Monday, October 05, 2009


From American Thinker, I found the link to this article in The New Scientist--which is absolutely astonishing (not in a good way, I might add):
If you want to get a message across to the public, don't obsess about facts. Just look at Al Gore's climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Olson says. The film contained more than a few factual errors, but it also had a profound influence on the world's attitude to climate change. Perhaps compromising on accuracy is a necessary this really the right way for scientists to go? With climate change, perhaps the end justifies the means... given Gore's success and the prevalence of scientific illiteracy, it remains an interesting path to consider.

In other words: truth is irrelevant, lying is perfectly ok, and "compromising on accuracy is a necessary evil" --particularly when it is some important issue like climate change...or any other issue deemed important for social policy by the political left. It is, after all, for our own good! A "greater good" !

Stephen Hicks in his book quotes Frank Lentricchia, a noted Duke University literary critic. Postmodernism, says Lentricchia, "seeks not to find the foundation or conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change."

Apparently, it's not what is true, it's what you can convince others to believe that matters.

Think about that for a moment...and consider how far humankind would have progressed out of its caves and slime if man's rational faculty had been discarded with the aplomb that The New Scientist dismisses it.

Postmodernism deliberately eschews truth and reason and reality. It insists that our minds are not capable of even knowing reality. Under such conditions, what good is science, you may ask?

Well, those who adhere to postmodern ideas prefer to exercise power to force social change. They live in a world of contradiction and emotion. Their strategy is not to persuade people to accept their ideas, but to confuse them; to distort the truth, propagate lies and smears; and to use whatever rhetoric is necessary to accomplish their purposes. Science is particularly useful if it can be manipulated to make those who oppose your ideas to STFU.

The politically useful concept of "social justice" is far more important than reality or truth; and the way that you can expedite the acceptance of unpalatable social policies is to use science to demonize your enemies or to pronounce that there is a "scientific consensus" on a contentious issue.

This is what your typical leftist postmodern progressives has in mind for the future of science. Instead of a dedication to reality and truth, science will be used to foist leftist ideology down the throats of the populace. And if you think this is unlikely, then you probably never visited the Soviet Union during their communist heyday. I have. And one of the things I remember most clearly is how all the scientific "academies" were emblazoned with banners that proclaimed in bright red letters, "GLORY TO SOVIET SCIENCE!". Meanwhile, the scientists in these prestigious academies were desperate for a glimpse of objective truth and any reality that existed outside the dictates of the Communist Party, which controlled every aspect of their work.

Fortunately, there are still some independent and non-government controlled minds out there searching for truth...but the same kind of "new" and "progressive" science (that made the Soviet Union the progressive third world country it was)--where the goal is implementing "social justice" and not uncovering truth or reality--is brought to you by today's postmodern political left; who, with a little utopian luck, will have us back in our caves, mucking around in the primeval ooze in no time!

No comments: