| |
|
Bigoted views are utterly substantiated by science, no 'what if' about it, and this is a major problem, if not the single biggest problem, perpetuating suffering throughout the world today.
What exactly do you mean here? That you personally believe the views actually expressed by scientists (that many-headed yet monolithic hive entity) to be bigoted? Or that the kinds of veiws sketched out above (racism, misogyny, etc.) are substantiated by science?
It is entirely correct to say that by current standards, women are less rational and black people are less intelligent.
Indeed? I'm sure you'll be happy to back that assertion up with a few references from mainstream science; regretfully I'm unfamiliar with the research on which you base your claim. My understanding was that within the scientific community, these ideas are widely regarded as total bollocks.
But what this reflects is that current scientific standards are unrepresentative of these groups. In my eyes, science does little more than represent the demands of an excessively vocal, paranoid and aggressive minority group who have become skilled at persuading the majority of their intellectual superiority but whose agenda is dangerous and destructive. Their sole motivation is their own survival.
Yes. That's exactly it. Anyone who embraces a hard science discipline is motivated purely by greed and a desire for the privilige conferred by the male elite. No-one ever embarks on a career in research out of passion for hir subject. After all, it's not as if researchers earn less money or have less prestige than (say) people working in the financial sector. Oh wait, yes it is.
Science reflects the collective observations and proclamations of a spokesgroup nominated and held up by common agreement to define the acceptable parameters of current thinking within society.
In which case, how come the findings of researchers are often very much at odds with "current thinking?" Could it not possibly be that what you're interpreting as the voice of the Borg Collective is in fact a heavily warped and twisted message gleaned from media which reflect not the veiws of scientists but the interests of the wealthy and powerful?
Their methodology requires that a certain type of information gathering exercise is carried out in advance of this definition; the study or experiment, and that the information collected; the evidence, is seen to support the proposed theory according to the commonly accepted superior thought processes of rationale and logic.
That post seems marvellously free of rationale and logic, so well done there.
Since at the current time the overwhelming majority composition of this nominated group is white and male, white males set the agenda as regards what it is that constitutes scientific truth.
There is, arguably, some truth to this. The sciences are still very much dominated by white men, and this will inevitably have some sort of effect on research output. However, your take on what that effect might be appears to have no basis on reality whatsoever.
Arguably, there is some common acceptance even amongst them of a need for 'equality', which would require that their constitution ought over time to change to become more representative of humanity as a whole; integration and power sharing.
And this is in fact happening. More women are entering the sciences in the West than were entering them in previous generations. A greater varitey of ethnicities is being represented. It remains to be seen if these gains will continue, but if they do not then the culprit will be oppressive political administrations seemingly bent on trashing as many civil rights as they can. In America this is driven in a large part not by scientific rationalism but by an entirely irrational right-wing Christianity.
However, a paradox arises in that, if true equality were sought, and currently accepted norms of rationale and logic changed in order to reflect the norms of the new voices the spokesgroup wished to include, according to their own theories of genetics the current group members might cease to exist.
I don't know of any accepted scientific study which postulates the imminent extinction of the white race. This is the stuff of fevered racist imagination, not of science.
Clearly the group acts out of self preservation in promoting theories which discourage their own reproduction with black females and the reproduction of black males with white females.
Actually I tend to find people in the sciences are more liberal and less likely to chuck a fit over mixed-race families. Again, this is not a rational position and is espoused by no rational person. Phoney theories cooked up at a KKK meeting are not the same as actual science, no matter how much its proponants would like them to be.
Hence the theories of 'AIDS', economic 'scarcity', 'endangered species', the obsession with dinosaurs and the promotion of violent conflict as a social good. Scientists are obviously secretly terrified of their own extinction.
Good gracious me. I had no idea that "endangered species" were merely theoretical. Do you know, I thought we were actually living in a time where species were being driven to extinction at a horrific rate? Silly me! I also thought that AIDS was a real disease caused by an actual virus spread through sexual contact. I'm so happy I was wrong, I'll start having unprotected coitus with multiple partners again immediately. I also wasn't aware of the SCIENCE which states that one is more likely to get AIDS by sexing someone of a different ethnicity; I thought that SCIENCE wanted us to understand that the high rates of infection in (for example) some African nations were down to social and economic factors such as the availability of good sex education, prophylacsis and medical care. I was also under the impression that SCIENCE does not support violence as a social good. Various forms of violence may be tacitly or explicitly supported by the ruling classes, sure, but by scientists? Not so much.
I don't really know what to say about the dinosaurs.
At present, it seems to me, the situation is such that a non typical member can gain entry to the spokesgroup, but only if he or she is prepared to adopt their way of thinking.
Well... yeah. To become a scientist you have to accept the validity of the scientific method. It's a bit like saying "to join the Royal Ballet you have to accept their way of dancing" or "to become a chef you have to know how to cook."
Perhaps if there was some official recognition of the fragility of the status of the white male, this might change.
Maybe my experience is atypical but I have a hard time getting people to shut up about the bloody fragility of the status of the white male. The media is generally very keen to let us all know how fragile that status is, with lots of scare stories about asylum seekers, looney castrating feminists, and so on.
Personally, I don't think this can happen fast enough for the good of everyone else because I for one am fed up of the nonsense. Why should we all suffer on account of their submissive genes?
Wait, wait, I'm confused. I thought they were the ruling elite. Who are they submitting to? The Annukai? |
|
|
