+ian drake Science is, for ancient reasons, artificially separated from philosop

+ian drake

Science is, for ancient reasons, artificially separated from philosophy because while law and morality require justificationary reasoning, truth requires criticism; and survival from criticism leaves us with truth candidates. Science has evolved a methodology for cleansing error, imaginary relations, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our thoughts and words. Scientists are not calculators, but if they are indeed engaging in truth (science) then they must at some point make objective propositions.

MY criticism of Lakoff, Chomsky and their ilk, is that they are practicing a long standing tradition of the Cosmopolitan enlightenment, which is to state a half truth in order to perpetuate a lie by means of suggestion. In the case of these immoral men, pseudoscience is the vehicle for their half truth. Because only pseudoscience can convey a half truth with the pretense of science.

Of the various tests we subject our theories to, one is parsimony and its inverse: “full accounting”: weighing all consequences, not selecting consequences in a ‘ben franklin’ close (intentional selection bias, in order to create suggestion that overwhelms reason by appealing to intuition.)

So when one practices the discipline of science, avoids parsimony, and avoids full accounting, one is not engaging in science but pseudoscience for the purpose of using suggestion to perpetuate a deception.

The Cosmopolitans have a long history of half truths via pseudoscience: marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises, and the frankfurt school. And their technique was adopted by the neo-puritans and feminists as socialism, keynesian economics, postmodernism, and political correctness.

It has only been since about 2000 that science has begun to overthrow the deceits of these men. And I am quite confident that they will be remembered in history as what they demonstrate they are: pseudoscientists and propagandists with almost entirely political objectives.