Can Liberalism Survive Science?

So, you believe in science, eh? Excellent, so do I. At the core of this science-thinking is the acceptance of the fact that there is reality. Thus, there are a finite number of things which are true and an infinite number of things which aren’t -- and our beliefs, opinions, and desires have no impact on this.

All “science-folks” accept these as rather self-evident truths -- yet many of these same people also profess to holding liberal views -- even though modern progressivism is premised on many things which simple aren’t true -- which contradict reality.

Let start with their insistence on classifying and grouping individuals -- the only real unit of humanity -- based on a handful of traits or behaviors and acting as though these groups -- their own creation -- are actually real in some physical sense.

Adrian Rogers had a great sermon about atheism and Romans 1:18-31 called “The Lost World”, where he talks about the three steps to human destruction:

1. Willful Self-Determination
2. Wicked Self-Deception
3. Woeful Self-Destruction

I think those are a universal truth and a scientific way of measuring anything in our world, but especially useful for my thoughts and me, as well as for other individuals, groups, businesses, societies and governments, etc.

Violate the laws this world runs by and sooner or later something’s gonna break ... it’s just that way.

And by that measure, the demonrat party is in a very bad place.

It’s hard to be more wickedly self-deceived about things than they are now, but I bet they can find a way!

So, maybe it’s a good time to be a safe distance away from them and what’s coming ... asap if not sooner.

If interested, that Adrian Rogers sermon can be heard here:

https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/love-worth-finding/custom-player/the-lost-world-571284.html > The Lost World

“Let start with their insistence on classifying and grouping individuals — the only real unit of humanity — based on a handful of traits or behaviors and acting as though these groups — their own creation — are actually real in some physical sense.”

This is BS. Both classifications are valid and useful, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. If I want a good hunting dog I’ll choose a pointer rather than a poodle. If I want a scary watchdog I’ll go with a pitbull rather than a chihuahua.

If I had to randomly pick somebody good at math, I would take my chances with an Asian over a black, whereas if I had to pick a basketball player I might opt for the opposite.

The guy that wrote this tripe also neglects the great affinity people have for their group or tribe, and there’s no group people identify more than their race.

I’m willing to bet that he lives in a lily white neighborhood and that most of his friends are white.

If you’re looking for reality, that’s reality, and we have to deal with it, not pretend it doesn’t or shouldn’t exist.

I truly do “believe in science” and it is far past time to demand all participants in the debate do the same. Otherwise, we are playing a fool’s game that is certain to end poorly for us all.

John, I too believe in science - with the emphatic ‘caveat’ that science is skepticism. Anyone can post a claim, but only replicable claims are science. A claim which cannot be disproven is not a scientific claim.
Note that three words describe poles of skepticism:
naiveté,
skepticism, and
cynicism
It is “intuitively obvious” that cynicism is “extreme skepticism.” Obvious but, IMHO, quite untrue. Untrue because skepticism is about doubt - and cynicism is actually not doubt at all. Rather, cynicism rejects doubt about the negation of whatever you are cynical about.
Thus, in a backhanded way, cynicism is naiveté. Cynicism is therefore just as uscientific as is naiveté.

I think you raise a very valid question. Look at how ANYTHING that is derogatory to some liberal philosophical tenet is suppressed.

Today we don’t believe in IQ anymore because it tells us a story that doesn’t fit into the sexual/racial egalitarian world view.

Global warming, yeah... 9F in Texas, in February. The temperature increases predicted did not occur (several times). The water tables did not rise as predicted (several times). The models used as “proof” have been discredited (false science: adding unexplainable variables that produce the outcome they want)...

The gay gene. Still “science” even after the Human Genome Project, and several other studies looking explicitly for this, found nothing like it.

But evolution is a fact, even though it’s not reproducible, is based on 5 assumptions, and is not something observable in nature, i.e. the mutation requirement of evolution doesn’t lead to viable or some advantaged offspring that is favored.

“Science” today is just a slogan thrown around in the media and politics but its real meaning has been lost. It’s no longer objective, based on a method, reproducible, transparent, and using both correlation AND causality to interpret the results. Look at Fauci and Biden and their science of social distancing, masks, shutting down small restaurants where practically nothing spread. What was the “science” behind shutting down swimming pools and public beaches? Is it the salt water, UV light, heat, sand which is a horrible environment for the virus, or fact that people naturally spread out on a beach that makes it a requirement to shut them all down?

Between pushing some socio-economic philosophy/ideology (global warming), politics (Covid), or economic interests (pharma), you end up with a very skewed concept.

But all of this is only possible because the public accepts and reacts to it.

1. People are not taught formal logic and fallacies in school. This is why a reciprocal argument works so well, folks can see the correlation, but they do not understand causality. So you can claim that blacks are proportionally incarcerated at greater numbers or on death row because of institutional discrimination within our justice system. Which of course is just a mere distortion of reality, because causality shows they commit more violent crimes. But then the idea of racial self censorship does not allow one to argue the latter because anything derogatory pertaining to a special group will automatically be labeled as “racist.” Which of course is an ad homonym attack and not an argument.

2. Are weak in science and math. Self explanatory.

3. Have been conditioned to “trust” authority and use their “feelings.” My perceptions are reality. If I feel a certain way, it must be true.

John, first let me apologize for being a bit rough on you. I didn’t realize that a fellow freeper (one of my tribe) wrote the piece.

But in answer to your question I would ask you the following - do you have trouble identifying if a person is white, black or asian?

I understand that the boundaries can be a bit blurred, but those are the exception not the rule.

I don’t know what you look like, I imagine you’re white. If so, do you think the people that run all the affirmative action programs would confuse you for a black and give you preferential treatment?

Additionally, DNA analysis can tell if you’re Caucasian, negroid or mongoloid.

But all those things aside, the key to my point is that groups are just as real as individuals and they are very important in our daily interactions. And people group themselves not just in racial terms, but in many different ways - Politics, profession, interests, nationality, gender, etc, etc.

If I need a doctor I don’t go looking under plumbers.

One has to deal with the reality of those groupings. Pretending they don’t exist will only lead to misery.

In fact the primary reason why we have so much racial strife to the point of utter insanity is because of one false assumption - that all groups are the same.

I can explain further if you’re interested.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.