Progressive Science

A large number of posts on this blog complain about something that dubbed "progressive science." I realized I needed a post to define the term.

Science is a proven method where people try to understand and solve problems through objective analysis of nature and other physical phenomena. Good science improves our understanding of the universe and tends to lead to progress.

Good science is boring and tedious work. Some of the best scientific inquiry leads to dead ends. For example, a great deal of good science went into to exploring the hypothesis that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This was a dead end. However the good science led to a more compelling theory that the earth is several billion years old.

There is a large number of politically minded folks who love to be associated with progress. This group of progressive scientists consists of two types of clowns: The first is relatively harmless group of science promoters that seek to get their name associated with scientific progress. For example, the Internet is progressive. A person might claim that they invented the internet. Climate change is something we have to deal with, therefore they are the voice of climate change. Science populists serve a good role of increasing awareness of science. They can get a little over the top at time. Sometimes scientific populists lead people in the right direction, sometimes in the wrong.

The second more diabolical group of progressive scientist is a group that adheres to a progressive cause, then tries to back fill their ideology with “science.” Hegel and Marx are prime examples of this. Both gained legitimacy for their ideologies by claiming them to be scientific.

This second group of progressive scientists has a tendency to muck with the foundations of reason to support their dubious causes. These are the people who would intentionally falsify data, or ignore data counter to their claim.

There are reactionary scientists who react to the progressive scientists. By adopting the same method as the progressive scientists, reactionaries often become part of the problem.

My definition of a progressive scientist is essentially someone who is willing to pervert science for a cause. In most cases their causes are dubious. The primary cause of most progressive scientists is the progression toward socialism. You will find people using the same techniques as the progressive scientists in other causes. For example there is a cadre of radical Islamic progressive scientists trying to prove that the Holocaust never happened.

The reason that progressive science upsets me is not simply that I reject the various causes of the progressive scientists. I dislike these clowns because they tend to undermine science and the process of reason.

Unfortunately, when a large number of people chose to follow the path of progressive science, it becomes extremely difficult to sort out good science from bad.

Cartoon Characters

I guess the big cultural news of the day is that a bunch of marketing wanks from TBS brought Boston to a crawl with an army of electronic cartoon characters flipping us off. This bird flipping cartoon character stunt will be recorded in academic history as one of the highlights of the new progressive movement. The unbridled success of this campaign pretty much guarantees that it will be emulated in years to come.

While browsing local web sites today, I came across several blogs promoting an article on scienceblog called pharyngula. Progressive blogs are describing the post with superlatives like the “best blog post ever written.” Having come across three sites calling this the best blog post ever written, I decided that I had to read it.

The post was a big disappointment. The author talks a little bit about his feelings while examining a fossil collection, then launches into a politically correct attack of the Bible and Christianity.

I have read a ton of good science writing. This article is not good science.

The piece is really nothing more than an example of the straw man fallacy. The writer pretends that Christians are two dimensional characters, then ridicules them for being two dimensional characters.

The author makes the one good point. You will not find any useful scientific information in the Bible. Of course, that is not what the Bible is about. I’ve found no useful scientific information in the Harry Potter series, nor have I found decent scientific information reading blogs. You won't find good science on the Cartoon network. That's because these things are not about science.

I’ve known many good Christian thinkers. They use the Bible as a link to a long standing and proven moral tradition. I would even agree with the statement that students should not spend too much time reading the Bible, because there are better sources for the technical information that we need in life.

Quite frankly, I did not find the essay that original. I wrote several essays similar to that in College. If you have a progressive professor, you can get an easy A by scribbing out a quick essay on the joys of science followed by an attack on Christianity. Progressive educators routinely reward students who write essays that attack traditional western values.

The real question in my mind is why so many people linked to this article claiming that it is the best blog post that they ever read?

As far as I can tell, this essay simply continues a tradition of hatemongering wanks trying to use pseudo-science to justify their hatred.

If you dig into the history of science literature, you will find similar wanks using the same formula to justify hatred of blacks, the hatred of Jews, or hatred of any number of groups.

Good science writing rarely has the objective of attacking any group or culture.

Come to think of it, really good science is quite boring. Good science often comes in the form of a large table of numbers followed by equations.

Good science does not put up then attack straw men. This is the type of game that crappy essayists pull.

Yes, progressive love pushing a stereotype that Christians are laughable two dimensional characters. When you really dig through western history, you will find that the Christian tradition has produced many of the most interesting multidimensional creatures that have ever walked on the planet. Yes, the character list includes many intolerant jerks. It also includes many open minded, generous people.

One of the most common character in Western history is the Machiavellian prince. These are people who pretend to be religious to gain power, but are not.

