The post before last began a discussion of epistemology, a technical term in philosophy that refers to how we know things. Epistemology isn't knowledge; it is the grounds on which knowledge is produced. Epistemological questions ask in what ways is it possible to distinguish truth and falsehood, or separate fact from fiction? Postmodernists, as we saw, followed intrepid structuralist imagineer Claude Levi-Strauss in equating all systems of knowledge as fundamentally meaningless discourse. From this perspective, any epistemology is just the set of subjective beliefs held by a group of people with no connection to reality.
Trofim Lysenko speaking at the Kremlin in 1935, Stalin is at the right.
Under tyranny, science is disconnected from empirical truth and used as a mouthpiece for propaganda. How is today's climate science, which lies about data, claims a huge percentage of scientists agrees with the lies, and blacklists dissent, any different from Marxist science under Stalin?
It was shown, however, that this claim to know the true (meaningless) nature of reality is just another Postmodern deception. The truth is that all the variants of Marxist and Postmodern discourse analysis fit within a certain pattern in human thinking: the tendency to impose absolute principles, then try, by any means necessary, to force human nature into that abstract, idealized box. There isn't a single word for this approach because philosophers and intellectual historians break schools of thought in to smaller categories in order to better analyze them, but deductive reasoning, idealism, and rationalism all fit under this rubric. What these share is a feature that the Band calls top-down thinking, where observed reality is subordinated to higher principles. Plato's Forms, Enlightenment reason,and Postmodern discourse are all different in their details, but begin with inflexible assumptions that cannot be questioned.
In the West, the top-down approach is just one path to truth and knowledge. The next two posts will consider the other two general perspectives that have shaped Western thought, and their superiority to the toxic fictions of Postmodernism.
Bottom-Up Approaches: Induction, Observation, Empiricism
It still goes back to Plato and Aristotle
Aristotle reversed Plato's top-down epistemology with a bottom-up approach known as empiricism.
In broad terms, an empiricist does not begin with preset conclusions, but relies on careful observation to determine basic facts, then uses logic to develop those facts into new hypotheses and theories. Theories that are invalidated by new observations have demonstrably failed to conform to material reality and need to be reworked or replaced. Empiricism has no ideal endpoint; as finite beings in a vast universe, there are always things beyond the horizon of our knowledge. There is no all-encompassing vantage point for the philosopher king, and no room for the arrogance, and potential for outright evil that are inherent in the impossible absolutisms of Neoplatonism, Enlightenment rationalism, and, yes, Postmodernism.
Rembrandt, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, 1632, oil on canvas, 169.5 x 216.5 cm, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis
We learn observationally and experientially, from the basic of tying our shoes to the mastery of sophisticated technical knowledge. Consider the advances made since Rembrandt's time. Empiricism prevents stagnation into inherited patterns.
Learning is an endless process of accommodation because our environment vastly exceeds our grasp.
The tool Aristotle developed to interpret his observations, logic, is another of his seminal contributions to the Western tradition. Logic consists of consistent, self-evidently truthful relationships between things. This simple syllogism is a good basic example of how logical relationships enable the determination of truth within the terms of a closed system.
This certainty makes logic useful, but it is easily forgotten that logic tells us nothing of the validity of the starting premises. Socrates may be "genderqueer," rather than a man, for example. Even genocide can become "logical" if you assume the subhumanity of a group.
Logic offers no direct knowledge of things in themselves; is simply a tool to construct sound interpretations. The truth-value of a logical conclusion still has to be determined empirically, through observation, to correct errors in reasoning or to expose an inadequite data set. So, for an empiricist, application of logic serves reality; only top-down thinkers seek to bend reality to their limited logic. Consider Aristotle's notion of quantity, his only category that can express relationships of perfect equality or inequality, and the foundation mathematical reasoning. A quantity in and of itself (qua quantity, to use the technical term) is only knowable conceptually, not experientially; it has to be realized or manifested materially (or in a substance, to use Aristotle's term) to enter into human experience. But once it has, quantitative relationships between material objects follow precise logical certainty, with the material expression offering a check on the interpreter's reasoning. 3 + 3 = 6 is conceptual until it describes some things, but once it does - 3 balls + 3 balls = 6 balls, for example - the reasoning can be verified empirically by counting the total.
