There is perhaps nothing more detestable and toxic in present day political discourse than the unwarranted arrogance and snarky attitude displayed by conventional liberals thoroughly convinced that their oh so enlightened social views are based on science. Apparently passing high school biology, watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and thumbing various Neil Degrasse Tyson memes on Facebook has lead these intellectual nobodies to believe that they are qualified to speak with authority on topics ranging from biological evolution to the proper application of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly the conclusion they draw from all this scientific expertise is that non-liberal political and social views are unscientific. What a shocker.
The hysterically pathetic irony of this world view is the blatant religiosity of it. Countless debates with “scientific” minded liberals and an examination of their beliefs have made it evident that this system of thought contains a soft, nuggety core of pure theology masquerading as “science” for outside observers. This illusion of intellectual authority is further reinforced by the adoption of a pedestrian form of “scientific atheism” that allows these liberals to fancy themselves as over and above those stupid Creationists. While theist notions of “science” such as intelligent design may be laughable, this paucity of intellectual credence does not work to elevate non-religious science by default. As we will examine, supposedly non-religious science is still warped by confirmation bias emanating from a clearly defined ideology that presupposes certain premises. Unlike most scientific methods of inquiry, liberal scientism starts with certain a priori universal assumptions, akin to religious values for atheistic liberals, which are then “proven” through deductive reasoning rather than inductive science.
What are these assumptions? Why, they are the same old spooks that we have been getting from self-styled progressives for the last century or so.
The Universal Equality Premise
This one is the basic axiom, rooted in the idea all humans are equal in self worth. It’s a pretty vague general concept, difficult to quantify, somewhat unfalsfifiable, and is utterly necessary for extrapolating the rest of the liberal narratives. In fact, it would be impossible for those narratives to truly even exist otherwise. Keep in mind this principle can be a descriptive one (by selective reading of science) or a normative one (based on a subjective preference). Equality as a normative goal or descriptive state is as about as meaningful as declaring that everyone has an equally valuable and precious eternal soul and is usually championed for the same quasi-religious feel good reasons. In order to argue this narrative from a non-religious or anti-religious perspective liberals must adopt some form of positive “proof” and thus they have latched on to the only source of direction left to mankind: Science.
The modern liberal neo-progressive has adopted scientism as the ultimate argument from authority. Philosophy is too cerebral, and the rigors of intellectually sound science cannot be used to justify the flimsy premises of liberal theology. Enter Scientism, the feel good empirical study of how to best confirm your biases. Scientism lets us play with the murkiest of ideas like “evolutionary ethics”, “equality as a basic state of existence”, and “social evolution”. The essential requirement of scientism is not actually being very well grounded in science or philosophy. You need to be able to casually dismiss things like the demarcation problem, the problem of induction, and is/ought without critically investigating them, lest you succumb to doubt and lack of faith. One must keep abreast of the latest developments and trends in science in order to best misapply theories and research in the most hilarious manner possible.
Take Hypothesis Theory. Taking the a priori assumption of human equality as the null hypothesis and armed with a total non awareness of basic fallacies like the “argument from Ignorance” one can claim that failing to disprove the null actually “proves” it. The sneaky tricks available to the cunning dialectician are endless here, but the biggest advantage is null hypothesis theory lets you control the debate. Set the terms of the discussion with hypothesis theory and keep the enemy bogged down in it. Shift the burden of proof onto your opponent to disprove your idea that men and women are scientifically “equal” and then cherry pick evidence on your behalf. Remember that your basic premise is “equality” and equality just so happens to be the null hypothesis that must be disproven every single time.
Speaking of cherry picking, no scientism argument is complete without lots and lots of cherry picking. Remember, science that confirms your premise is good. Science that does not confirm your premise is biased unsupported crap. In fact it is not even science. The internet is particularly good for this purpose since you can simply type in a set of keywords for endless ammunition to barrage your opponent with. It’s always good form to claim that there is far more evidence to support your position but that it has not surfaced or is actively being suppressed due to inherent biases against it by “the system” or “the man”. This usually resolves to some facile cheap shots at the old familiar and favorite cultural whipping boy of “evil rich white men”. See sexual assault statistics and feminist arguments on rape for more on this.
Oppression, oppression everywhere!
By turning dogmatic adherence to Equality Doctrine into the revealed truth of science itself, it is now possible to attack disparate outcomes as being the result of oppression and nothing else. Blacks occupying the lower tiers of society? Whites put them there. It’s literally impossible for there to be any other reasonable explanation. Genetic and cultural factors are ruled out a priori, or worse, they’re explained as being caused by white racism. Ironically enough, by totally ruling out the very possibility of genetic causation, scientific liberals are now forced to engage in increasingly more complex and roundabout explanations for the disparity of outcomes among ethnic groups and between the sexes. “Occam’s Razor” just doesn’t cut through deeply held theologies about equality. Anything that could offer an explanation for disparate outcomes other than the accepted notion of oppression is ruled out as unscientific a priori. In fact even asking if there is another possible explanation is unscientific because science says this area of inquiry is off limits. There can be no questions or skepticism in science.
I need my Ressentiment!
Liberals do not hold their position out of love for the downtrodden, who they normally avoid like lepers. They typically hold these positions to browbeat other privileged whites about how bad they are and how Holy the liberal is. Those privileged white fascist scum will get what’s coming to them! They are sinful, evil beings who don’t grasp the Revealed Truth of Equality!