Close minded jerks and duplicitous characters exist in every society, including the scientific community. You will find a large number of people claiming their ideas to be "scientific" when they are just fluff.

Every culture has its jerks. An accurate scientific analysis of a culture shouldn’t begin with the jerks. It should look at what the culture does. The western tradition, which is largely Christian, produced many of the greatest advances in civilizations because Christianity provides a multidimensional framework that allows for advances on multiple cultural fronts.

The progressive movement has produced two great cultures: Communism and Fascism ... neither of which I would care to repeat.

Anyway, to get the post back on track: We began by looking at an extremely successful ad campaign by Turner Broadcasting System in which cartoon characters gave the bird to the people of Boston.

Next we looked at an article on scienceblog.com that got a large number of inbound links from progressive sites as it uses the straw man fallacy to inspire politically correct intolerance.

Now, lets hit the real reason for today’s blog post: The biggest danger of the straw man fallacy is that straw man fallacies often result in self-fulfilling prophecies. When you create prejudicial stereotypes, you will find that there is a large number of people willing to play your stereotypical role.

So, I want to end this post on cartoon characters with a link to a free song by Spaff (warning explicit lyrics) called Super Televangelistic Sex-and-Drugs Psychosis. This little ditty is about the cartoon characters who march in front of congregations to play the televangelist stereotype, then get caught with their pants down.

If you want to show your support for the bird flipping cartoon stunt. You can buy episodes of the program on itunes. The button below brings you to their iTunes page:

Hmmm, I think I might get “You Can Call Me Al” () from Paul Simon's Graceland. I agree with Al. I don't want to end up a cartoon character in a cartoon graveyard.

Why are we letting our cultural elite do this to us?

The Disease of Free Thought

This is spiffy: A left leaning professor has just figured out that the people who do not respond in the politically correct fashion to the brainwashing techniques used by the left have a mental disorder. That's right. It is now a scientific fact that conservatism is a disease! IronShrink.com examines this exciting new finding.

The Scientific Agenda

I've been in a foul mood of late. The reason is that I've been listening to secular progressive podcasts like LogicallyCritical and Point of Inquiry. In both cases, the wanks in charge of the podcasts systematically undermine the foundations of discourse and reason while repeating the mantra that they are the defenders of reason. For example, Paul Kurtz of Point of Inquiry refers several times to the "Scientific Agenda." While, Bill O'Reilly believes that he is a Sun Tzu general in the cultural war of civilization against secular progressives. Paul Kurtz has a similar delusion that he is a Sun Tzu general in the culture war of the scientific agenda against an evil Christian theocracy.

Science does not have an agenda! The second that you believe that science has an agenda, you've stopped being a scientist.

Science has the ability to tells us whether or not we will achieve our objectives. It does not tell us what our objectives should be.

Science does not have an agenda. Scientists, though, almost always have an agenda. Intentionally confusing the two corrupts science.

Stem Cells and Critical Thinking

One of the mantras on the left is that they apply critical thinking to their positions while the right is absolutist. I was listening to some of the yammering on left about Bush's decision not to spend federal dollars for research on human embryos is based on antiquated absolutists positions.

The absolutist position is that we should not do experiments that destroy human life.

Bush's position is that we should not ban stem cell research. However, we should draw a line on doing experiments on human embryos. Rather than passing a law to prevent experimentation on embryos. He wants to limit funding to programs that do experimentation on human embryos. I think this is a good and effective way of forcing groups engaged in stem cell research to guage the moral dimension of their research.

The accusation is that the fuzzy line drawn around the human embryo is an absolutist position.

It seems to me that the position that embryos are not a form of human life (making them fair game for experimentation) is more of an absolutist position than the traditional view that starts with the observation that embryos develop into people, then, through a process of critical thinking arrives at the conclusion that we cannot tell for certain that the embryo is not a human.

A person with even a casual familiarity with genetics should know that an embryo contains the complete, unique DNA (both cellular and mitochondrial) to make up a human being. Anyone familiar with the reproductive system would know that if an embryo gets implanted in the uterline lining, that it will develop into a person (without intervention). The fact that we have something on the petri dish with the complete genetic make up of a human and that would develop into a human gives rise to speculation that an embryo is an undeveloped human life form.

When applying a process of critical doubt to my actions, I would not be willing to produce the hundreds of thousands of embryo clones needed for experimentation. As a moral animal, I would want to find other ways to answer my questions about the development of life.