Calculating how many boxes can fit in a truck is a logical, quantitative operation, but the truth-value of the conclusion can be measured empirically against something real: whether there are still things on the lawn when the truck is full.
Empiricism + logic offers limited, but actionable insights into that bewildering external world around us. The problem is that this process requires a certain base level of intelligence. In the lower reaches of the bell curve, this sort of second order thought is not possible, making magical thinking inevitable.
.
It is the ability to self-correct in the face of new knowledge that makes empiricism epistemologically superior to top-down approaches, and allows societies to progress in sophistication. The reception of Aristotle in the Christian West and Islamic world make for an illustrative comparison. Both cultures emerged from tribal peoples on the periphery of the ancient world with little in the way of advanced material culture, but came to grips with the legacy of the post-classical world in different ways. The Germanic tribes of the Migration period moved into the territory of the Roman Empire, and converted to Christianity before developing an advanced civilization of their own in what had been a relative hinterland. The Arab tribes brought Islam with them out of Arabia and imposed it on the heart of the ancient world. This gave Muslim scholars and scribes ready access to the storehouse of antique learning that only reached Europe gradually.
Great Mosque of Damascus, facade, 709-15, Damascus, Syria
The classical legacy is apparent in the monumental architecture of the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750). The Umayyads ursuped power and moved the capital of the caliphate to Damascus, which was at the center of trade and culture in the ancient world, where they used Roman forms to express their own imperial power.
The Great Mosque of Damascus is essentially a Roman basilica repurposed as a mosque. Note the classical pediment on the facade and the triple arched configuration of a triumphal arch for the entrance. This is the exact same formula seen in early Christian basilicas, only those are obviously set up for Christian needs. The mosaics were largely the work of Byzantine craftsmen hired from Constantinople.
The early intellectual history of Islam is far more dynamic than its later forms, largely because Muslim scholars, lacking much in the way of a philosophical tradition of their own, were translating and absorbing Hellenistic Greek learning. These efforts actually provided a significant, though greatly overrated, source of classical learning for Europe. Predictably, Postmodern historiography (the study of history) is about as factual as Postmodern science, because here too, a top down conclusion or "theory" is imposed and the facts selectively represented to fit. To a Postmodernist, the West = oppression = evil, and therefore must be overturned (remember, Postmodern discourse is defined as having no connection to reality). Therefore, the oppressed (ironically, that's Islam) must be elevated at all costs, meaning that the intellectual revolutions of the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance are recast as Muslim-derived to undermine the West's claim on its own culture. This is obviously a propagandistic lie; Irish monks and Byzantine exchanges were far more significant sources of ancient knowledge, and furthermore, this sham argument conveniently ignores what the respective inheritors did with this legacy.
Aristotle teaching Astronomy with an Astrolabe, 13th century Persian manuscript, Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul
Islamic copyists provided extensive commentary with their translations. Aristotle's empirical thought and acknowledgment of an eternal mover beyond the empirically knowable made him relatively easy to adapt to monotheistic religion. To oversimplify, replacing the Prime Mover with God does not alter Aristotle's conclusions.
This tradition of Islamic curiosity came to an end in the eleventh century when the authorities, concerned about threats to their power, closed the "Gates of Ijtihad." It is hard to overstate the impact this had on the development of Islamic intellectual culture as a whole. Ijtihad, a concept dating back to the origins of Islam, refers to the use of critical thinking and judgement to solve problems, and was essential for the study of pagan sources. Once this was closed, scholarly inquiry was suppressed, and the way was opened for the dogmatic, anti-human authoritarianism that plagues so much of Islamic culture today.
