You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Is There A Conflict Between Science and the Liberal Arts?

in Proof of Brain4 months ago

Everything is so political and structured now. I wouldn't call liberals arts education as the basis to learn how to form ideas. Most people try to explain, or control phenomena, how to form ideas and develop the means of discovery. Older explanations might be that it is God, witch craft, the spirits; while modern explanations might be; it's too hard, don't ask me (smiles). Well, we have come a long ways from the days of olde for those capable of it. The analysis helps with developing models and reach conclusion, and is a step above the liberal arts by taking things to completion. This used to be a good thing, but the modern model is more:

liberals arts: let's make a ghost busters movie, only with women.
former brietbart technology editor: Women aren't funny, Therefore this will be a disaster.
Grifting producer (modern scientist): Free money, let's make this happen.
SJWs: if you hate the movie, you are a misogynist.
Big tech: former brietbart technology editor is permanently banned.

I am finding a lot of "academic" studies in the liberal arts fields are well structured to achieve political agendas and control. As undergrads we may not think too much about a study here or there, but later in life we see it is part of a whole, yet fragile, ecosystem with a hierarchy that builds upon itself. Many of these programs are funded by the government for the benefit of special interest grounds. Many of the studies are junk, but there is an absence of competing ideas;. The critics of these studies are often outside of the circles and disincentivized to attempt to join [cause there is no real value in these fields except political control, which leaves no incentive for dissent, and they may never be allowed to publish in a peer reviewed journal]. A proper dissent could cause their entire hierarchy to fall apart, so they scream that normal dissenter has to be racists, homophobic, sexist, ist this, ist that, arrested, gagged, canceled, killed, etc because they are unable to defend the linchpins of the hierarchy of their ecosystem from reasonable scrutiny. If people recognize their entire field of study is one giant sham, there goes billions of dollars of annual funding, and their degrees are instantly null and their years of grifting comes to an end.

To the same extent this is true in the physical sciences when possible, particularly ones which aren't easy to reproduce. For example, global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean "climate change". They want to produce results that would ensure more government funding, that is to report results that are favorable to the granters of wealth for more free money. So they may alter the collection methods, exclude certain data points, focuses on subdata, corrects data, strategically place measuring devices to get the results they desire. The reason it is now called climate change is because of catestrophic failures in their global warming warnings that opened them up for mass ridicule. It has also been plagued with fraud and scandals over the years. But if you dare call climate change activists who attribute weather phenomena to their "God" of climate change, the censors may ban you. So whatever chicken little idea a big government type have will eventually become scientific "law", and big tech will enforce it. This isn't science. We are supposed to interrogate ideas, now we are being left with "believe it"-and not in a Naruto friendly way, dattebayo.

With this latest incarnation of covid-19, it breaks this grifter dynamics. it's not just the usual government grifters involved, it is just about everyone whose life is directly impacted by it. But not everyone is capable of say stomaching medical school let along the expense nor grueling hours, understanding the human body down and how it interacts with medicine to the finest detail (even fda approval is still a stage 4 trial), nor can finance and organize organizing a clinical trial, nor the math in reporting it, and various steps in between. So naturally the inclination is to use authoritive sources, and perhaps to some degree anecdotal stories (reported phenomena) which we should hold to greater scrutiny but shouldn't absolutely dismissed. Only people like doctors who express criticism are finding that their licences to practice are coming under attack as to discredit them and silence others, and social media is banning anecdotal reports. So there is coerced silence everywhere instead of healthy debate. Authorities risk losing their entire career for expressing concerns, no authority is willing to say/debate how they are wrong or their concerns exaggerated-just coerced silence. Some anecdotal reports are hogwash, such as "magnetized" quarters sticking to the body, but big tech treats us like retards and deletes ever real adverse side effects or labels them as fake news; "Your Son/daughter really didn't die from a reaction from the covid vaccine"; But i am sure they would allow a "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" explanation for the untimely demise. This isn't the liberals arts model as you describe it, nor is it science. It is a cult, and a dangerous one at that. There is some authority at the top declaring what the rules of the universe are, and none are allowed to disagree without being burned alive at the stake. Certainly there has been no shortage of Fauci worship over the last year, despite lingering controversies about his involvement with ecohealth alliance and the wuhan institute of technology and the development of covid-19. He says he is science (God)-not because he uses science but because he corrupted the pool of grifting biological scientists through their dependency on the federal money he can grant them.

As a result communications between people is suffering greatly. It's not this study finds x, followed by yeah, but this more recent study says not x and here's why. It is often one party (often the lefty) shouting down the other for spreading fake news, social media banning users, etc, rather than debating the merits of the scientific literature they read. Someone has the wrong edition of new speak, and there is a huge communications break down. What was fake yesterday, might be true today, or vice versa. And what is true, well the people can't handle the truth, so we'll ban it anyways as fake news.

It is true that real science, the laws created by the real God(s), is supreme (caveat, only to God himself). But what we have now isn't science, it is a man, or even a group of men, trying to become God to rule over us. it is cultist brute force to, as you said, take advantage of others....but qui bono here if they force me to get vaccinated-certainly it is something more substantial than the $30-60 per head.


I probably should have started my question with the observation that the political class pulled the study of logic from the curriculum a century ago.

The foundations of the liberal arts are "grammar, logic and rhetoric."

When the ruling elite pulled logic from the curriculum, we stopped having a liberal arts curriculum. Is this not true?

You are correct that people have performed numerous illiberal acts in the name of "liberal." They do illogical things in the name of "liberal" as well.

One can pull this game on any term.

You mentioned radical gender studies. The people who push the claim that there's over 50 genders do so in the name of science.

The people who play the word bending game will take any word that has a positive connotation and misuse it to push whatever poison they are trying to push.

It seems to me that the easiest way to show that the actions of our government is illiberal is to expose the fact that the ruling elite removed the study of logic from the schools.