As for the debate surrounding stem cell research, this is one of the ugliest debates of the modern era. In typical fashion, progressives have intentionally been muddling terms, and pulling every underhanded trick of rhetoric to sensationalize the debate. For example, they project the absolutism of their views that embryos are not a form of human life onto their opponents who are, for the large part, driven by critically doubt. There is also a constant muddling of terms in the debate. Progressives will use a quote from a conservative about embryotic stem research and apply it to adult stem cell research to make the conservative sound unreasonable.

There is also, of course, the problems of definitions with embryotic stem research. The term stem cell can apply both to the embryo (the zygote is the ultimate stem cell) and to a number of cells which get produced in the early moments of life.

We are seeing the birth of a global industry. This industry will either be producing hundreds of millions of embryos for research and medical products, or it will be one with a strong moral code which tries to regulate and reduce the production of embryos for research.

The overall social debate that we have at the beginning of this research will determine the direction that the industry takes. What I find disgusting in this debate is that people who employ critical thinking and reject the absolutist secular position that an embryo is not human life get shouted down and ridiculed by the powerful, authoritarian science community.

Modern western science has been plagued with a series of missteps because we, as a society, failed to question progressive scientists. Nuclear energy was once the cause celebre of the progressive community. We threw up a large number of firts generation plants that were both unsafe and had no plans for disposing of waste. The dam industry was once the same thing. Dam construction was another cause celebre of the progessive scientific community and dams where thrown on every mountain river and stream with little thought of the consequences.

If we are to be a rational scientific society, we have to be able to discuss the ethical ramifications of our actions. Right now, it appears that Bush Administration is doing a better job of engaging in real debate than the progressives who have launched a massive disinformation campaigned set to ridicule their opponents.

Morning After Headache

Apparently the FDA approved over-the-counter status for the Morning After Pill.

For the most part, I consider this a good move. In my opinion the moral decisions revolving around birth control are best made at the individual rather than the government level.

I am, however, extremely upset with the “progressive-scientists” who are marketing the pill as a contraception rather than as birth control.

The term “abort” means stopping a process. Sex starts the birth process. Taking a pill the morning after sex stops the process. The Morning After Pill aborts the birth process.

I am not opposed to abortion nor I am not against the Morning After Pill. I am oppsed to the confusion that results when progressive scientists try to engineer society by changing terms.

The pill has its place, but I think it is extremely important that people know what the pill does. Marketing the pill as contraception creates market confusion. In many cases, the pill acts after conception (the fertilization of the egg). The pill has a dual action. It stops ovulation, and it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine lining. The first act might properly be considered contraception. Calling effects that occur after fertilization “contraception” requires a redefinition of the term “conception.”

I think it is very important that couples planning their method of birth control understand the workings of the Morning After Pill. Because the pill acts after the start of the birth process (having sex), it should not be used as a primary birth control method. By mucking with definitions, progressive scientists have positioned a pill that is not acceptable as a primary means of birth control as the primary forms of birth control for millions of young women.

Although the pill will prevent fetal abortions. It does not really decrease the number of abortions. You cannot stop abortions with an abortions. What the pill does is replace the more intrusive fetal abortion with a less intrusive embryotic abortion. This is well and good in cases of rape or condom failure. It is not good when the pill is marketed as a primary means of birth control.

The extremely large number of people who will use the Morning After Pill as their primary means of birth control will end up increasing the number of embryotic abortions.

While my primary anger is directed at prograssives. I admit I am also upset with the dim-witted conservatives who think that, if we call the pill an abortive, that it must be outlawed.

Yes, there is a very strong argument that using the Morning After Pill is morally wrong. Just because something is wrong does not me that it should be outlawed.

It seems to me that people have to make their own moral decisions. The knee-jerk conservative who outlaws anything branded with the scarlet letter end up feeding the progressive’s desire to engineer society by chaning terms.

It seems like the law resulting from the Conservative/Progressive rift is quite silly.

For example, the FDA approval has the silly restriction that the pill is not available to women under 18. I doubt that this will dampen sales. Young women will be able to get the Morning After Pill from older friends. Of course the primary market for the Morning After Pill is the 20 to 30 year-old male set on seducing younger women. The 18 year old restriction won't have any effect on the 20 year-old male trying to coerce younger girls into a one night stand of unprotected sex.

17 year-old girls coerced into sex with the assumption that they will get the pill the next day will end up having babies. It is really sad.

Over the counter status for this pill will have many negative effects. Perhaps the largest market for the pill will be young women forced into sex on a date (that is date rape). With the over the counter drug, date rape victims are likely to choose to consume the Barr Pharmaceutical product in private rather than reporting the rape in public. The direct result of Barr Pharmaceutical's victory is that date rapists will be free to rape again and the young women will get to live their lives in fear.