Benozzo Gozzoli, The Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1471, tempera on panel, 230 x 102 cm, Louvre, Paris
Averroes (1126-98) was the greatest of the Islamic interpreters of Aristotle and had a significant impact on the development of Christian Aristotelianism in the later middle ages. Here, St. Thomas is shown as the true successor to Plato and Aristotle, who flank him, while Averroes lies defeated at his feet. While Thomas was the more sublime thinker and was considered to have overmatched his older rival, he viewed Averroes with sufficient intellectual respect to refer to him as the "Commentator" to Aristotle's "Philosopher."
It is noteworthy that Averroes' career unfolded after the closing of the Gates of Ijtihad in the relative freedom of Islamic Spain. However, this meant that his insights had no significant uptake in the Islamic world, and needed Christian thinkers to appreciate them.
In the West, Aristotelian thought was fully integrated into a Christian world view, with profound historical consequences. Accepting a model of reality where an all-powerful God took the place of the Prime Mover, but the causally-determined operations of the material world remained in effect, opened the way to the development of empirical science. The Islamic perspective that the world is guided directly by the will of God eliminates the very possibility of progressive inquiry, since an ontology (basic philosophy of being) that is perpetually subject to the whims of a divine conductor has no consistent laws to discover. Medieval Christian theologians held that the world was knowable in logically consistent terms, which meant causal patterns were meaningful and predictable, and therefore worth studying as legitimate knowledge.This countered the possibility of anything like closing the Gates of Ijtihad in the West and led to the rapid innovations that marked European society from the middle ages.
Attribubted to Giotto, Saint Francis Preaching to the Birds, fresco, 1290's, S. Francesco, Upper Church, Assisi
Not only did Christian philosophers embrace the notion of a rational, causally determined world, they saw that structure as evidence of the divine intellect behind creation. The natural theology of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Bonaventure used the order and beauty of the natural world as a meditative tool to open the way to God.
The same anti-Christian bias that overstates the Islamic influence on the development of Western thought mischaracterizes the Middle Ages as a period of superstitious ignorance overcome by modern enlightenment. The reality is that medieval thinkers were far more open-minded in their inquiries into the natural world than the dogmatic, incoherent, prederermined conclusions of Postmodern "science".
Andreas Cellarius, The Planisphere of Copernicus, from Harmonia Macrocosmica, 1660
It has been fashionable to criticize premodern beliefs as credulous. From this perspective, the Copernican model with the sun in the center of the solar system signifies the onset of the age of reason. It should come as no surprise that this is a misrepresentation. The Aristotelian cosmos was revised many times before being discarded for a heliocentric model because in each case it didn't conform to empirical observations.
Learning is an endless process of accommodation because our environment vastly exceeds our grasp.
The scope of Aristotle's thought is difficult to comprehend, let alone attempt to summarize in a blog post, but one concept of almost indescribable significance was causality. Aristotle's observations led him to the conclusion that everything that happens is caused by something or things. Most people assume this intuitively, but Aristotle used causality to conceptualize reality as a vast, essentially endless matrix of interlocking causes forming something like a near-infinite web of butterfly effects. Causal relationships are essential for building complex interpretations, because if we can see an effect, we can infer the cause, and if this bears out empirically, then we have an insight, or a piece of knowledge about the workings of the world. Experimental science and criminal investigation are but two modern applications of causality.
This certainty makes logic useful, but it is easily forgotten that logic tells us nothing of the validity of the starting premises. Socrates may be "genderqueer," rather than a man, for example. Even genocide can become "logical" if you assume the subhumanity of a group.
Logic offers no direct knowledge of things in themselves; is simply a tool to construct sound interpretations. The truth-value of a logical conclusion still has to be determined empirically, through observation, to correct errors in reasoning or to expose an inadequite data set. So, for an empiricist, application of logic serves reality; only top-down thinkers seek to bend reality to their limited logic. Consider Aristotle's notion of quantity, his only category that can express relationships of perfect equality or inequality, and the foundation mathematical reasoning. A quantity in and of itself (qua quantity, to use the technical term) is only knowable conceptually, not experientially; it has to be realized or manifested materially (or in a substance, to use Aristotle's term) to enter into human experience. But once it has, quantitative relationships between material objects follow precise logical certainty, with the material expression offering a check on the interpreter's reasoning. 3 + 3 = 6 is conceptual until it describes some things, but once it does - 3 balls + 3 balls = 6 balls, for example - the reasoning can be verified empirically by counting the total.
