoly is, however, a result of putting the government in the mix.  Government regulation provides an avenue for business success other than free market competition - namely, lobbying for regulation that will help particular companies, usually the incumbents, against competitors.

Since government inevitably sides with existing companies due to lobbying, some countervailing efforts to prevent existing companies from getting too big is necessary.