“Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology.”

Welcome to the wonderful world of “Dialectical Biology.”

E.O. Wilson’s article in Edge discusses the advancements in socio-biology. This is, perhaps, represents the triumph of evolutionary psychology and Neo-Darwinism over its Marxists opponents. I looked back and read about the Socio-Biology War. This should be told at least as often as the Scopes Trial.

I criticize the Left for anti-scientific beliefs more than religious groups for a reason. I see the Left-wing as a more fundamental threat to science and technology than religious activists. Who opposes new technologies? A list of Left-wing activists: socialists, radical environmentalists, feminists, egalitarians, etc.

Take an honest look at Canada and Europe. They radically banned a long list of biotech, genetic-modification, and other medical advances at the urging of Left-wing Luddites. The United States is a bastion of scientific and medical research because it refuses to follow the European road.

Reason Magazine interviews Steven Pinker about his book The Blank Slate.
Pinker debunks three myths about the mind:
The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine. Feminists, Marxists, and others on the left wing like the Blank Slate myth. It means human nature is culturally malleable rather than biologically determined.

The Noble Savage myth believes that man is naturally good until he is corrupted by society.

The Ghost in the Machine myth states that human thought is somehow special and different from the rest of biology. They insert a soul or a ghost to create pleasant-sounding myths about “who” we are instead of how we think.


I’m looking at some interesting data. Those on the political left are more likely to believe in the paranormal than conservatives. There is a deeper story to this.

So why do members of the political left leave traditional religions and pick up the belief in Ghosts, ESP, Astrology, UFOs, talking with the dead, Psychics, etc?


There is something wrong with the title, isn’t there? Empirical reality is objectively true regardless of the observer. The nationality, religion, or gender of the observer is irrelevant.

Academic radical feminism won’t produce anything useful in the real world. Literary critics, humanities professors and the like don’t prove their hypotheses; they just offer something provocative.  Ideas are praised based on uniqueness, not on logic. They blame culture in the abstract with nonsensical phrases like “power hegemony” even though it’s scientifically invalid. How can this help women if it gives them a false impression of reality and they can’t apply these ideas to the real world?

And it’s these types of feminists who question and attack science too. That’s a little problematic.

The Age of Ignorance.

We have a serious problem when society values arts over science. Science is the study of reality – to face and accept unpleasant but highly complex truths. Art constructs a shallow and superficial lie that pleases us.

Disovery Magazine discusses. (via Instapundit)

All over the world, no matter what the cultural or language differences, science is more or less guided by scientific principles—except in many Islamic countries, where it is guided by the Koran. This is the ultimate story about science and religion.

Science can be a dismal study for some people. Some people are satisfied with what is, but many want to know what it means. Teleology describes that purpose, but it is the ultimate enemy of science. It assumes there is a purpose and design for creations and there is a final cause. Religions do so through divinities, but many “secularists” like Marxists create own teleologies.

Science follows the antique notion that we need to look at facts before understanding the function of an object or system. Teleology assumes it knows the answer before looking at the evidence.


Here’s the sample Test.

This is the wave equation. How does it make you feel?

Wellington Grey makes a serious point. The UK Department of Education has restructured the way physics are taught. No longer is it a science with rigorous mathematics.

The thing that attracts pupils to physics is its precision. Here, at last, is a discipline that gives real answers that apply to the physical world. But that precision is now gone. Calculations — the very soul of physics — are absent from the new GCSE. Physics is a subject unpolluted by a torrent of malleable words, but now everything must be described in words.

Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. The person with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins.

The UK DoE no longer teachs physics. What they teach, no one knows, least of all the students.

This is not a new trend. Education Departments oppose logical positivism and empiricism in history and the soft-sciences. Arguments are based on emotional appeal and clever vocabulary rather than empirical evidence. This is absurd. I hoped that harder sciences would hold up better, but apparently they have not.

« Previous Page