Calculating how many boxes can fit in a truck is a logical, quantitative operation, but the truth-value of the conclusion can be measured empirically against something real: whether there are still things on the lawn when the truck is full.
Empiricism + logic offers limited, but actionable insights into that bewildering external world around us. The problem is that this process requires a certain base level of intelligence. In the lower reaches of the bell curve, this sort of second order thought is not possible, making magical thinking inevitable.
.
It is the ability to self-correct in the face of new knowledge that makes empiricism epistemologically superior to top-down approaches, and allows societies to progress in sophistication. The reception of Aristotle in the Christian West and Islamic world make for an illustrative comparison. Both cultures emerged from tribal peoples on the periphery of the ancient world with little in the way of advanced material culture, but came to grips with the legacy of the post-classical world in different ways. The Germanic tribes of the Migration period moved into the territory of the Roman Empire, and converted to Christianity before developing an advanced civilization of their own in what had been a relative hinterland. The Arab tribes brought Islam with them out of Arabia and imposed it on the heart of the ancient world. This gave Muslim scholars and scribes ready access to the storehouse of antique learning that only reached Europe gradually.
Great Mosque of Damascus, facade, 709-15, Damascus, Syria
The classical legacy is apparent in the monumental architecture of the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750). The Umayyads ursuped power and moved the capital of the caliphate to Damascus, which was at the center of trade and culture in the ancient world, where they used Roman forms to express their own imperial power.
The Great Mosque of Damascus is essentially a Roman basilica repurposed as a mosque. Note the classical pediment on the facade and the triple arched configuration of a triumphal arch for the entrance. This is the exact same formula seen in early Christian basilicas, only those are obviously set up for Christian needs. The mosaics were largely the work of Byzantine craftsmen hired from Constantinople.
The early intellectual history of Islam is far more dynamic than its later forms, largely because Muslim scholars, lacking much in the way of a philosophical tradition of their own, were translating and absorbing Hellenistic Greek learning. These efforts actually provided a significant, though greatly overrated, source of classical learning for Europe. Predictably, Postmodern historiography (the study of history) is about as factual as Postmodern science, because here too, a top down conclusion or "theory" is imposed and the facts selectively represented to fit. To a Postmodernist, the West = oppression = evil, and therefore must be overturned (remember, Postmodern discourse is defined as having no connection to reality). Therefore, the oppressed (ironically, that's Islam) must be elevated at all costs, meaning that the intellectual revolutions of the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance are recast as Muslim-derived to undermine the West's claim on its own culture. This is obviously a propagandistic lie; Irish monks and Byzantine exchanges were far more significant sources of ancient knowledge, and furthermore, this sham argument conveniently ignores what the respective inheritors did with this legacy.
Islamic copyists provided extensive commentary with their translations. Aristotle's empirical thought and acknowledgment of an eternal mover beyond the empirically knowable made him relatively easy to adapt to monotheistic religion. To oversimplify, replacing the Prime Mover with God does not alter Aristotle's conclusions.
This tradition of Islamic curiosity came to an end in the eleventh century when the authorities, concerned about threats to their power, closed the "Gates of Ijtihad." It is hard to overstate the impact this had on the development of Islamic intellectual culture as a whole. Ijtihad, a concept dating back to the origins of Islam, refers to the use of critical thinking and judgement to solve problems, and was essential for the study of pagan sources. Once this was closed, scholarly inquiry was suppressed, and the way was opened for the dogmatic, anti-human authoritarianism that plagues so much of Islamic culture today.
Benozzo Gozzoli, The Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1471, tempera on panel, 230 x 102 cm, Louvre, Paris
Averroes (1126-98) was the greatest of the Islamic interpreters of Aristotle and had a significant impact on the development of Christian Aristotelianism in the later middle ages. Here, St. Thomas is shown as the true successor to Plato and Aristotle, who flank him, while Averroes lies defeated at his feet. While Thomas was the more sublime thinker and was considered to have overmatched his older rival, he viewed Averroes with sufficient intellectual respect to refer to him as the "Commentator" to Aristotle's "Philosopher."