I suspect that the disease ridden men who are good at coercing women into one night stands will be less likely to use a condom increasing the number of women who get AIDs and other forms of VD.

Overall, it is probably for the best that the pill is being sold over the counter.

People make moral choices in their lives. It is not the role of the government to protect people from difficult moral decisions.

When making moral decisions, it is important that people have correct information. The social engineers who’ve worked to redefine the term “contraception” to market their precious little pill have done the world a disservice. I hope that consumers see through the lies of the pharmaceutical industry and the progressive social engineers who haunt the medical industry.

The term “abortion” means that you stopped a process after starting it. Consumers who use the Morning After Pill as a primary means of birth control are being duped into aborting the birth process.

The only postitive side of this debate is that a few of the progressive social engineers lost their jobs in the political wrangling.

The Nation's Freezer Chest

I was reading several of the articles ridiculing Bush for vetoing a bill that to give federal funding to stem cell research.

I think conservatives are right in fearing that the massive federally fund. The stats that jumps out during the diatribes is that the US has 400,000 human embryos on ice.

400,000 is a difficult number of comprehend. The population of America's ice chest is twice the population of Salt Lake City.

The funny thing is that these embryos were obviously created by people who see them as more than just blobs of cells. The very fact that they are paying big bucks to keep the embryos frozen is proof that the parents see them as real. Rand reports that only about 10,000 of the 400,000 are available for research. The rest are hoping to be adopted by surrogate parents to be brought to term.

As it takes a great deal of effort to collect and freeze haumn embryos, I would guess that filling an ice chest with 400,000 embryos entailed the creation of several million more. Add this to a the million plus abortions done by the American medical community each year ... and I hope that it is apparent that something is terribly wrong and out of control.

The biggest problem is that our modern system of discourse has destroyed our ability to debate important social issues.

Darwinian Fairytales

I just wasted some time reading the work Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove. This work is a bit closer to the discussion that we should have about Darwinianism than the silly Intelligent Design debate that was the rage last year. The idea that humans should be classified as a primate, or that we descend from an ancestors that apparently branched off other species of primates is an elegant theory that fits in well with the fossil record and all the evidence we have in form of DNA and biology.

Noting that man has a common heritage with the rest of the critters on this little blue planet of ours is not a problem.

The problem with Darwinianism is all of the philosophical fluff that has been injected into the science of evolution. Darwinianism itself is largely a fusion of Kant / Schopenhauer transcendentalism with with select 19th century prejudices.

Arguably, many philosophers have tried to use new sciences to construct new religions with the scientist as priest and the gene as the new diety (the causal agent that manipulates our existence).

The work has a few insightful essays on the excesses of Darwinian philosophies. The work does a good job showing that metaphors like the selfish genes or the struggle for survival provide an incomplete view of the reality of evolution. The article evens takes a few jabs at scientific determinism and the inanity of sociobiology (Unfortunately, the book was written before evolutionary psychology became the craze.)

The real value of evolution is the increased understanding it gives of the make up of the universe. Unfortunately, the beautiful science of evolution is often used as the basis for garbage philosophies. The science of evolution shows us how the life on this world came to be, but it does not completely explain why man is here.

We appear to be sitting on a very old planet in a very large universe. The real science of evolution is expanding our understanding our this situation. Philosophies such as scientific determinisms, Darwinism, and attempts to raise science to a religion have detracted from this understanding.

Critical Race Theory and Immigration

I finally broke down and bought a copy of The Professors by David Horowitz. While this book is now where near as good as his biography Radical Son, I find The Professors a compelling look into modern academia. For years and years, I thought I was alone in the perception that modern US schools were dominated by Marxist thinking. David Horowitz provides an insightful look at 101 US professors.

Several of the professors listed in The Professors are proponents of an idiocy called "Critical Race Theory." Critical Race seems to hold that the laws white people see are nothing more than an illusion created by our history. Since Hispanics and Blacks, etc., have a different story, our laws simply don't apply.

The professors have clearly turning back the direction of classical liberalism which sought to find universal moral laws that allowed all people to thrive.

Modern liberalism turns the equation upside down. The goal of modern liberalism is to separate people into dysfunctional groups that are incapable of communicating. The classical liberal hates the fact that we are developing an underclass of Hispanics. The modern liberal revels in such division. There is the great hope that such divisions will lead to a master slave reversal.

The classical liberal was someone who truly wanted to liberate people. The modern liberal wants people divided in groups that the intellectual elite can manipulate.

We really do have a problem here. There are groups hypnotized by critical race theory who do want to create a society that is divided by law. They would then be able to ride the friction caused by the division to power.