It is noteworthy that Averroes' career unfolded after the closing of the Gates of Ijtihad in the relative freedom of Islamic Spain. However, this meant that his insights had no significant uptake in the Islamic world, and needed Christian thinkers to appreciate them.
In the West, Aristotelian thought was fully integrated into a Christian world view, with profound historical consequences. Accepting a model of reality where an all-powerful God took the place of the Prime Mover, but the causally-determined operations of the material world remained in effect, opened the way to the development of empirical science. The Islamic perspective that the world is guided directly by the will of God eliminates the very possibility of progressive inquiry, since an ontology (basic philosophy of being) that is perpetually subject to the whims of a divine conductor has no consistent laws to discover. Medieval Christian theologians held that the world was knowable in logically consistent terms, which meant causal patterns were meaningful and predictable, and therefore worth studying as legitimate knowledge.This countered the possibility of anything like closing the Gates of Ijtihad in the West and led to the rapid innovations that marked European society from the middle ages.
Attribubted to Giotto, Saint Francis Preaching to the Birds, fresco, 1290's, S. Francesco, Upper Church, Assisi
Not only did Christian philosophers embrace the notion of a rational, causally determined world, they saw that structure as evidence of the divine intellect behind creation. The natural theology of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Bonaventure used the order and beauty of the natural world as a meditative tool to open the way to God.
The same anti-Christian bias that overstates the Islamic influence on the development of Western thought mischaracterizes the Middle Ages as a period of superstitious ignorance overcome by modern enlightenment. The reality is that medieval thinkers were far more open-minded in their inquiries into the natural world than the dogmatic, incoherent, prederermined conclusions of Postmodern "science".
Andreas Cellarius, The Planisphere of Copernicus, from Harmonia Macrocosmica, 1660
It has been fashionable to criticize premodern beliefs as credulous. From this perspective, the Copernican model with the sun in the center of the solar system signifies the onset of the age of reason. It should come as no surprise that this is a misrepresentation. The Aristotelian cosmos was revised many times before being discarded for a heliocentric model because in each case it didn't conform to empirical observations.
The realization it was possible to systematically build knowledge of the environment through accumulated logical interpretations built from, and tested against, empirical observations was the foundation of what was to become modern science.
Title page for Novum organum scientiarum, 1645, by Francis Bacon, Houghton Library, Harvard University
Bacon's famous scientific method combined inductive and deductive methods, using empirical observation to draw larger conclusions, then using the conclusions to drive further inquiry, which in turn refine the conclusions. Ultimately, empiricism gets the last word, since a hypothesis that cannot be empirically shown is invalidated. This is structurally similar to Aristotle's epistemology, but is systematized into an experimental method for consistent application.
The image shows that for Bacon, a lack of certainty is the reason why we use cumulative empirical inquiry to sail into unknown waters. The Postmodernist would prefer to stay at home and make up stories.
Bacon's scientific method systematized the combination of observation and logic into a widely usable process that sped advancement by facilitating the rapid sharing of standardized data. Obviously, accuracy and consistency are paramount, because experimental "interpretations" that can't be replicated can't be proven either, and the conclusion has no empirical truth claim. In fact, falsification was the defining characteristic of science for philosopher Karl Popper, who defined progress as continual invalidating of existing theories and replacing them with new ones that resolved the falsifying flaw. How different this is from Postmodern science, where the outcomes are predetermined and facts that don't fit the narrative are memory holed as racist or some equally ridiculous pejorative. This is what makes the exploitative data manipulation around the whole global warming/climate change/weather so dishonest, and the larger replication crisisis so significant; if an experiment isn't replicable, what is the use of it? However, the failure of rent-seeking grifters to produce honest results confirms their pretense that their arbitrary descriptions have power over the things described, but says nothing about the epistemological value of experimentation.
Nude bound voodoo doll in kneeling position, with thirteen pins, found in a vase with a a binding spell on a lead tablet , Egyptian, 4th century AD, clay and bronze, Louvre Museum
In some ways, Postmodernist faith in discourse resembles sympathetic magic, the supernatural belief that distinct objects can effect each other through resemblance. Here, the binding spell works with the bound and pinned doll to restrain the subject of the representation in some way. How is this different from the notion that manipulations of sign systems can transform the physical world?
In both cases the promise of power over reality is the lure.
If epistelologies are discursive subjectivities, and you are the master of discourse, then "science" is whatever you want it to be.
John Faed, The Poet’s Dream, c. 1901, Royal Scottish Academy of Art & Architecture
The subjective basis of Postmodern science is better suited to the realm of fiction. Fiascos like the repreducability crisis, hiring underqualified people because of their appearance, and the whole climate change debacle are some of the less attractive daydreams.Discursive phantasms are irrelevant to the role of causality in the human experience of the world. A flame appears when you strike a match, regardless of what you call it, and if the Band didn't have faith in the accuracy of the scientific method with regards to electronics, it would be pointless to spend the time and effort blogging about Postmodernism. Experience confirms causality, and ignoring the epistemological validity of empirical inquiry doesn’t “reduce” it to just another subjectivity. What it does is does do is demonstrate the inadequacy of discourse as an epistemological model.
Pablo Picasso, Ma Jolie, 1911-12, oil on canvas, 100 × 65.4 cm, The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Cubism was an attempt to convert a three-dimensional object into a two-dimensional representation by showing it from multiple points of view at once. Although there are recognizable elements in his composition, the original subject is fragmented and incoherent. Attempting to reconcile multiple subjectivities therefore seems disjunctive.
But does this mean that reality is unreachable, or does it mean Cubism is a flawed representational form? In other words, do we declare reality meaningless, or Picasso insufficient? The answer is that Picasso, or any artist, is insufficient to capture the fullness of experience. But more provocatively, it suggests that:
piling up subjectivities like an intersectional scrapheap makes for a less coherent reality
All that is really possible is to continue to refine our inherently flawed systems of representation, in a process of improvement that resembles a bounded function. Perfection may be an unattainable goal, but we can pursue it forever.
Note also that if perfection is beyond our reach, there can never be a Philosopher King peddling "the True nature of reality."
Another way that postmodern "science" abandons epistemological validity is by casting the scientist in the role of "secular" oracle or priest, who is then empowered to pronounce on a wide range of unrelated fields. These charlatans hijack the credibility built up by generations of honest researchers to claim legitimacy for ideological positions. Yet being a "scientist" no more confers general knowledge or insight than being a fisherman. The scientific method is only epistmologically sound insofar as it is empirically verifiable, which gives it no grounds to speak on things that it cannot argue through reason and evidence. Scientific facts are facts because they are factual, not because a "scientist" uttered them. However, the monolithic, politically directed discursive construct called "Science" allows them to speak authoritatively, even on things that they objectively know nothing about. Even the imagery associated with science is chosen to connote supernatural power.
A visual demonstration is clearer:
Joseph Wright of Derby, An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump,1768, National Gallery, London
Note the formal similarities between these two works: a small group, suggestively illuminated by a mystical glow. In Honthorst's version, the light source is spiritual; in Wright's it comes from the scientist's demonstration.
Here, science isn't replacing the structure of faith, as much as the content.
Some stock photos from the internet show that this priestly iconography continues into the present day. We've all seen tons of pictures like this.
Postmodern science can't get too cozy with empirical facts, so authority has to come from somewhere. Why not models in lab coats in front of glowing props?
Jean Delville, Prometheus, 1907 oil on canvas, 500 x 250 cm Brussels, Universite libre de Bruxelles
Notice the affinities between the scientist photos above and Symbolist Delville's tragic Titan. Prometheus is a beloved figure in scientific rhetoric because he possessed higher knowledge that he used to aid humanity at great personal cost. His example of truth and benevolence above all in the face of irrational absolutism is as seductive as the lone crusader speaking truth to power is to journalists.
It is worth noting that Prometheus is not recorded as promoting empirical falsehoods while posing "profoundly" in a lab coat or in front of a starry greenscreen.
These modern-day Prometheans spend the epistemological currency built up by the scientific method to make self-promoting claims that have no empirical basis.
This pretentious twaddle with it's carefully branded visual is typical of the fetishisization of science.
What insight could this self-promoter and likely fraud possibly have into the divine?
The left loves their magic science men. Not that these hand puppets actually make scientific contributions; Neil deGrasse Tyson was a third-rate astrophysicist best known for degree-shopping his way to a lucrative post as "diverse" spokesman for the globalist science industry. He is also good on the teleprompter and may have had Delville do his cosmic background. Bill Nye doesn't have a graduate degree, but does have interesting red flags, and lots of millennials enjoyed him on television as children, which now seems uncomfortable.
Absent credible scientific careers, both these clowns can be counted on to reliably spread disinformation as well-compensated establishment mouthpieces. But don't wait too long for actual contributions.
Sex and Gender: The Scientific Method vs. Postmodern Discourse
One place where the empiricism/discourse divide is clearest is the question of sex and gender, an issue Nye and his unsettling physiognomy have already predictably weighed in on. The Band won't link to his disturbing propaganda - it is easy to find online - but suffice it to say his presentation has little basis in biology. Postmodernists consider consider human identities to be purely socially-constructed discourse, which make them tools of oppression. Therefore, by their power-seeking logic, defining someone by external standards of sexuality is immoral, and anyone who subjectively feels as if they don't really fit must be accommodated as a distinct gendered identity. If everything is discourse, what is the difference?
An empiricist would begin by observing human nature and draw conclusions from there:
Humans are animals, and all animals are teleological in Aristotle's terms, meaning that they follow a fixed and finite pattern of development. Our lives are all different, but we all are born and grow old in predictable ways.
Part of animal teleology is the propagation of the species; it is observable that animals are driven to reproduce in ways that maximize the chances of genetic success. Further experimentation revealed the existence of chromosomes, which provided a mechanism to explain observed reproductive patterns.
Human Chromosomes under Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization (FISH), Image by Steven M. Carr, after original by Genetix
Francisco Goya, The Family of the Duke of Osuna, c.1788, oil on canvas, 225 x 174 cm, Museo del Prado, Madrid
The male and female chromosomes are generally called XX (female) and XY (male) though unlike Postmodern science, the names are unimportant. What matters is that the egg can only contribute an X chromosome to the fetus, while the sperm can provide either. If it is the father's X, the offspring is female, if the Y, the offspring is male. When it comes to the scientific method, sexing mammals is not mysterious.
As for kinship marriage, the empirical evidence from the royal families of Europe make it clear that this greatly increases the likelihood of objectively less healthy children. This too is empirically clear.
It is notable that natural exceptions to the two sexes had no impact historically on our understanding of the reality of human teleology. Humans reproduce sexually, regardless of whether a particular individual is able to do so. Empirical observations are not moralizing; genetic anomalies are not "bad" or victims of linguistic oppression, they are simply unable to reproduce. While this may be tragic for them, reality is often painful, and human nature does not change to make someone feel better about their own misfortune. Only Postmodernists obsesses over the absolute integrity of classificatory categories. This is a legacy of the dehumanizing machine-like language of structuralism, which sought to bind the messy realities of biological processes to an abstract ideal. Cellular division couldn't care less about discursive categories; if it did, cancer wouldn't exist.
Sleeping Hermaphrodite, antique Roman figure on 17th century mattress, marble, Villa Borghese, Rome
The Borghese Hermaphrodite, which represents a person with both male and female physical features, is an example of a genetic anomaly that does not fit within either sex. People like this fascinated the ancients, but this fascination did not make them reject the reality of human biology.
It is important to note that contemporary gender fables are not based in any empirical investigation, but rest on the personal feelings of alienated individuals and a boatload of incoherent Postmodern theory.
James Gillray, Pandora Opening her Box, 1809, hand-coloured etching and aquatint, 358 x 258 mm, National Portrait Gallery, London
Phallogocentrism, the epic portmanteau that claims our language structures unjustly privilege mascuinity and logic was THE basis for the entire myth of systemic bias. That's correct; Derridian linguistics, Foucauldian discourse analysis, Marxist false consciousness, and endless mastications of recursive chains of incoherent problematizations and unpackings are the "epistemological" foundation of the all discriminatory lies about masculinity and racism that have poured like demons from the bowels of academe.
Seriously..
As is so often the case with top-down certainties, Postmodern gender science has a kernel of truth. Remember, even Plato's forms were based on the observation of categorical similarities in the real world. Our social structures are constructed, the specific expression of gender roles are discursive, in that they are formed of culturally specific codes, and often times, people are alienated by them. Lacan was not wrong to point out that our identities are formed by the expectations of others. But none of this invalidates mammalian reproductive biology.
Different cultures have normalized variations in gender roles. The acceptance of homosexuality and even pederasty in the classical world can be difficult for the traditionally-minded. But even the ancients understood that two sexes are needed for reproduction, and that gay men were men.
Animal teleology blows up theories of discourse because it reveals an array of drives and behaviors that precede social formation. Aristotle referred to this internal division as our appetitive and rational souls; the teleological drives of a mammalian animal, and our rational consciousness, respectively. These are not separate, but the inherently conflicted essence of a self-aware primate simultaneously in, of, and apart from the world. Conditioning and genetics both play a role in human nature, and their interactions are sufficiently individuated and complex that they may never be completely untangled. Not only do humans have to navigate the gulf between themselves and an alien exterior (this is where discourse properly belongs), they do so while at least partially under the control of subconscious or unconscious biological impulses. Consider how the same species capable of space flight and building the internet is equally able to slaughter millions over their opinions on government or where they choose to pray.
Robert Fludd, title page to Major and Minor Cosmi metaphysical, physics and technology History. Oppenheim: Theodor de Bry, 1617
The ancients actually had a much clearer understanding of human experience. While they were unaware of genetics, they used metaphors like the microcosm to explain the complex nature that seems both animal and divine. Here, the body is superimposed over an image of the cosmos, symbolizing the ability to either live like a beast or rise to the heavens. Rather than binary categories, this nature is a continuum, with different people exhibiting different balances.
Of course there are no absolute Platonic states called “reason” and “emotion” or “instinct” that we toggle between like a light switch, just as the development of our consciousness is shaped by both biological and experiential factors. These are jusr rough parameters for further discussion.
Postmodern theory transforms our subjectivity from a filter for our experience of the world to the entirety of our experience of the world.. If our experiences are devoid of external meaning, then personal feeling is the only means of valuation. This solipsism, this reified narcissism, is a high-minded version of the mindless “if it feels good do it” hedonism of “progressive” politics. Consider the absurdity of a classroom centered around “peer learning,” in which people who are there, at the taxpayer’s or their own expense because they don’t know a subject, are encouraged to broadcast their opinions regardless of merit, while the expert paid to instruct them looks on.
Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Blind Leading the Blind, ca. 1568, oil on panel, 85 x 154 cm, Museo e Gallerie Nazionali di Capodimonte, Naples
The notion that the ignorant should teach is the final stage in the Postmodern replacement of epistemology with discourse. The ability of this arrangement to mask a lack of instructor expertise or engagement is not coincidental.
Pretend experts offer pretend knowledge, all the while ignoring the external realities that make this classroom/theater of the absurd possible. How can this go wrong?
This seems like a good point to break. The next post will consider faith as a third major approach to epistemology, as it has interesting relationships with both the top-down and bottom-up thinking covered in the last few posts. Since the Band hasn't really looked at this issue in this way before, it deserves a fresh post of it's own. But until then, here is a quick summary of the two epistemological attitudes already covered, followed by the only question that really matters:
Empiricism builds knowledge within the limits of human understanding
Postmodernism crushes everything into abstract categories detached from reality
Which looks right to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment